Communion in both species

[liturgyluver]

It is worth remembering what the Church teaches about reception in both kinds:

*20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.30

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.*

 

[Phemie]

Our parish offers both species at Sunday Mass but not at weekday Masses. I think that’s because most of those who attend daily Mass (fewer than 10 at the best of times) choose to never receive from the Chalice.

I estimate that only 25% of communicants choose to receive under both species at the average Sunday Mass. The altar servers and some EMHCs don’t.

 

[tee_eff_em]

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.

Did I receive the Host from him as well?

Is there any chance there is a third presence of him, offering the eucharist by intinction? Oh how I wish this was made more frequently available in Latin Rite parishes…

tee

 

[otjm]

Did I receive the Host from him as well?

Yes, if I wasn’t clear.

Is there any chance there is a third presence of him, offering the eucharist by intinction? Oh how I wish this was made more frequently available in Latin Rite parishes…

tee

Not relevant to the question I am asking, or why I am asking it.

This is not the first time I have asked it. On a prior occasion, someone who had been fairly set about only receiving the Host read it, and wrote back that they had never considered it from that point of view. And that was what I was seeking - to get those who won’t receive from the Cup, to think about it from a different perspective.

 

[ProVobis]

Is there any chance there is a third presence of him, offering the eucharist by intinction?

I like that idea better.

Also restoration of the old communion formula, but with the “Sanguis Christi” added.

 

[thistle]

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’ve lived in Asia for 27 years and have attended Mass in many countries in Asia and I have never seen Communion with both species. Therefore I would say it is not normal.

 

[DTheophile]

The thought experiment is confusing, in my opinion, because now we’re dealing with the Lord under three kinds, so to speak: bread, wine, and a man.

I think the thought experiment is trying to illustrate that the Lord is really present in the cup, but I think it’s most convincing when it wants us to believe that He is more present handing you the cup than just in it, which would imply that He is not really present in the cup in the first place.

I wouldn’t say ‘no’ to anything Jesus wanted me to have and I think that the thought experiment can be confusing because of that too.

I would have a second, third, fourth, etc. host if He wanted me to.

To be clear, I think receiving under both kinds is a fine thing. It is spiritually helpful for some people too.

 

[otjm]

The thought experiment is confusing, in my opinion, because now we’re dealing with the Lord under three kinds, so to speak: bread, wine, and a man.

I think the thought experiment is trying to illustrate that the Lord is really present in the cup, but I think it’s most convincing when it wants us to believe that He is more present handing you the cup than just in it, which would imply that He is not really present in the cup in the first place.

I wouldn’t say ‘no’ to anything Jesus wanted me to have and I think that the thought experiment can be confusing because of that too.

I would have a second, third, fourth, etc. host if He wanted me to.

To be clear, I think receiving under both kinds is a fine thing. It is spiritually helpful for some people too.

There is a reason the Eucharist is called a mystery…

My thought experiment was not meant to be confusing; I could put it in another way: presume you have been transported back in time, and you now have the privilege of being at the Last Supper. Would you have refused the Cup there when it was offered?

So basically same scenario; I am trying to get people to dig down a bit deeper beyond the response of “I have already received Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host, and I don’t need to receive Him in the Cup”, which appears to me to be what some people are saying.

I am not suggesting that Trent was wrong in the theology; I am simply astounded that when Christ presented the Eucharist to us in a certain way and said (fill in the words from the Last Supper), that more don’t receive under both Species when the opportunity is present.

Yes, I know the theology; yes, I teach the theology (RCIA). Christ gave us the gift, and the Church has seen fit to again allow the gift to be received, and people refuse the gift (which they are completely welcome to refuse), I go “What was that about, really?”.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not suggesting that Trent was wrong in the theology;

Maybe not but wouldn’t Lex Credendi be affected?

And by a fuller “sign” as well?

We are not receiving MORE Christ but it could easily be implied or inferred IMO.

 

[pianistclare]

Isn’t it really just as simple as Christ offered both to the Apostles at that first Mass?
Shouldn’t we simply obey?
Eat.
Drink.

Sometimes we make things so hard…overthinking…

 

[otjm]

Maybe not but wouldn’t Lex Credendi be affected?

And by a fuller “sign” as well?

We are not receiving MORE Christ but it could easily be implied or inferred IMO.

However, if there is an implication (and given the last 2 generations who were poorly catechized, that is not a stretch), the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; it is to properly catechize.

It really is not all that difficult. It is just that some people want to make it appear to be difficult.

Lex credendi - throwing that one into the mix leaves one either with saying that 12 centuries of practice, flowing from Christ, were wrong - and by implication, Christ was wrong; or in the alternative, that if there was a heresy 500 or 600 years ago, that the matter can only be addressed in one way.

Neither is true.

Then there are those who would only admit that the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacred meal if they were tortured.

Yes, I am aware that 40 years ago, there were those who de-emphasized sacrifice to the point of near non-existence; but there were a lot of things 40 years ago that are not in existence today.

Although National Catholic Reporter has yet to die, honorably or otherwise. As well as those who think it is the cat’s meow… but they are not too successful in recruiting among the younger.

Then, again, neither are the readers of the National Catholic Register… and so it goes.

 

[ProVobis]

Lex credendi - throwing that one into the mix leaves one either with saying that 12 centuries of practice, flowing from Christ, were wrong - and by implication, Christ was wrong; or in the alternative, that if there was a heresy 500 or 600 years ago, that the matter can only be addressed in one way.

Neither is true.

I didn’t say it was wrong or heretical. Now that’s something YOU inferred. See my point?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Isn’t it really just as simple as Christ offered both to the Apostles at that first Mass?
Shouldn’t we simply obey?
Eat.
Drink.

Sometimes we make things so hard…overthinking…

So its not just me/Im not crazy

 

[ProVobis]

Eat.
Drink.

And they thought the old Mass was too short.

 

[otjm]

I didn’t say it was wrong or heretical. Now that’s something YOU inferred. See my point?

Were you not aware of the heresy?

 

[ProVobis]

Were you not aware of the heresy?

Is there a statement from the Vatican on this? Or is this also inferred from Trent?

You wrote “that if there was a heresy 500 or 600 years ago…” and said it wasn’t true. Or at least I thought you did.

Grammatically subjunctives should read “that if there had been a heresy…” but the way you worded it, it could read as factual. So it’s kind of confusing.

 

[otjm]

Is there a statement from the Vatican on this? Or is this also inferred from Trent?

You wrote “that if there was a heresy 500 or 600 years ago…” and said it wasn’t true. Or at least I thought you did.

Grammatically subjunctives should read “that if there had been a heresy…” but the way you worded it, it could read as factual. So it’s kind of confusing.

I think we are talking past each other.

The heresy was that one had to consume both Species, and Trent codified the reception of only the Host, to counter that. But you were aware of that, so I am not sure what you are asking.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Not relevant to the question I am asking, or why I am asking it.

Why is it not relevant? Is not intinction reception “under both kinds”, which is a *“more complete sign”**?

I understand that intinction ought not be imposed, in order to allow the option to receive in the hand – But why does offering the option to receive in the hand so frequently *eliminate *the option of receiving by intinction?

(* NB it is reception “under both kinds”, not “reception from the cup”, which is taught to be a more “complete sign”)

tee

 

[ProVobis]

The heresy was that one had to consume both Species, and Trent codified the reception of only the Host, to counter that. But you were aware of that, so I am not sure what you are asking.

Actually you attacked me on it and I felt I needed to respond. I might have read it as heresy somewhere but I did not know that as fact. You have not provided any such document from Vatican on this. Are you suggesting the Trent anathema against it makes it heresy? I’m going to have to disagree with you on that because all they have to do is to lift the anathema (which I’m sure they have since), thus lifting any so-called heresy attached to it. To me, heresy is forever and I don’t see this in that category. What exactly is the underlying doctrine (not practice by the faithful) that you see being violated that makes or made it a heresy? After all, the priest is required to receive under both species. If one says otherwise, now THAT would be heresy in my book.

 

[ProVobis]

Why is it not relevant? Is not intinction reception “under both kinds”, which is a *“more complete sign”**?

Not only that, but it can also be a sign that the Body and Blood are inseparable IMO. Even the priest’s communion of the consecrated wine has elements of the consecrated host in it. (Haec commixtio…)