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.
stpurl said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Old Testament prefigures the New and tells us;

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he
become wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26

You are ignoring the etymology of “better”, and
ignoring the CCC 1390
 
Last edited:
I am doing no such thing. Kindly stop attempting to present your personal opinions as my ‘thoughts’.

Answer me then: Are you telling us that if the Catholic Church does not provide both species to the laity, is the Church denying the people something ‘better’ than it provides? Are the people getting 'less" in receiving one species?
 
Uriel1 said:
You are ignoring the etymology of “better”, and
ignoring the CCC 1390
Click to expand...
Oh yes you are @stpurl …You are both ignoring the etymology of “better” meaning “more well”, “fuller”, or “more complete”, and ignoring the CCC 1390

The magisterium teaches there, through our 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. I understand you may not always have been a Catholic so I’m giving you some latitude
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
That does not answer my question. What does “more complete” get us? How complete is “more complete”? Do you also find it sad that the Passover rites are not celebrated in their totality before communion? Or that comminicants do not self-communicate as the Apostles did? After all, would that not make it even fuller?
 
No-one had claimed to get less of Jesus’ grace in one species; the church simply says "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.
 
Canon 230§3:
“When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.”
Click to expand...
 
So, I had understood that to allow a lay person to carry out these duties most weeks of the year in a church on say an isolated island with no pastor was permitted. Am I correct?

Caritate non ficta
 
Thank you: so is it alright for EMHC’s to be used on a regular basis; you had said otherwise which is not as I understand it?

Caritate non ficta
 
Redemptionis Sacramentum - source
Thanks a million @(name removed by moderator)
So it seems it is ok for EMHC’s to do so regularly

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Also EMHC are not to be used on a regular basis
Click to expand...
What you stated at 155 is quoted above @(name removed by moderator)

What is the authority for that statement?

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
So regular use is not ruled out ?
It is important that readers are not mislead

Caritate non ficta
 
A. I’m a woman.
B. cradle Catholic, age 61.
C. BA in English.

You have not answered my questions.
 
PJM said:
40.png
stpurl:
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
Oh Patrick, Just read the Catechism my friend
Uriel1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
You are still not answering what benefits to a “fuller” sign are. Nor why you take an issue with the Eucharist under one species but not having the Passover or people giving themselves communion, which would also be “fuller” signs.
 
The fuller/ clearer sign sigh is a theological position of the catechism which if you don’t understand your priest might help you with. Self communication is not permitted, and we do have the Passover - just not all the cups and formulaic prayers
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top