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

[Uriel1]

CCC 1390 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 ." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

YOU my dear sir were the one quoting, and thus I did not ‘neglect its qualifier.’
You wonder of my 'discernment?" I wonder why you wonder. . .

I am always grateful for prayers. You are in mine as well.

So why ignore "CCC 1390 - 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. This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites."

 

[PJM]

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

A “FULLER SIGN” is a Theological impossibility

The Entire Jesus; Body, Blood. Soul and Divinity is PRESENT in the Consecrated Host and EVERY particle of it; hence the Entire Jesus.

What more do we need?

Sincere Blessings,

Patrick

 

[Sean77]

Jesus provided both bread and wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. I don’t see any reason we would depart from that. What does it say to the lay person when they are given the body, but are not worthy of taking the blood? It seems an odd practice to me. Also, keep in mind that many of the early heretical groups refused to provide wine, but water. It is receiving both the bread and the wine, the body and the blood, that distinguishes us as following Christ. Just my opinion.

 

[stpurl]

Arggh. …I know, that’s what I’ve been saying. Somehow somebody attributed all those quotes to me, when I’m the one who from the get go has been saying fuller does not mean better, and receiving one species one receives all of Jesus.

I don’t know how what somebody else posted and reposted is getting my name on it!

 

[Uriel1]

Are you sane? read the "CCC 1390 -

“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. This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.”

 

[Uriel1]

Yes Sean, as we see in the "CCC 1390 -

“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. This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.”

 

[stpurl]

Wouldn’t you like to edit the first three words of your response to a respected member here? PJM is quite sane.

 

[stpurl]

The SIGN in a visble manner is more complete, but Jesus Himself is not ‘more complete’ under both species. Also the word ‘complete’ needs to be understood thoroughly. Again, the SIGN or symbol, involving ‘eating and drinking’ is more complete in that it presents two actions. . .but Jesus is not ‘more complete’ if we receive under both signs, which is I believe what PJM was conveying. We do not get ‘more Jesus’ receiving both species. Also, the sign of reception is not "Less Jesus under one species, but ‘more complete Jesus’ with two, which misconception is apparently affecting people into thinking that if they don’t receive ‘both’, they aren’t getting a complete Jesus.

 

[thistle]

The document was published last week - it shows that anecdote on intinction was wrong. “Simples”

"In 2003, when Hong Kong was hit by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun called for communion on the hand only, in addition to dipping the host into the chalice (intinction) instead of the Vatican approved directive of drinking directly from it, for hygiene reasons.

While the ban on receiving on the tongue was dropped when the risk of infection abated, the guideline on intinction is still the practice in the diocese today.

“The new guide needs more promotion as many people just don’t follow the rules,” one parish secretary told UCAN on the quiet. "

Caritas non ficta

First, none of that contradicts anything I said.

Second, I was living in Hong Kong during the SARS crisis. In fact the Archbishop of Hong Kong suspended all Masses until the crisis was over and gave a General Absolution to all Catholics (of course they still had to go to Confession after the crisis).

Third, the article talks about intinction, NOT self intinction.

 

[Uriel1]

As a new user I inadvertently hijacked a thread on taking communion in a protestant church; apologies and lesson learned.

Please don’t dwell on allergies/alcoholism which is another discussion.
Do the readers feel both species are better than one only, or it’s all the same, one way or both, and why?

Please remember Jesus’ teaching before anything else.

I n post 118 you said, “I lived in HK for 18 months and attended Mass in several Churches there and never saw the Chalice being offered.
Self intinction is forbidden by the Church.”

Another poster has said it happens in HK

Furthermore, if Masses are suspended in such a crisis there can be no sin imputed (for missing Mass) and no need for Confesion

 

[thistle]

Another poster has said it happens in HK

Furthermore, if Masses are suspended in such a crisis there can be no sin imputed (for missing Mass) and no need for Confesion

Self intinction is forbidden by the Church. Local Bishops Conferences have no discretion in this.

Secondly, you are wrong. A General Absolution during a crisis requires subsequent Confession.

Can. 962 §1 For a member of Christ’s faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed.

 

[Uriel1]

@thistle I wonder at the comprehension by many Catholics of their faith; it is not a sin to miss Mass if there is no Mass. So please try not to tell others they are wrong when the Catechism is very clear. Try to love your brothers even if they might be wrong, because God knows best, @thistle.

CCC The Sunday obligation

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.”
“The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 “If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.”

We know that the church doesn’t allow self intinction but it seems HK may well have done it

 

[thistle]

I wonder at the comprehension by many Catholics of their faith; it is not a sin to miss Mass if there is no Mass.

We know that the church doesn’t allow self intinction but it seems HK may well have done it

I didn’t say it was a sin to miss Mass if Masses are suspended. The General Absolution is not for that but covers any mortal sins that people had at the time of Mass (and Confession) suspension and that they still have to subsequently confess them.

 

[Uriel1]

See my above post @thistle. The context of the OP was that the general absolution was for missing Mass; Confession was not said to have been suspended

 

[thistle]

See my above post @thistle. The context of the OP was that the general absolution was for missing Mass; Confession was not said to have been suspended

I should not have assumed that you would have known that Confession was also suspended. My apologies for that. During the SARS crisis people getting together was discouraged and that meant that the Bishop suspended Masses and Confessions.
As I said in my previous post (and agreed with you) it is not a sin to miss Mass if there is no Mass to attend. The General Absolution covered any sins at that time already committed by a person.
With a General Absolution penitents are required to subsequently confess the sins covered by the General Absolution.

 

[SMHW]

Define “better” in this situation.

The Church does teach that receiving under both species is a “fuller sign.” But to the best of my knowledge the Church leaves it to bishops conferences/dioceses/parishes to decide if there are good reasons to or not to express this fuller sign in some locations and/or at some times.

There are all kinds of “signs” used in the various Catholic Churches and Rites. You won’t see them in all Churches because those signs (such as standing versus kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer) are all good expressions of an underlying reality. Another example: some Churches offer Mass every day; others reserve the Divine Liturgy for Sundays and special feasts.

In the Western Church. the priest always “expresses” the fuller sign while the laity may or may not, depending on local rules and/or personal preference. Those that don’t receive both species are (or at least they should be) expressing the underlying reality that Jesus is as fully present under just one species as he is under both.

 

[Uriel1]

astonishing @SMHW that we do not know know what “better” means -

good or, in a comparative sense, more well, more full or, more complete

CCC 1390 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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

God love you friend

Caritate non ficta

 

[stpurl]

The sign is more complete visually for those who like to correlate the actions of eating and drinking. It is not a ‘better’ sign than receiving one species only, as each species contains the entirety of Jesus.

Does one receive "more Jesus’ receiving both species?

Is one holier or more complete as a person receiving both?

Does the Church require us, in receiving the sacrament, to receive both?

Answers: No, no, and no.

Fuller does not mean 'better than receiving ‘just one’.

 

[Uriel1]

The sign is more complete visually for those who like to correlate the actions of eating and drinking. It is not a ‘better’ sign than receiving one species only, as each species contains the entirety of Jesus.

Does one receive "more Jesus’ receiving both species?

Is one holier or more complete as a person receiving both?

Does the Church require us, in receiving the sacrament, to receive both?

Answers: No, no, and no.

Fuller does not mean 'better than receiving ‘just one’.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7

Fuller is better - do look it up, but remember Proverbs 1:7

 

[stpurl]

You can keep on spinning, but you’re still wrong.

Fuller is not ‘better’.

You honestly think that the Catholic Church, when it offers (has offered) only one species to the people, is then ‘denying them fullness’ or keeping them from something better?