Body and blood/communion

[Hoernchen]

Yet since reception under both species has becone the norm, more and more people are getting confused about this. It’s time to start receiving under one species again.

In Germany reception of the chalice is only done on Maundy Thursday or for an adult first communicant.

This question came up recently at our church and our pastor said that taking the host/body and not the wine/blood (when it is offered) is not a complete communion. The cloth used to wipe the edge of the cup is an anti-bacterial cloth and should prevent the spread of germs. Our pastor recently came from a seminary where he taught the proper way of saying of mass.

John

This is simply not true!

I’m not sure if this is only in America, or world wide. If you look at Canon law you will see that both species is to be reserved for more solemn occasions.

It seems to me that this is an american phenomenon.

 

[paperwight66]

It seems to me that this is an american phenomenon.

Reception under both kinds is most definitely not only in America. The last time an unofficial survey was done on this forum. several years ago now, posters identified that receiving both was allowed in almost every country of the world. I believe some of the exceptions were some parts of South America and a parish in Rome. Evidence was people’s own experience or checking on countries’ websites. For instance, I know from my own experience that it is general in the UK, and I have received both in Spain as well.

 

[Vico]

sorry if wrong forum.

I would like to know if only recieving the body of christ is sufficient. I cant remember the last time i recieved the blood of christ. I just dont like drinking from the same cup as others i guess is the reason for this.
I just feel bad for the first time about this after skipping it during easter mass.

    OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS 
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
 ***Doctrinal Formation and Communion Under Both Kinds***

The purpose, then, of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds, is not that the faithful receive more grace than when they receive it under one kind alone, but that the faithful are enabled to appreciate vividly the value of the sign. Sadly, this distinction has not always been made clear and some people, when not offered Holy Communion under both kinds, have expressed a sense of bewilderment, even thwarted entitlement, or a feeling that Holy Communion under one kind alone was, to some extent, deficient.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110601_comunione_en.html

 

[Hoernchen]

Reception under both kinds is most definitely not only in America. The last time an unofficial survey was done on this forum. several years ago now, posters identified that receiving both was allowed in almost every country of the world. I believe some of the exceptions were some parts of South America and a parish in Rome. Evidence was people’s own experience or checking on countries’ websites. For instance, I know from my own experience that it is general in the UK, and I have received both in Spain as well.

I didn’t say anything about it not being allowed. I have recieved under both species at a weekday mass, but it is not normaly done. If a priest was so inclined he could offer the chalice at every mass. But usually reception of the chalice is reserved for special occasions.

 

[Vico]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum: [102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[thewanderer]

Yet since reception under both species has becone the norm, more and more people are getting confused about this. It’s time to start receiving under one species again.

I disagree, instead its time for better Catechesis, which we kind of already knew.

 

[CLTFollower]

Interesting and confusing.

We have a new pastor that has moved away from providing communion in both species on Sundays, during daily Mass it is still offered. When we go to communion when we are presented the host the priest or eucharistic minister says “the Body of Christ”. And when we have the wine the priest or eucharistic minister says “the Blood of Christ”. When only the host is offered they do not say the Body and Blood of Christ, only the Body of Christ.

 

[Elizium23]

It may not be a full ritual communion, however one does receive the same increase in sacramental grace.

I have never heard the Church refer to Communion under one species as “not a full communion” or an “incomplete communion” or a “lesser sign”. However, she does refer to Communion under both species as a “fuller sign” of the reality. That does not make the former type any less full or incomplete. One is full and the other is a fuller sign. The fact that it is a fuller sign does not make it more full of grace or more full of blessings.

The heresy that Holy Communion under one species is incomplete is called the Utraquist heresy. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, we can see a reaction to this heresy in that Communion by the host only is mandated for the laity. This was indeed the very reason for the mandate: if nobody (except for the priest) received Communion under the species of wine, then nobody could say their Communion was incomplete.

 

[Schism_hater]

I am not comfortable ignoring Christ’s plain words, “Drink, all of you, this is my blood…” This is one of the reasons I decided to become Orthodox; the Orthodox take these words seriously. I would not go so far as to say one cannot receive grace if one partakes of one species only, but there is no justification, in my opinion, for regularly withholding the cup from the laity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am not comfortable ignoring Christ’s plain words, “Drink, all of you, this is my blood…” This is one of the reasons I decided to become Orthodox; the Orthodox take these words seriously. I would not go so far as to say one cannot receive grace if one partakes of one species only, but there is no justification, in my opinion, for regularly withholding the cup from the laity.

Totally agree. Though Eastern Catholics have retained the correct way of distributing the Eucharist. Christ established the Eucharist to be bread and wine, regardless of the realities behind the visible signs, we should still keep the visible sign as faithful to how it was handed to us from the beginning.

 

[poche]

Yes, only recieving the body of Christ is sufficient. When you recieve the host you recieve the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Vico]

Each of the consecrated gifts individually are in reality, the whole Christ, Son of God, only appearing to be bread and wine.