By Father Peter Choy Wai-man
This past Sunday, a parishioner happily told me that his parish would resume the distribution of the Blood of Christ at Masses from this week onwards. He was so excited because many parishes had not resumed the pre-pandemic practice of distributing the Precious Blood after the pandemic for various reasons. I did not ask this person what the difference is between receiving only the Body of Christ and receiving it with the Blood of Christ at the same time. Is it better to receive both together? Is the grace more abundant? Or are there other reasons?
A thanksgiving Mass is the communion of a community united in Christ through the sharing of the same bread and the same cup of wine. From this point of view, it is indeed exciting for a parish to resume the distribution of the Body and the Blood of Christ at Mass.
It is true that during the pandemic, all parish gatherings and activities were forced to stop due to social distancing measures. While the faithful could still maintain their relationship with God through online Masses and spiritual communion, it is the contact and connection with the Church community that the faithful long for. Especially for the elderly and those who live alone, the long period of isolation has made them lonely, lost and helpless.
Therefore, if parishes resume the distribution of the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Blood at Mass, it means that the celebration is not just a once-and-for-all offering of Jesus, but also a meal for Jesus and his disciples to share and serve each other, which is believed to be the expectation of many Catholics. They hope that the Mass will also give them a feeling of family celebration, exchange and gathering for a meal.
However, it is a pity that many people’s experience of Mass today is still more of passive acceptance than active participation, and more of a once-and-for-all sacred offering than a family feast. I believe many people will relate to the following story:
One day a young couple got married in a church in Italy. Since the parish priest was not present, it was the assistant parish priest who officiated at the ceremony. After the wedding, it was raining heavily, and the place where the couple had arranged to celebrate was remote and outdoors. So they went to the young assistant parish priest and asked if they could use the church for a short reception.
The assistant parish priest, who knew the parish priest very well, refused at first. But when they insisted and even cried, his heart finally softened, and he gave permission on the condition that there would be no drinking and no dancing, because this was a church.
The couple happily agreed, but as the celebration progressed, previous promises were forgotten and some of the guests began to drink and dance. Unfortunately, the parish priest returned at that very moment, and seeing that the church looked like a banquet hall, he immediately approached the assistant parish priest and shouted at him.
The assistant parish priest apologised and said, “After all, they were poor people who needed help.” He then said that Jesus was also present at the wedding feast in Cana, and had worked a miracle so that the guests would not be disappointed by the lack of wine.
The parish priest looked at him and said, “Jesus was at the wedding at Cana, but he is also here in the Eucharist!”
Indeed, resuming the distribution of the Holy Eucharist at Mass requires consideration not only of operational issues like manpower allocation and public hygiene, but also of how to make a Mass more of a family celebration. It is our hope that parish communities will encourage and support each other on the path of synodality.
