Communion in both kinds/species - are both better than one?

[Uriel1]

The Church doesn’t agree with you. Again, you cherry pick quotes to prop up your pet theories, which have more to do with Protestantism than Catholicism.

Read and learn: CCC1390
The magisterium teaches, through the catechism, that, “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace .

For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly”

Caritate non ficta

 

[KMG]

There is absolutely nothing wrong in not permitting Communion under both species.

 

[stpurl]

Ah, the typical tactic : “I declare myself the winner” says Uriel.

Not happening.

I am not making a false argument. You are.

I will gladly continue this debate later today; it is too nice outside to remain indoors and I have family to enjoy.

Scripture does not interpret itself, my friend. And where the Church has seen fit to teach, calling its teachings and practices ‘wrongdoing’ which you have done, reintepreting words to mean what they do not mean as the Church has interpreted them, is itself wrong. This is what you have done. And while it is one thing to present those teachings as your own thoughts --which is what they are–it is the height of impropriety to present YOUR interpretations as those of the Church when in fact they contradict it.

You yourself have acknowledged that you feel the Church was ‘wrong’.

You yourself have selectively interpreted cherry picked quotes as meaning what they do not mean.

That I point out your own actions to you does not mean I have judged or criticized you; it means that I am asking you to stand by what you yourself have said, and not try to present it as ‘authentic teaching’ when it is not.

Speaking of teaching --you never did answer the question. Are you in fact a teacher --religious education or otherwise–since you spoke earlier of 'what you teach?"

 

[PJM]

You know, kind of how the first Protestants started getting it wrong. . .it was all about their personal interpretation, which contradicted the Church, even if only in a ‘small way’, had to be RIGHT. . . and the Church ‘wrong’. . . and look where that all ended.

It is amazing to ME personally, that self declared Bible Churches are unable to show it the Bible where JESUS or Yahweh desired, wanted, or even tolerated competing sets of faith beliefs {other competing religions}.

One needs to ask" can even GOD have more than a single set of faith beliefs? … NO! not even God who Is the TRUTH, the Way and the LIFE {all singular} can have more than one set of Faith beliefs that HE finds acceptable.

It is impossible that GOD waited for the Protestant reformation to make known HIS One True set of faith beliefs>

Eph. 4: 1-6 1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism. [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ"

THIS DEAR FRIENDS IS THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST; NOT A RCC INVENTION.

May God guide our paths to Him: Amen!
Patrick

 

[thistle]

No-one had claimed to get less of Jesus’ grace in one species; the church simply says "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly”

Do you too argue against that ?

Yes. A sign is irrelevant. The reality is what matters.
In EACH species you receive the COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

 

[Shakuhachi]

If the sign were “irrelevant” we would be allowing grape juice and pita bread.

 

[Uriel1]

If the sign were “irrelevant” we would be allowing grape juice and pita bread.

Yes, @thistle has lost the plot on this one; arguing against the CCC, May the Lord Jesus forgive him

Caritate non ficta - p.s. great win for England v Sweden

 

[stpurl]

Thistle is not arguing against the Church at all.

The SIGN is not the matter.

The SIGN is the ‘visible enactment’, i.e. eating and/or drinking.

 

[stpurl]

Respectfully, you have misunderstood here.

The sign is not the sacrament. The sign is not the bread and the wine; those are the matter of the sacrament. And, no pun intended, they matter. Whether one physically eats the bread (body and blood, Soul and Divinity), drinks the wine (body and blood, Soul and Divinity), or does both is not what ‘matters’, because in doing ‘one’, one does ‘all.’

The sign ‘looks like’ eating AND drinking’ (and it is), or the sign ‘looks like’ ‘eating’ (but is eating and drinking) or looks like ‘drinking’ (but is eating and drinking). . . but the ‘fuller’ part doesn’t mean one gets a better experience, or a ‘more complete experience’.

 

[stpurl]

It is not Thistle who is arguing against the CCC or presenting a different interpretation of Scripture or who has accused the Church of wrongdoing. I believe the person doing that has a name that starts with “U” and ends with 1. . .

 

[Uriel1]

Nobody here has suggested it to be necessary to receive Jesus in both kinds: Jesus did just suggest that we receive both, and the CCC says it’s a more complete sign. I’m amazed that some are so opposed

Caritate non ficta

 

[Fauken]

so opposed

No one is.

 

[stpurl]

You’ve done nothing but claim that “Jesus said to receive both”, “The Church was wrong in denying it”, "it’s more complete’(as if not receiving both is less complete, and how can that be when we receive all?) and that those who don’t are BEING DENIED something ‘better’.

So you tell us. If it is not necessary, and Jesus does not require it (if He had even ‘suggested’ that everybody receive both, the Church would have instituted it from the get go. Cherry picking Scripture with His instructions to the apostles, the first priests and extrapolating it ‘to all’ is disingenuous and against the teaching of Christ through His Church)–why are you insisting we abide by ‘your teaching’ instead of Christ’s?

 

[Uriel1]

Unbelievable really @stpurl . Did Jesus say this?

then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins

Yes or no ?

Caritate non ficta

 

[JimG]

I can’t believe that I just read or at least skimmed through 278 posts about communion under one or both kinds.

Either way is acceptable. My former, very large parish normally distributed communion under one kind only. Four EMHC’s were used. My new parish is also very large and distributes communion under both kinds, but it uses14 EMHC’s which is unwieldy, and communicating the large number of EMHC’s becomes nearly a distinct communion rite in itself.

I think that very large parishes which elect to have communion under both kinds ought to distribute by intinction, using an intinction chalice-ciborium and placing the host on the tongue.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Why can’t “matter” also be sign?

CCC 1333

“The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.”

 

[stpurl]

Do we participate in eating and drinking the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus if we receive only the Body or only the Blood?

Answer please.

 

[stpurl]

Of course both ways are acceptable. One person, however, figures the Church 'did it wrong for 500 plus years", 'denied people", and that somehow receiving both is ‘better’.

 

[stpurl]

We have what the Church gives us. Receiving ‘both’ is more like eating AND drinking, but in receiving one, even if we are ‘only’ eating, we are both eating and drinking; even if we are ‘only’ drinking, we are both drinking and eating.

So it’s not like getting anything ‘better’ in any way. It adds absolutely nothing to the perfect and absolute fullness that is present, totally, in each species. It isn’t like getting double Jesus, or even "doing it better’ or ‘doing what Jesus said’. It is perfectly acceptable, but it is not necessary.

And again, and this is not directed at you in any way, for you seem to have a proper understanding, there are some people whose understanding is so limited that they think that unless they actually have something physical to eat AND to drink, that they aren’t getting the ‘full meal combo’, and being ‘deprived’. It is my understanding that this kind of attitude was precisely the reason that the Church felt it necessary for umpteen centuries to have to demonstrate that ‘all of Jesus’ is contained within ONE species (that, and the fact that it is more common for there to be accidents spilling the Precious Blood, or in people becoming accidentally drunk, than it is for people to have an accident with the host).

And unfortunately, even though the majority of people today are capable of understanding that “all Jesus is present within both the Body and the Blood”, and would be capable, using due caution and respect, to receive both in a way that does emphasize both the eating and drinking, as you note, there are still some stubborn and intemperate souls who are insistent that somehow receiving both ‘is better’ (it is not), gives more complete Jesus (it does not), lack of both is a deprivation (it is not) and a wrongdoing (it is not), Jesus insisted on both species for all (He did not), etc.

As they say, one bad apple often tries to spoil the whole barrel. . .

 

[Shakuhachi]

Yes, I hear you. But in spite of that spiritual fullness in a single species, I miss the other. It added so much to the sensual experience. And that is a very important aspect of Sacraments, they engage the senses in spiritual reality.