General Instruction of the Roman Missal #281. *Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom. *If we as Catholics believe the Host is the Real Presence of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) why would the Precious Blood also be offered to us at Mass? And are we under any obligation to drink the Precious Blood if it is offered at Mass?
The Priest uses the words…May this mingling of the body and blood our Lord Jesus ChristIf we as Catholics believe the Host is the Real Presence of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) why would the Precious Blood also be offered to us at Mass?
Don’t think so, anyway I think the words said by the Priest cover that one.And are we under any obligation to drink the Precious Blood if it is offered at Mass?
No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.**It is perfectly fine to take one or the other. ** Both fully are the Body and Blood of our Lord.
It is recommended when practical to offer both so as to offer the more full sign. I would see that this is better done in small groups to lessen the chance of spillage or disrespect for our Lord. Also to cut down on the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion as they should only be used as necessary. The ordinary ministers should be used when possible.
In Christ
Scylla
It’s not “consecrated bread” or “consecrated wine.”I don’t think the idea of a “complete meal” is correct. Individially the consecrated bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The consecrated wine is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The idea of either or both being a “complete meal” is foreign to me, and doesn’t sound Catholic. We don’t have a complete meal or incomplete meal at Mass. We receive Jesus Christ, whether we only receive the consecrated host or we receive both.
Are you serious? I certainly hope not–if you read the appropriate liturgical and legal texts, they make it clear that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are just that–extraordinary, i.e. they are only to be used as a “last resort” of sorts when there are not sufficient ordinary ministers to distribute.No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.
NEVER has the Church even hinted at limiting the distribution of Holy Communion to one species in order to limit the number of EMs. Not ever! It’s rather horrible that such a pernicious idea would even come into a Catholic’s mind…
andCan. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
§2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.
If you are serious in your post (which I’m hoping you’re not), you’d seem to be implying that the Church encourages the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, which it very ostensibly, from reading Canons 910 and 230, does not.Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.
Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.
§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
Why is it not okay? Is it a sin?No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.
And would this really be so bad…fewer EMHCs?NEVER has the Church even hinted at limiting the distribution of Holy Communion to one species in order to limit the number of EMs. Not ever! It’s rather horrible that such a pernicious idea would even come into a Catholic’s mind…
No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.
Could you please specify the authority for that statement? I have never heard or seen of any church document specifying that.
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website (Norms for the Distribuition and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds) (usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Spin it any way you wish, but the Church has NEVER hinted at the notion that Holy Communion should be distributed under one species in order to reduce the number of EMs. Not ever.Why is it not okay? Is it a sin?
And would this really be so bad…fewer EMHCs?
Sometimes I think it would be a good idea if Communion was only available under one form with serious catechesis that either or both is compete.
I get what the GIRM is saying about a more complete sign, but having one form drives the home the point that the Host alone (or the Precious Blood alone) is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. To me that is a more complete sign.
FWIW, I only receive the Host.
CalCath;2897233:
No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.
):Could you please specify the authority for that statement? I have never heard or seen of any church document specifying that.
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website (Norms for the Distribuition and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds) (usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
“46. It is the choice of the communicant, not the minister, to receive from the chalice .”
*
In the November 2003 BCL Newsletter…
The Use of Mustum and Low-Gluten Hosts at Mass *:
B. Communion under one species or with a minimal amount of wine
- A layperson affected by celiac disease, who is not able to receive, Communion- under the species of bread, including low-gluten hosts, may receive Communion under the species of wine only.
- A priest 'unable to receive Communion under the species of bread, including low-gluten hosts, when taking part in a concelebration, may with the permission of the Ordinary receive Communion under the species of wine only.
- A priest unable to ingest even a minimal amount of wine, who finds himself in a situation where it, is difficult to obtain or store mustum, when taking part in a concelebration, may with the permission of the Ordinary receive Communion under the species of bread only.
- If a priest is able to take wine, but only a very small amount, when he is the sole celebrant, the remaining species of wine may be consumed by a layperson participating in that celebration of the Eucharist.
I agree that it is only for a medical reason, I did not mean for anyone to be able to abstain from the Body and then just take the Blood unless necessary. I was sloppy and I meant that they are both fully the Body and Blood of our Lord. Sorry about that.No, it’s not. Unless one has a medical reason, they should not receive Holy Communion via the Chalice only.
NEVER has the Church even hinted at limiting the distribution of Holy Communion to one species in order to limit the number of EMs. Not ever! It’s rather horrible that such a pernicious idea would even come into a Catholic’s mind…
We should always limit the use of EMs when possible. That’s axiomatic. But to distribute communion under one species in order to reduce the use of EMs? I have never noticed that before.The second part of your comment might be good for a discussion as EMHC’s should not be used unless necessary. They are something that should be avoided as we should give the best to the Lord in reverence and the best is ordinary Ministers. This does not make it wrong to use them but logically it is best to limit them, or else we should have as many as possible to distribute as efficiently as possible. One for every communicant would be ideal, if limiting the use of them is wrong
God Bless
Scylla