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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I have read all this thread, and I’m not following.

IMO, it’s just noncondusive to polite debate to essentially say “I have a great argument for xyz but won’y use it because …”
 
Any time I hear, "Do you think the bishops/Magesterium ‘missed something’, ‘got it wrong’, ‘should do this’, ‘misinterpreted this’, ‘aren’t following Jesus blah’, my Spidey senses start tingling. . . and not in a good way.
 
stpurl said:
Fuller, not ‘better’.
Click to expand...
neither, actually. What it says is this
“. . . 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.”
 
stpurl said:
Any time I hear, "Do you think the bishops/Magesterium ‘missed something’, ‘got it wrong’, ‘should do this’, ‘misinterpreted this’, ‘aren’t following Jesus blah’, my Spidey senses start tingling. . . and not in a good way.
Click to expand...
I said that I follow the magisterium completely. I have no agenda other that to see if anyone can pick up on what j]Jesus told us to do with cup (we all know that) and why he wanted us to do so
 
From the USCCB:
20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
Code: 
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer 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 connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.30
The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident."31
  1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545.32 But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet."33
 
I didn’t say you did. I said my senses are tingling. . .not in a good way. . . and that could be for any variety of reasons.
 
Here’s what the Bible has to say:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:27‬ ‭NABRE‬‬


Note the verbiage used by St. Paul, per our English translation (and I believe it was one of the Catholic Answers apologists that pointed this out before) - “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup” … “will have to answer for the body and the blood of the Lord.” Thus, magisterial teaching that reception under one kind is sufficient.

It’s also worth noting that Paul’s institution narrative in this same chapter is considered to predate the Gospel accounts of Christ himself, and as such, is seen by many scholars of Biblical texts as more authoritative.
 
Last edited:
You made an EXCELLENT point here in 1 Corinthians about Communion.

However, I would like to point out that, despite what some Biblical scholars say, I think all of the Scriptures are equally authoritative.
 
I have a further point to make from Corinthians.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23‭-‬26 NABRE


Notice the different words Jesus uses when instituting the Bread versus the Cup.

For the Bread, He simply says: “Do this in rememberance of Me.”

But for the Cup, He says: "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Why this extra phrase? It seems to me that it assumes people would not always be receiving the Cup, but would always be receiving the Bread.

Why not just say, “Drink this in rememberance of Me.”

Just saw that now and thought it was interesting.
 
Are you talking about the fact that Jesus said something about eating both species because they are conjoined by the conjunction “and.”
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
,
Do the readers feel both species are better than one only, or it’s all the same, one way or both, and why?
,
Click to expand...
It depends upon the people receiving.
“So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent”

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110601_comunione_en.html
 
Everything is not in the Bible and the Bible actually says that.
Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood. The church discerned that if it is Jesus it is all of Jesus in either form.
 
I’ve been Catholic for just over a year now. If at all possible, I partake of both species - what an honor and privilege! The only time I do not partake of the precious blood is if there is a lot of sickness in our parish, and then because I miss it, I tend to ignore coughing the next Mass and partake again of both. It seems right to me.
 
No, its not better. In fact, for hundreds of years it was very uncommon for Roman Catholics who weren’t priests to receive communion of both kinds.

Yet, it didn’t many of them from being recognized as canonized saints.
 
Last edited:
I think either species is sufficient. I do not feel both species are better than one only. I absolutely follow the magesterium.
I think you have missed something in your private interpretation of the bible.
 
Theo2 said:
Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s not quite what he said, is it ?
He said that the bread was His body, and that the wine was His blood.

The church has determined that His body AND blood are in either or both species
The church has determined that the sign is more complete in receiving both species.
 
Uriel1 said:
That’s not what I asked. I absolutely follow the magisterium, but I think they missed something Jesus said about the wine, which the Bishops’ Conference have quietly dealt with by saying that the sign is better if we receive it in both kinds
Click to expand...
I do not think the Bishops Conference or the Church missed anything, do you? The teaching was deliberate and that we follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top