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

[stpurl]

From a woman who is an inveterate tea drinker I certainly do sympathize as I do enjoy the experience of tea drinking.

Feelings are important, but I can’t help but wonder about the thousands and thousands of Catholic saints whose experience (including feelings, sensual experiences, symbolism etc) was that of experiencing the reception of one species only. Either we look at them as having been ‘deprived of a fullness they should be entitled to’, or we look at them as having a perfectly full experience as it is. . . and we look at people today who choose ‘both’ as having equally full experiences that just happen to offer a visible sign of ‘two’ things, even though ‘one’ thing contains ‘both’ in and of itself.

So that instead of thinking, “Gee I miss the visible/sensual element of two”, and maybe unconsciously starting to think of myself as having a ‘lesser experience’ or being denied, I might focus more on consciously meditating on and pondering that, in ‘one’, I was receiving ‘both’. However, I don’t think I’d be able to do that right away without a kind of ‘mourning’ what I thought of as a loss, and I sure would appreciate people acknowledging that loss. . .so I do hope that even with this sadness on your part that you will find grace and peace and completeness.

 

[Vico]

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)

If one looks at the celebration of the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, there is another significance of wine that may be overlooked. During the preparation of the gifts (Prosthesis) is the union of water and wine, symbolizing humanity (the faithful) and divinity (Christ) joined:

Priest: The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world is being offered for the life and salvation of the world.

He turns if over so that the seal is upwards

Deacon: Reverend Father, pierce it.

Then the priest pierces it with the lance on the right side (IC), saying:

Priest: One of the soldiers pierced this side with a lance an immediately there flowed out blood and water; and he who saw it has born witness and his witness is true.

Then the deacon takes wine and water and says to the priest:

Deacon: Reverend Father, bless this holy union.

Also in the Latin Mass, at the Preparation of the Gifts:

Priest: "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

St. Cyprian of Carthage writes of the significance of mixing the water and wine:

Because Christ bore us all, in that he bore our sins, we see that by the water, people are signified, while in the wine, indeed, the blood of Christ is shown. And when the water is mixed with the wine in the cup, the people are made one with Christ, and the multitude of believers is coupled and joined to him in whom it believes.

– W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, 232.

So the Blood of Christ (appearance of wine) may also represent divinity.

 

[Uriel1]

I think this is not denied in the catholic church, but we shall see

Good research @vico

 

[thistle]

You are withholding the fullness of the sign of the meal.

Both species are not required and are not necessary. The COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity are in each species.
Do you deny this??? I note you never answer this question when I ask it. You simply deflect by talking about “a sign”.
Please answer my question.

 

[stpurl]

Yes, while I noted that Uriel did indeed present the section of the catechism which noted, correctly, that the Church proclaims that the totality resides in each species (not Body in host, Blood in Chalice, but Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, full and complete in each, in host and in chalice), he continues each time to go on to highlight the section about ‘fuller sign’, and especially in the couple of posts above, to not just imply but flat-out state things like “The magesterium decided to STOP reception of both” and ‘to restart due to the nature of the sign’. . .

And again, those are in the first incomplete (he does not mention why the Church decided against reception of both across the board) and in the second designed to make it look as though the Church recognized a WRONG in the reception of ‘one’ and is now doing it ‘right’ (which is not at all what the Church did or is doing).

So I’ll join you, Thistle:

Uriel, is the reception of one species acceptable to God almighty as reception of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and not a ‘withholding’ of ‘something more or better’?

 

[Uriel1]

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.

@stpurl & @thistle Your charges are both defective and misleading
my quote at 150 above is very clear and highlights the part you seem to be ignoring

God love you both anyway

 

[stpurl]

I’m not charging you with anything.

I’m not ignoring anything.

It’s just that what you highlight and quote you then seem to reject in your many posts in which you speak of people who receive only one species being ‘denied fullness’ and in saying that reception of two species is ‘better’, etc. That contradicts what you highlight and is very confusing.

Could you humor a poor woman and simply respond with a yes or a no to the question, “Is the reception of one species a complete, full, and total reception of Christ in His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and not a withholding of a ‘better’ reception, that being of both species?”

 

[Uriel1]

That’s what we teach, and I only teach what the church approves

 

[thistle]

That’s what we teach, and I only teach what the church approves

Why won’t you answer the question? You keep deflecting.

When we receive only the Host do we receive the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

The answer is either yes or no!

 

[stpurl]

When you say you ‘teach’ what the Church teaches, what exactly do you mean? Are you a religious education teacher?

 

[Uriel1]

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 and sister

 

[thistle]

That’s what we teach, and I only teach what the church approves

The only part that matters in CCC1390 is:

" “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 ."

The part about the “sign” is not required of us and does not matter. The reality is (not a sign) that in either species we receive the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I don’t know why you are so scared to admit that. All you do is post CCC 1390.

 

[KyPerson]

There’s a woman in my parish who can’t have ANY gluten, so she receives from the Chalice only. I hate the taste of wine so I receive the Host only. We both have received the Body and Blood of Jesus.

 

[stpurl]

But again, what you post and highlight and then ‘teach’, including your original ‘question’, to which you answered firmly that both species ARE ‘better than one’, and using the ‘fuller’ sign to claim, "fuller means better’ (which is not true in this context), means you’re paying lip --or sight- service to what the catechism says by saying “yes I teach what the catechism says, look at me post and highlight”, but your interpretation and defining do NOT agree with the catechism. And when this is pointed out to you, you said that the Magesterium had been ‘wrong’, and you said that people were ‘denied’ something ‘better’ but you never said how or where.

So, and I’m not trying to ‘charge you’ with anything, or ‘ignore what you’ve said’. . .but what it comes down to, is that even when you post clear material like the CCC, your interpretation of it differs from the teaching of the USCCB, and when that’s pointed out to you, you started going off on a tangent about ‘child abuse and coverups by bishops’.

How are we supposed to ‘hear’ somebody who claims fidelity in one breath but rejects it in the next?

 

[Uriel1]

Yes you have, Halleluja
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[thistle]

Still awaiting your response to my question posed in several threads. We would like your actual answer instead of just copying and pasting the CCC section or do you have difficulty in saying yes or no to a yes or no question?

 

[Uriel1]

i do have a little trouble with those who do not read what is written (see post 232) but seek to interrogate when the truth is clear. I agree with the entirety of CCC 1390

“God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Jn 4:24

Caritate non ficta

 

[KMG]

The bishops have said absolutely nothing wrong about the Holy Eucharist, and they have missed nothing from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

 

[Uriel1]

The bishops have said absolutely nothing wrong about the Holy Eucharist, and they have missed nothing from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

My post said this,

"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."

---

In John 6:54 Jesus tells us, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.”

For 500 years lay Catholics were not permitted to drink from the chalice but now we are

No criticism is imputed about wrongdoing on this

What precisely is your gripe? Let me help you

Caritate non ficta

 

[KMG]

There is absolutely no problem with the faithful not being allowed to receive from the Chalice.