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.
Absolutely. (Also for sacramentals, like rosary beads and holy cards. One can certainly say the prayers without any beads or physical aids, but the look and sound and feel of the beads as one counts adds that ‘fuller’ sense.)
 
Shakuhachi said:
If the sign were “irrelevant” we would be allowing grape juice and pita bread.
Click to expand...
You are deliberating missing the point. The “sign” that is is irrelevant is you guys insisting we should receive from both species.
The Church says we don’t. YOU are pushing the sign part instead of accepting that we receive the COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity from either species. Receiving both species is not required. The “sign” of receiving both species is not relevant. I miss out on nothing by receiving only the Host.
 
Yes, I am talking about the sensual experience not the spiritual.
 
Uriel1 said:
then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins
Click to expand...
@stpurl Tell us, Did Jesus say this ?
Click to expand...
 
Uriel1 said:
then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins
Click to expand...
So you are demanding a yes or no answer but you yourself refuse to give one.

Give us your yes or no response to our question then we will do the same.

Do you agree that in each species and no matter which one we receive that we receive the COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

I don’t want a CCC quote or a qualified answer. Give me a yes or no!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jesus, who is our risen Lord, took the cup, gave thanks, and giving it to them, said, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins

CCC 1390 says that in the TWO species the sign of the Eucharistic meal is more complete

CCC 1333 discusses TWO “signs” and says

“The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.”

This is understood by @Shakuhachi but it certainly seems to surpass the understanding of @KMG, who disagreeing with Jesus, says
KMG said:
There is absolutely no problem with the faithful not being allowed to receive from the Chalice.
Click to expand...
but the sign that way is less complete.

I’m grateful to the Lord that my priest doesn’t think like KMG

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
but the sign that way is less complete.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem. The Faithful still receive the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in just the bread. So long as the priest consecrates the wine into His blood, it’s a valid Mass. The sign is complete. If I had to illustrate what they mean by “less complete”, I’d say it’s like having dinner without a cup of water. It doesn’t cease to make the meal dinner, and in fact, water is present in the food. Is it nicer? Certainly. Necessary (in the sense that the Faithful must be able to partake in it)? No.
 
So you are claiming that there is a problem if a person cannot receive from the chalice as well as the host.

You’re disagreeing with the Scripture you quote, the catechism you quote, and the Magisterium of the Church you are a member of. . .

Your priest and KMG think exactly the same thing as do the rest of us, Shakuhachi included, that which the Church teaches: We receive ALL of Jesus in ONE species, and the reception of both is not required of any save the priest in order for us to have a full and complete reception of all of Jesus. When it is offered under both species one MAY receive; one is not required to do so. Your priest knows this.

You, sir, are the only person who is claiming to have an interpretation of Scripture, and an understanding of the Catholic Church and its practices, which differs from what the Church itself teaches.

You are the only one who insists that the sign (the visible ‘eating plus drinking’ of the invisible ‘eating and drinking’ which is contained, full and complete, within each separate species, not requiring that they be ‘joined together’, not insisted upon by Jesus Himself) is not simply ‘fuller’ in its visible sensible appearance, but NOT fuller or more complete in actual reception, but rather that unless both species are received, the person is being DENIED a full complete Jesus because reception of one species is LESSER. . .and that the Church’s denial, so called by you, was a wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
It depends on what you mean by “better.”
Click to expand...
We can’t have the word construction good(er) but more good, more complete, more solid are good synonyms for better. So yes the sign is better, oe just as the Catechism says “more complete”
 
Last edited:
It’s very simple. If you believe Uriel, then every time you have Mass with Communion under one species, you are disobeying Christ.

What absolute nonsense to think that.
 
I’m off to Mass now to receive the body and the chalice
as Jesus taught, and
As the Church says, a more complete sign of the meal
Peace be with you

Jesus, who is our risen Lord, took that cup, gave thanks, and giving it to them, said, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Again, Uriel’s clear implication is that Communion under one species is disobedient to Christ. And that implication is despicable.
 
Perhaps it’s a more complete outward sign, but inwardly it isn’t somehow “incomplete” if you only receive under one species.
 
Exactly. A more complete SIGN --a visible ‘eating and drinking’ both as opposed to simply ‘eating’ (though the eating contains both eating AND drinking) or simply 'drinking" (though the drinking contains both drinking AND eating). The sign is not the sacrament, it is the appearance of the sacrament. Certainly there are many who have a feeling that receiving both ways, with the actual physical ‘eating and drinking’, satisfies their senses more, and that is perfectly fine, because they know that this is a physical experience that in no way gives them ‘more’ than the person receiving under one species.

It is not ‘better’ to receive two species, meaning, “Yay, I am eating and drinking from two physical objects, therefore I am having a better and more complete experience and getting MORE in THIS reception than I would receiving from ONE physical object.”
 
Last edited:
CCC 1390 doesn’t only state that the SIGN is more complete when given both species …which is the more usual form in the Eastern rites, it further tells us that:
  1. Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species
  2. that under one species ALL the fruit of the Eucharistic grace is received
  3. that receiving one species is the most common form in the Latin rite
  4. that it is LEGITIMATELY established.
Arguing about the SIGN is fruitless when the reality is that we receive Jesus wholly and completely.
 
stpurl said:
It is not ‘better’ to receive two species, meaning, “Yay, I am eating and drinking from two physical objects, therefore I am having a better and more complete experience and getting MORE in THIS reception than I would receiving from ONE physical object.”
Click to expand...
To add on to this, it should be noted that per canon law, we are only allowed to receive communion twice a day. If receiving the blood added onto it like the way that @Uriel1 seems to be suggesting, it would count as a second reception of communion. Except, it’s not counted as such.
 
Last edited:
So, just to help me keep track, is Urel1 the only person stating that we SHOULD be receiving both species?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top