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.
Uriel1 said:
Self communication is not permitted, and we do have the Passover - just not all the cups and formulaic prayers
Click to expand...
I know that. But those would add to the fullness of the Eucharist, would they not? That’s how it was done, wasn’t it? Why take issue with one thing and not the others if it’s about lacking fullness?
 
Fauken said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Self communication is not permitted, and we do have the Passover - just not all the cups and formulaic prayers
Click to expand...
I know that. But those would add to the fullness of the Eucharist, would they not? That’s how it was done, wasn’t it? Why take issue with one thing and not the others if it’s about lacking fullness?
Click to expand...
LOL maybe you could start a new topic on that; but it would be heresy
 
Because it is against the teachings of the church; but you know that
 
What is? If I’m not mistaken, the laity were not permitted to consume the blood for 500 years, and now it’s allowed. What is inherently heretical about self-communicating, when the Apostles themselves did it at the first Mass?
 
I’m not certain they did: Jesus said, take and eat…
He passed it to them
 
Yes, and that is perfectly fine.
But you don’t believe that if you did not receive both species, and only received one, that you are somehow having a ‘lesser experience’, ‘receiving less Jesus’, or being deprived of something ‘better’, right?

(the questions I asked Uriel, which he has still not answered).

Nobody here is stating that receiving both species is wrong, or that the visible sign correlation of ‘eating and drinking’ as opposed to doing one or the other does not show a sign of ‘doing both’ (just as in a restaurant sign which shows a picture of both a glass and a knife/fork combo show clearly the place offers ‘food and drink’, even though a ‘knife/fork combo’ is understood to indicate food AND drink are offered).

But somebody appears to be arguing that receiving one species is not simply a complete reception of Christ, but a ‘lack of fullness’ of the RECEPTION as WELL as the sign–which is wrong.
 
Fauken said:
What is? If I’m not mistaken, the laity were not permitted to consume the blood for 500 years, and now it’s allowed. What is inherently heretical about self-communicating, when the Apostles themselves did it at the first Mass?
Click to expand...
As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 285b and 287)

“The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.” Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum 104
 
stpurl said:
Yes, and that is perfectly fine.
But you don’t believe that if you did not receive both species, and only received one, that you are somehow having a ‘lesser experience’, ‘receiving less Jesus’, or being deprived of something ‘better’, right?

(the questions I asked Uriel, which he has still not answered).

Nobody here is stating that receiving both species is wrong, or that the visible sign correlation of ‘eating and drinking’ as opposed to doing one or the other does not show a sign of ‘doing both’ (just as in a restaurant sign which shows a picture of both a glass and a knife/fork combo show clearly the place offers ‘food and drink’, even though a ‘knife/fork combo’ is understood to indicate food AND drink are offered).

But somebody appears to be arguing that receiving one species is not simply a complete reception of Christ, but a ‘lack of fullness’ of the RECEPTION as WELL as the sign–which is wrong.
Click to expand...
The magisterium are subservient to the word of God @stpurl and Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

and CCC 1396 tells us that The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church.

Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.

The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"
 
Last edited:
You are not answering the questions.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Is a person who receives one species receiving “Less Christ” than a person who receives under both?

If the Church requires, or an individual chooses, to receive only one species, is that person being denied something ‘more’? Is not only the sign ‘less full’ but the reception of Christ itself “Less full” as well?
 
stpurl said:
You are not answering the questions.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Is a person who receives one species receiving “Less Christ” than a person who receives under both?

If the Church requires, or an individual chooses, to receive only one species, is that person being denied something ‘more’? Is not only the sign ‘less full’ but the reception of Christ itself “Less full” as well?
Click to expand...
You are funny

I answered it many times by relying time and again on the text of CCC1390

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 lady
 
Last edited:
OK, so then what you are saying is that the reception under one species is perfectly sufficient.

And there is no requirement to receive both, as one does not get a ‘fuller’ or ‘better’ Jesus, but merely a visual correlation.

It was hard to understand you because what you kept on posting seemed to contradict what the catechism said, in that you seemed to indicate that ‘fuller’ (i.e. both species) was ‘better than one’. . .which is not what the catechism says at all.
 
Jesus our God, said to take both or you will have no life
The Church magisterium, subservient to God’s word allows precisely that
And the sign in that form is fuller
So why would you not want to @stpurl?

God love you, lady, with your B.A.
 
Last edited:
You’ve shown it’s illicit, that it’s wrong, but not that it’s heretical.

All heresy is wrong, but not all wrongs are heresy. A heresy is a denial of a truth of the Faith. 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, but not a heresy. A priest celebrating Mass who wears red when he should wear white is wrong, but his wrong is not a heresy. What truth of the Faith does self-communicating deny?
Uriel1 said:
Jesus our God, said to take both or you will have no life
Click to expand...
The way you are interpreting this, while it is my own amateur opinion, is heretical. It implies that each is insufficient on their own. I very much doubt you’re telling me that those with a severe celiac disease or allergy to grapes are damned because they didn’t consume both species.

I do not understand how you can take issue with this but not with the lack of the other things I mentioned, both of which would be a fuller sign of the Eucharist.
 
Jesus our God, said to take both or you will have no life
The Church magisterium, undoubdtedly subservient to God’s word allows precisely that
And the sign in that form is fuller as you accept
So, @(name removed by moderator), why would you not want to drink the blood of Christ?

God love you, CJ65
 
The Church allows it, but does not command it. At this current time both species are often available, but at other times, and also at this time and in other places, either the Church itself permits only one species, or an individual human can only receive one species, or chooses to receive only one species.

I can think of several reasons to receive one species only.

Celiac disease/gluten intolerance. Alcoholism or a great sensitivity to alcohol. Immunocompromised person (due to cancer, hepatitis, HIV), drug interaction sensitivities. . . personal penance, personal inclination. There may be more.

All are perfectly accepted by the Church.

Why would you want to demand that any individual give you a 'reason?"

Wouldn’t a reason be between an individual and God --the One who ALONE can judge a human heart?
 
How many were at that Mass?

Jesus found 72 to do his work, and you can’t find one or two EMsHC ?

Why not? Did you ask? Did you pray?

Caritas non ficta
 
Do you realize how great a responsibility it is to be an EMHC? Maybe those people don’t want to have that pressure on them. Maybe they view themselves as unworthy.
 
Uriel1 said:
Good God will reveal to you @Fauken the answer to that question in the CCC
Since you seem perhaps not to be able to access that resource please let me help you, again at 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 brother.
Click to expand...
Note the word “sign”. That is basically just a perception issue for those who may not understand and simply think Host = Body and Chalice = Blood.

The reality is that when we receive the Host only or the Chalice only WE RECEIVE THE COMPLETE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST!!
Do you deny we receive the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in one species. Yes or No??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top