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

[Vico]

… if Christ was presenting the Cup, would you receive?

Not if there was a good reason not too.

In our parish there are some that can receive neither species due to gluten intolerance and problems with yeast. However the norm in our parish is Byzantine which uses yeast in bread: the form of wine only or forms of wine and bread combined – normally. If a request is made it may be in the form of bread only for those that cannot tolerate wine.

 

[Shakuhachi]

There were years when the only place I drank wine was at Mass. and then I moved to a place were they did not offer the cup. It was not long befor I found my self buying wine for home. And then I came to realize how I associated the experience of drinking it with Communion.

 

[stpurl]

OR. . it could simply be that people had already considered things in ‘a different light’ before.

Who said anything about being offended?

 

[PJM]

Do the readers feel both species are better than one only, or it’s all the same, one way or both, and why?

NO and here’s why

Jesus is fully, completely Present in the Consecrated Host alone and ANY particle of it as well as EVERY drop of the Consecrated wine; so this duplication is not in an absolute sense necessary; nor is it more efficacious. {and No taking Communion in both species is NOT receiving Holy Communion twice{yet another Mystery this Gift of Jesus Himself.}

GBY, Patrick

 

[otjm]

People who think critically (as in, analytically) may have already considered more than simply responding in a post-Trent analysis. However, most people are not rained in critical thinking.

The pointed response you gave could lead one to surmise something as outlandish as a response edged by offense. alas, the internet has no inflection of any sort. as you protest you were not offended, I take it as such. You do seem quick to suspect that my comment was one of judgement, when it was nothing more than a prompt to look at the issue from a completely different perspective.

 

[otjm]

My scenario, one might think, was not for those who have an allergy to wine, or may have a susceptibility to alcoholism, nor to those who have immunological issues. Sorry if it was not obvious.

 

[otjm]

If we take the following as a definition of “efficacious” ; “(of something inanimate or abstract) successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective:” then the comment of the bishops would appear to indicate that it is more efficacious as follows: “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”. Catechism of the Catholic Church, papr. 1390.

 

[Vico]

…

The sign is certainly more complete. That is not the only consideration however. See GIRM

24. … avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion …

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/index.cfm

And “more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.”

Communion under Both Kinds

281. 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.[104]

282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it, are made aware by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.[105]

Furthermore, they should teach that the Church, in her administration of the Sacraments, has the power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.[106] However, 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.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...uction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfm

 

[otjm]

Nor did I suggest otherwise.

 

[Vico]

Nor did I suggest otherwise.

Communion in both species would not always be more efficacious.

 

[po18guy]

Short answer: No.

The fullness of Christ is contained win either or both species.

 

[otjm]

Nor did I say or even suggest otherwise.

I provided a mental exercise as a means of looking at the issue of receiving under both species from a completely different viewpoint… Don’t try to make it into something it isn’t.

 

[Uriel1]

If we all feel unable to ask questions of the magisterium how will they know what impact their decisions are making and how effective those decisions are?

 

[Fauken]

Why would the judgement of the Magisterium be questionable and require proof from Scripture when you readily accept their judgment on the canon of Scripture?

 

[Uriel1]

Well for the greater part of our history Communion was received in both kinds, then the wine was with-held by dint of magisterial decision, and later re-established by magisterial decision (because of the value of the sign)

 

[Uriel1]

Which is what Jesus said

 

[Uriel1]

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.

Granted, but for the greater period it has been the norm to receive Jesus sub utraque specie

 

[Reuben_J]

stpurl:

We’re still not getting you. What exactly is your ‘beef’ with the US bishops and thinking they ‘missed something?’

Linking yourself with Galileo (who, by the way, was in fact WRONG in some of his theories) appears to present you as the rational ‘voice’ who, some time later, is found to have been (by some elements) "unfairly accused’ and who is also presented (by some elements) as an example of the Church ‘missing something’ and pronouncing incorrectly on things it ‘should have known’.

You’ve been answered over and over. Both is not ‘better’. Fuller in a presentation sense, may be available to some or many, but need NOT be chosen as the Lord is not divided into separate 'BODY/Bread" and “Blood/Chalice” but Body AND blood, Soul and divinity, in both.

The mere fact that you’re nattering on about ‘both being better’ shows IMO the wisdom of the Church who probably centuries ago was dealing with people who were declaring that if a person didn’t receive BOTH, they weren’t ‘getting it all’. Sadly, it seems that the Church bishops underestimated the human intellect (as well as its spirit of obedience) in thinking that Catholics were ready to see Christ’s Eucharist under both species as a ‘fuller SIGN’ and not go off the deep end AGAIN thinking, “OMG we have to have BOTH or we aren’t getting it ALL”.

Loud sigh.

You make false assertions my friend
I have no link with Galileo
I use Galileo simply to show that the magisterium don’t always get it right
If they had, why do we have so many child abuse cases in the USA Catholic Church?

May the Lord open your eyes; He will, but you must first want to see
Caritate non ficta

What does the Magisterium has to do with abuses in the Church?

 

[Reuben_J]

In our diocese we have been recieving single species only. Oh, we are going to die then because we did not receive the full grace of the Holy Eucharist. Mea culpa.

 

[Vico]

Nor did I say or even suggest otherwise.

I provided a mental exercise as a means of looking at the issue of receiving under both species from a completely different viewpoint… Don’t try to make it into something it isn’t.

Good. I am answering that mental exercise.