Both Forms

[BobP123]

Just as a point of interest, in the Divine Liturgy of St. James (used only 2 or 3 times a year) the laity DO touch the poterion (chalice)!

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

Just what is the reasoning for that?

Also as a point of interest, in some TLMs they have the cloth covering the rail so that you may put your hands underneath it as a further precaution against touching the species. At the Rockford Mass, it was once announced that the bishop wanted this custom at that TLM because that’s the way people did it in the early Church. Is this true?

 

[dylanschrader]

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.

The doctrine that Christ is present in both species is called ‘concommitance’. At the Last Supper, Christ told the apostles, “this is my Body.” On the cross, his Body and Blood were separated, but after the Resurrection can never be separated again. Thus, where his Body is, his Blood is also. Since Christ is alive and his human and divine natures are united in him, in one person, where his Body and Blood are, his soul and divinity are also. This is the Church’s teaching: that in both the species of bread and the species of wine is wholly present Christ’s Body and Blood, soul and divinity, that is, the whole Christ himself.

When Christ said, “take and eat, take and drink,” he was speaking to the apostles. This is why the priest must receive both species to complete the sacrifice of the Mass. The faithful, however, are not obligated to receive both species. The faithful do not offer Christ’s sacrifice sacramentally in his Person as the priest does.

 

[chevalier]

How many people here, when going to the Novus Ordo, receive the Blood? What was the reasoning behind Vatican II to allow people to receive “both forms”? I personally think that they should not have done it because there is greater chance for the blood to be spilled and it seems to contradict that if you receive the body alone you receive the whole Christ, you do not need to receive the blood.

I don’t understand the logic behind withholding the Blood just to prove that by receiving the Body you receive the whole.

Additionally, if you want to be conservative, why not ponder why they disallowed the Blood in the middle ages? If we want the only correct way sanctioned by time and tradition, which century do we get back to? 20th? 19th? 14th? 1st?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t understand the logic behind withholding the Blood just to prove that by receiving the Body you receive the whole.

Additionally, if you want to be conservative, why not ponder why they disallowed the Blood in the middle ages? If we want the only correct way sanctioned by time and tradition, which century do we get back to? 20th? 19th? 14th? 1st?

It was withheld for two reasons - firstly because people did come to believe the heresy that both species were required and that one species alone was insufficient.

Secondly having two species vastly increases the risk of profanation. St Cyril of Jerusalem wrote about people consuming the Precious Blood and then somehow transferring it onto their hands and anointing their faces with it - not sure precisely what sort of action he may have been refering to but sounds pretty woeful.