U
Uriel1
Guest
Which diocese is that please? How are you so sure it’s the whole diocese?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Infants were excluded from Latin communion when bread only began to be used (1215 A.D., Fourth Lateran Council, transubstantiation defined). The people were afraid of spilling the blood of Christ and infants could not receive (eat) the body of Christ (bread).
- St. Thomas Aquinas (lived 1225-1274) expressed concern that the precious blood would be spilled.
- Pope Leo X (Pope: 1513-1521) prohibited infants from receiving, to resolve an issue in Bohemia.
Church prohibited the chalice to the laity from the Council of Constance in 1415, so that Communion in the form of bread alone was the law.
But later in 1564., Pope Pius IV granted indults giving permission allowing Communion under both kinds.
That changed again 1621, when those indults were revoked.
Finally is was 1965 that Communion under both kinds was reconsidered as a valid Latin Catholic practice. Then the Rite for Distributing Communion Under Both Kinds was promulgated in 1965.The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.
…
The Holy Father considered the two rites [Note: the first was concelebration, the second is both kinds] very carefully, … He ordered it to be published and to be observed by everybody from Holy Thursday, 16 April, 1965, and to be accurately transcribed into the Pontifical and Missal.
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/inde...ontents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/333
T
thistle
Guest
I have lived in Asia since 1988 and have been to Mass in many countries in Asia and I have never seen Communion offered under both species. It is only the Host.
U
Uriel1
Guest
from a previous CA " The other times, I’ve been overseas in Hong Kong and they do intinction there. Strangely enough intinction is done by the layperson and not by the EMHC…sort of confused here."Uriel1:
I have lived in Asia since 1988 and have been to Mass in many countries in Asia and I have never seen Communion offered under both species. It is only the Host.
S
sudy
Guest
Let’s suppose you were traveling and went to a Mass that only offered the Host to the congregation.
- Would you believe that you hadn’t received Christ fully?
- Would you believe that you had to attend another Mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation?
- Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the church established by Christ, who said that the gates of hell would not prevail against her?
- Do you believe that other Catholics, who only receive one species, are being deprived?
U
Uriel1
Guest
Not al all ; he would have been fully received
- No
Oh yes; but the eastern too
of the full sign: yes they are
S
sudy
Guest
So this is the crux of the matter… you feel that people are being deprived of the full sign?
The priest receives on behalf of the laity in the case where only one species is distributed. We are ONE body in Christ, after all… we are a Church of unity. Mass requires both species to be consecrated… this is the true sign, but both species need not be distributed. They are consecrated separately but become one. At the consecration, Christ becomes truly present… there is no divisibility in Christ… Christ is whole and One, and grace is given to us if we partake of either species and therefore there’s no specific reason for individuals to receive both species. There is no loss… no deprivation… of sacramental grace in receiving only one species… [John 6:58 he who eats this bread will live for ever]. The celebrant, however, must consume both species.
The Church cannot lead us wrong. Christ is leading his Church… he did not leave us orphans. There are real problems with holding a different view to the Magisterium… this isn’t Catholic… it’s actually very Protestant. Thinking that we know better than Christ’s Church is actually a sign of pride… a real lack of humility. We are meant to be like little children… docile, obedient and teachable. Do you understand the reasons for sometimes only distributing one species?
If one has a very large parish with few or no help in distribution, one could only practically offer the Host, right?
If a person was contagious or had a cut in their mouth… one couldn’t practically receive from the chalice, right?
One addicted to alcohol could have issues, right?
There are, of course, other practical reasons for not distributing the chalice… if the precious blood were to spill, for example, that would be grave disrespect to Our Lord… and something that isn’t easily rectified. Also, if there’s a suspicion of potential grave misuse… that would also be a practical reason for not distributing the chalice.
Many parishes distribute the Holy Eucharist under both species, so you’re free to receive this way if this is offered… just try not to be determining how other people ought to receive.
U
Uriel1
Guest
@sudy
No that’s not a crux. People are free to do as they wish, or they should be.
Some parishes however do not offer the sacrifice under both species so all the people cannot do as they wish. Why is that so hard to understand?
Jesus did say, “take…, eat… and drink…”
No that’s not a crux. People are free to do as they wish, or they should be.
Some parishes however do not offer the sacrifice under both species so all the people cannot do as they wish. Why is that so hard to understand?
Jesus did say, “take…, eat… and drink…”
S
sudy
Guest
As Catholics, we believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist in body, blood, soul and divinity in both species. All are welcome to receive if they are in a state of grace… this is the case in every single Catholic Church throughout the world.
It’s not a simple matter of people being ‘free to do as they wish, or they should be’… this is incorrect thinking… because if they weren’t receiving Christ wholly and entirely in one species, that’d be a really serious issue. As it is, they are.
It seems to me that you believe you know better than the Church… in which case I’m not sure what else to say to you. Maybe you could ask your priest for advice?
It’s not a simple matter of people being ‘free to do as they wish, or they should be’… this is incorrect thinking… because if they weren’t receiving Christ wholly and entirely in one species, that’d be a really serious issue. As it is, they are.
It seems to me that you believe you know better than the Church… in which case I’m not sure what else to say to you. Maybe you could ask your priest for advice?
U
Uriel1
Guest
Our Catechism states:
“. . . 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.
What bit of the Catechism do you not understand? Maybe your priest could read it with you?
Caritate non ficta
S
sudy
Guest
I beg your pardon. That was incredibly insulting. What bit of the Catechism do you not understand?
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205
Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.
If you can’t accept the teachings of the Church… you have a problem. If you truly believe that something is amiss… you really do need to speak with your priest. Asking people on here whether both is better than one is problematic. It’s not helpful for unity.
U
Uriel1
Guest
This might help you understand
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110601_comunione_en.html
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
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.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Never the best thing to use personal anecdotes my friend so try this http://sundayex.catholic.org.hk/node/4463Uriel1:
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.
caritas non ficta
T
thistle
Guest
I guess I am missing something. What particularly are you referring me to in that link.
U
Uriel1
Guest
The document was published last week - it shows that anecdote on intinction was wrong. “Simples”Uriel1:
I guess I am missing something. What particularly are you referring me to in that link.
"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
U
Uriel1
Guest
It’s a pity that you didn’t read on to 1390 CCC before being so incredibly insulted by friend.Uriel1:
I beg your pardon. That was incredibly insulting. What bit of the Catechism do you not understand?
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205
Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.
If you can’t accept the teachings of the Church… you have a problem. If you truly believe that something is amiss… you really do need to speak with your priest. Asking people on here whether both is better than one is problematic. It’s not helpful for unity.
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.
No insult was intended and Jesus has instructed me, to “go teach all nations” Matt 28:19
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Well, since Jesus does not and cannot teach ‘against Himself’, how do you explain that your interpretation goes against the teaching of the Church? And yes, insisting that all MUST partake of both is against the teaching of the Church.
U
Uriel1
Guest
I worry for you my friend
You quoted CCC 1377
You neglected it’s qualifier CCC 1390
I teach nothing more than that
and I wonder about your discernment
You are in my prayers @stpurl
Caritate non ficta
You quoted CCC 1377
You neglected it’s qualifier CCC 1390
I teach nothing more than that
and I wonder about your discernment
You are in my prayers @stpurl
Caritate non ficta
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
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.
You wonder of my 'discernment?" I wonder why you wonder. . .
I am always grateful for prayers. You are in mine as well.
- Status