R
rayne89
Guest
Our priests give communion by intinction so the host is dipped into a small cup containing the blood. Yes we have alter boys holding patens to we don’t have to worry about spillage, and yes this is a Novus Ordo Mass.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I normal receive both. Lately, when I have to care my little one, I will only receive the host, as receiving the cup would be very imprudent with a child. I also will switch to recieving on the tongue, again, because I will take no unnecessary risks.
Yes, receiving under one species is old. But receiving both species is older. It was good to switch to one so the doctrine may be established that either species contain the whole of Jesus. As long as that is understood, I do not see what the big deal is.
One practical, if somewhat bizarre reason, stems from an incident that occured. I have to lead the music. I received under one form once when I was ill (another reason) and my mouth was dry. As I was singing, a piece of the host came out that I did not know was there and landed on my book. I had to stop right away an re-consume it. I have since learned from my mistake and make sure my mouth is clear. This is easier when I receive under one species.
Yes, receiving under one species is old. But receiving both species is older. It was good to switch to one so the doctrine may be established that either species contain the whole of Jesus. As long as that is understood, I do not see what the big deal is.
One practical, if somewhat bizarre reason, stems from an incident that occured. I have to lead the music. I received under one form once when I was ill (another reason) and my mouth was dry. As I was singing, a piece of the host came out that I did not know was there and landed on my book. I had to stop right away an re-consume it. I have since learned from my mistake and make sure my mouth is clear. This is easier when I receive under one species.
M
m134e5
Guest
Traditional Roman Catholics are VERY VERY Latin. Eastern influences that have made their way into the Western Church are probably unwelcome among them. It doesn’t matter what is older- the Latin Tradition is a legitimate tradition that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years (since the 4th century- at least in Rome). Traditional Roman Catholics want to preserve the Roman Rite.
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
I dont know, to tell you the truth. I know Luther didnt like how the Priests alone recieved the Blood since it implied that priests were holier than people.
News flash…they are.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
If you are receiving the consecrated host, it has become both Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. If you are receiving from the chalice, you are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. So asking if somebody receives “the precious blood” is a little confusing. If you receive communion under either or both forms, you receive both Body and Blood.
Even though the OP knew exactly what he meant, IMO this shows that the church had a very good reason to want the people to receive only the host. Too many people are confused and think that they don’t ‘get it all’ if they don’t receive both. Even to call receiving both ‘a fuller experience’ is a little confusing, because you do not get more by doing so.
We do not have the same type of society as existed in the early church. We do not receive in our homes, we are not small groups of people, and culturally speaking, a lot of us don’t even know how to handle wine the way that a 1st century AD person in virtually any culture would have. So unless we take a great deal of care, there exists a lot of opportunity for abuse of the consecrated wine, both physically and obviously ‘intellectually’. I’m not saying it’s bad, and if it is offered in your parish and you like to receive, I’m all for you. . .but you are not ‘required to’.
Even though the OP knew exactly what he meant, IMO this shows that the church had a very good reason to want the people to receive only the host. Too many people are confused and think that they don’t ‘get it all’ if they don’t receive both. Even to call receiving both ‘a fuller experience’ is a little confusing, because you do not get more by doing so.
We do not have the same type of society as existed in the early church. We do not receive in our homes, we are not small groups of people, and culturally speaking, a lot of us don’t even know how to handle wine the way that a 1st century AD person in virtually any culture would have. So unless we take a great deal of care, there exists a lot of opportunity for abuse of the consecrated wine, both physically and obviously ‘intellectually’. I’m not saying it’s bad, and if it is offered in your parish and you like to receive, I’m all for you. . .but you are not ‘required to’.
B
Brendan
Guest
That sounds vaguely familiar
H
homewardbound
Guest
I’m a new convert, and this is one place I have an issue. Jesus offered both His body and blood. He told the apostles to both eat the bread AND drink the wine, it wasn’t a “you can have this or that” situation. How then, is it okay to only take one species? Isn’t that going away from what Jesus told us to do? There’s the whole idea of its because blood is contained in flesh, but I still would feel like I’m denying God’s teaching when he said to both eat and drink. I’ve read various things saying that Catholics have to believe getting one species is enough or they can be excommunicated, but I have yet to come across any real reason or proof for this teaching.
B
Brendan
Guest
Christ also said “he who hears me and believes in me with have everlasting life” and he told the Apostles “He who hears you hears Me”
Does that mean that deaf people are excluded?
If you take the same stance on “hearing” God’s Word as you do with “drinking” His Blood, then yes, you would be excluding deaf people.
But as one hears Christ’s Word in many forms, one also drinks His Blood in different forms.
And we follow His Command to “drink His Blood” when we receive the species of bread JUST AS COMPLETELY as when we “hear His Word” in reading Scripture.
H
historyb
Guest
I do and always have, when I was a Protestant it was always done that way according to Scripture. I remember my first experience with the Holy Eucharist and felt cheated when there wasn’t both.
When I got married and moved the new parish had both, so I resumed taking both species. For me it is a completion, not something I can explain good nor something that lifelong Catholics may understand
M
maurin
Guest
U
Unfinished
Guest
I am a big fan of intinction. I think it should be the norm for the Novus Ordo.
That way, EMHCs can’t be used. (Lord have mercy, I know this would get abused too… but at least lay people intincting is forbidden).
K
kell0618
Guest
I couldn’t vote. I receive from the cup when offered, however it is only offered at special Holy Days.
Kelly
Kelly
A
Andruschak
Guest
YES!!! In the bread. I do not take the wine as I am a Recovered Alcoholic, 23 years sober. And OF COURSE God understands
M
maria_rose
Guest
At our parish the faithfull only get to receive the body of Christ. I wish we colud receive both.
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
S
Swiss_Guard
Guest
I also belong to a parish where we only receive the host. We have a Tridentine Mass at 10 am on Sundays, so I’m usually at that one, but I go to the Novus Ordo during the week.
The Precious Blood is not offered at Sunday Novus Ordo Masses.
The Precious Blood is not offered at Sunday Novus Ordo Masses.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
At my NO Church, both the body and blood is offered. Father always distributes Communion, while the EMHC offer the chalice.
At daily Mass, only the host is offered.
I receive only the host, and do not particiapte in the cup, and in doing so, I am receiving both the body and the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
At daily Mass, only the host is offered.
I receive only the host, and do not particiapte in the cup, and in doing so, I am receiving both the body and the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
K
kleary
Guest
I do not receive from the chalice when I attend the Novus Ordo Missae for several reasons:
- Christ is present whole and entire; body, blood, soul and Divinity when receiving the Sacred Host alone. My reception of the Sacred Host alone shows the Catholic belief defined in the Council of Trent, and what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass SHOULD ALSO SHOW as the Tridentine Mass does and the Novus Ordo Missae does not. Yes Virginia, Communion under both kinds does not show Christ is present totally under one species and could lead to confusion amongst the faithful.
- You just take a look into the cup you drink from and see all the oils from lipstick and other things in it.
- Finally, if we stop reception from the chalice maybe they will stop giving Holy Communion from it and turn back and respect tradition.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Ewww! You mean women actually wear lipstick to Holy Mass? I was taught that lipstick is not permitted at Mass because it would act as a contaminant to the Sacred Host. And I love wearing lipstick. I just never, ever wear it to Mass.
B
BobP123
Guest
I tried that same logic with the Novus Ordo altogether but am getting nowhere with it.
Many people seem to have no other place to go so they pour money into the Novus Ordo and pleasing their bishops to the point where they don’t need to set up more TLMs.- Status