Communion in both species

[DeusExMachina]

Is it normal for the catholic church to practice communion in both species? The reason I ask is, for those of you who do not know, I am learning to rid myself of protestant errors. However, one thing that I cannot help but admit that the reformers got right is that communion in one species violates Christ’s commandment. Can anyone give me an explanation of the church’s current practice?

 

[Padres1969]

Is it normal for the catholic church to practice communion in both species? The reason I ask is, for those of you who do not know, I am learning to rid myself of protestant errors. However, one thing that I cannot help but admit that the reformers got right is that communion in one species violates Christ’s commandment. Can anyone give me an explanation of the church’s current practice?

I’d say it’s normal. My original Catholic Church originally just did the one species (body) but later added the second as well. My second Catholic Church did both species the entire time I was attending. My grandmother’s church if I’m remembering correctly only did one species (body) before they were shuttered by the diocese during a realignment.

 

[hadulzo]

Which commandment is that?

From Advent.com In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”.

 

[phil19034]

For the most part, it depends on the parish.

My parish offers both for daily mass, but does not for the Sunday Masses. This is/was the laity’s request, not the pastor’s.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Which commandment is that?

From Advent.com In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”.

“Drink this, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Is it normal for the catholic church to practice communion in both species? The reason I ask is, for those of you who do not know, I am learning to rid myself of protestant errors. However, one thing that I cannot help but admit that the reformers got right is that communion in one species violates Christ’s commandment. Can anyone give me an explanation of the church’s current practice?

The reformers didn’t get that right. For starters, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in each separate species. One doesn’t receive “more” of Jesus if one partakes of both the Body and the Blood.

 

[Padres1969]

For the most part, it depends on the parish.

My parish offers both for daily mass, but does not for the Sunday Masses. This is/was the laity’s request, not the pastor’s.

Did you partake of both species?

I’ve often found myself conflicted by this. Growing up, and for the majority of my time as a Catholic, the churches I attended (my own and a couple of visiting parishes) only partook in the one species (body). Then abruptly near the end of my time at the parish I spent the bulk of my Catholic life as a member, they added the second species (blood). But for some reason I never partook, and neither did the majority of the congregation. Don’t know if it was due to habit or something else, but it never felt right to partake of the cup. The next parish I was a member of seemed to have been providing both species for a longer period of time and the majority of the congregants did partake in both, though I still refrained from taking the cup as by again it never felt right.

Even after I left the Catholic church and drifted for a long while before finding my way to my current faith home, I still do not partake of the cup to this day at my Episcopal Church. I’ve noticed I’m not the only one, though the majority of my Episcopal congregation partakes in both the bread/body and wine/blood (though the Episcopal church doesn’t require one to partake in both as one or the other is considered a full communion). I prefer to simply hear the words with the cup and receive a blessing instead after having partaken of the first species.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The reformers didn’t get that right. For starters, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in each separate species. One doesn’t receive “more” of Jesus if one partakes of both the Body and the Blood.

could you elaborate a little?

 

[phil19034]

Did you partake of both species?

I’ve often found myself conflicted by this. Growing up, and for the majority of my time as a Catholic, the churches I attended (my own and a couple of visiting parishes) only partook in the one species (body). Then abruptly near the end of my time at the parish I spent the bulk of my Catholic life as a member, they added the second species (blood). But for some reason I never partook, and neither did the majority of the congregation. Don’t know if it was due to habit or something else, but it never felt right to partake of the cup. The next parish I was a member of seemed to have been providing both species for a longer period of time and the majority of the congregants did partake in both, though I still refrained from taking the cup as by again it never felt right.

Even after I left the Catholic church and drifted for a long while before finding my way to my current faith home, I still do not partake of the cup to this day at my Episcopal Church. I’ve noticed I’m not the only one, though the majority of my Episcopal congregation partakes in both the bread/body and wine/blood (though the Episcopal church doesn’t require one to partake in both as one or the other is considered a full communion). I prefer to simply hear the words with the cup and receive a blessing instead after having partaken of the first species.

In the parish I grew up in, they always offered both after Vatican II. However, growing up, I rarely received both. This was mainly because my grandmother was/is against receiving the Precious Blood unless we were one of the first to receive because she fears a sick person receiving and getting others sick. And even then, she was against us receiving.

In my current parish (and in others in my new diocese), when both are being offered, I usually sit up front and receive both, unless I’m sick or have a cold. If I’m in the back, I usually don’t receive both because the thought of backwash skieves me out.

 

[phil19034]

could you elaborate a little?

For example: I know of people who cannot have wheat, so they only receive the Precious Blood. They do not receive less of Christ than the people who only receive His Body or both His Body and Blood.

Quick thought experiment: if a cannibal eats part of your body, are they able to 100% rid the body of the blood? No, not really. The blood might be dried, etc., but microscopic parts of the blood will remain. And if they only drink your blood, they will still consume microscopic parts of your body, as DNA and other cells, etc are often found in the blood. The blood will not be 100% void of any fragments of your body.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is fully present even in the smallest crumb of host or drop of blood. So if He’s fully present than one does not HAVE to receive both.

Additionally, the Church teaches that Jesus is fully alive in Heaven. Meaning His Body is not void of His Blood. This has been verified in the number of Eucharistic miracles where consecrated hosts have bleed. If Christ’s Blood is not in His Body, then how could consecrated hosts bleed?

NOTE: personally I believe that the parishes should have just reasoning for not offering both. AKA, not offering both because it’s cheaper not to buy all that wine is not a just reason.

God Bless

 

[tee_eff_em]

*Utraquism *-- The belief that one must receive both species – Is a heresy condemned by a number of councils (including, of course, Trent).


tee

 

[Padres1969]

For example: I know of people who cannot have wheat, so they only receive the Precious Blood. They do not receive less of Christ than the people who only receive His Body or both His Body and Blood.

Admittedly never seen it in a Catholic Church, but my Episcopal Parish has a priest who always stands to the side of the altar away from the altar rail who distributes hosts that are almost entirely “gluten free” (obviously it contains just enough to still be considered bread for consecration) for those with celiac or similar conditions.

 

[Todd977]

The laity receiving Holy Communion at Mass under both species was common from apostolic times until the twelfth century. From the twelfth to the fifteen century, at least in the Latin-rite, the laity receiving Holy Communion at Mass only under the species of bread became the custom. This bread-only-for-the-laity custom was made church law from 1415 (Council of Constance) until 1965 (Second Vatican Council). Since the Second Vatican Council, bishops have had the option of offering Holy Communion to the laity under the species of bread alone or of both bread and wine, or, in case of necessity, of wine alone. (See article on “Communion under Both Kinds” in the old 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia)

It is my understanding that Holy Communion outside of Mass has always been common under the species of bread alone. I could be wrong but I think Holy Communion at Mass under both species has always been common for the laity in the Eastern-rites of the Catholic Church.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)
The above verse supports the teaching that a person needs only to eat the bread or to drink the cup of the Lord to receive both the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[TimothyH]

What we are talking about here is concomitance. This is the doctrine that Jesus is fully present under the species and that you are not deprived of any grace when you receive under one kind.

The Church began to focus more on the host and less on the chalice in the 12th century as Eucharistic adoration became more popular. In places the chalice was reserved only for the clergy.

The reformers however, thought that it was incorrect to withhold the chalice from the laity. The Church leaned even further away from the chalice for the laity during this time in order to stress the doctrine of the real presence and of concomitance. There was no chalice for the laity from 1621 through 1965 when communion under both kinds was reinstated.

There is an EXCELLENT article titled Reception of the Eucharist Under Two Species by Fr Mark Wedig OP for those who care to read about the history of the practice. This article is well worth reading.

There was a really good discussion back in February. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=948675.

-Tim-

 

[phil19034]

could you elaborate a little?

Admittedly never seen it in a Catholic Church, but my Episcopal Parish has a priest who always stands to the side of the altar away from the altar rail who distributes hosts that are almost entirely “gluten free” (obviously it contains just enough to still be considered bread for consecration) for those with celiac or similar conditions.

My parish started having some “gluten free” hosts this year.

 

[Brendan]

“Drink this, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is fully the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, fully present in each species.

When we consume a single species, the substance of Blood is present. Thus when it is consumed, the command to drink is fulfilled, regardless of the accidental properties of the substance.

 

[ProVobis]

The Sacrifice is completed and validated when the priest consumes both species. Whether the congregation receives both species or doesn’t receive at all doesn’t change that.

 

[smead2942]

Is it normal for the catholic church to practice communion in both species? The reason I ask is, for those of you who do not know, I am learning to rid myself of protestant errors. However, one thing that I cannot help but admit that the reformers got right is that communion in one species violates Christ’s commandment. Can anyone give me an explanation of the church’s current practice?

There was no "reformation, but only a deformation.

The body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is contained fully in each species. When you receive the Sacred Host, you are consuming Him entirely. When you receive from the Chalice, you drink Him entirely. According to the Council of Trent, “If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or** by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema**.”

 

[peter26]

Only time I’ve seen communion under only one species was when I attended a TLM, which is offered once a month at a nearby parish. I receive under both forms. Most people do around here, maybe about 1 in 4 don’t receive from the chalice.

 

[otjm]

Well, the following isn’t going to happen, but I offer it for those who may wish to think on the matter from a different point of view:

Assume for the moment, that you have received the Host; as you move to your left or right, (depending on the flow of recipients), you look up, and instead of a priest, deacon, or EMHC standing there with the Cup, you see that it is Christ Himself, holding out the Cup to you.

Do you pass Him up, and say" I have already received You; I don’t need to drink from the Cup You are offering me!"?