Communion in both species

[pianistclare]

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?
**
Our Bishop will not allow it.

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

tee

 

[ProVobis]

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…)

One caveat to my post is that I’m not condoning the practice of mimicking the priest by any means. It’s not heresy but I know there have a few letters from bishops to warn the congregation not to do it for other parts of the Mass.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

There was no "reformation, but only a deformation.

T"

No ‘counter-deformation?’

 

[Brendan]

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?”.

One thing to clarify, there is no additional gift. The Church considers it to be a singular reception of Holy Communion. Otherwise, it would fall under the conditions specified in Can 917

So the gift offered would have been received, not refused.

 

[otjm]

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

Because we were specifically discussing the reception, or lack thereof, of the Cup, not alternative forms of reception.

The only parish I have experienced intinction in has been St. Rita’s in Portland, which is Ruthenian Rite, and intinction is not an option; it is the only form. I have no clue if intinction wwere to be the mode in a Roman rite parish, if it would be optional to receive only the Host, or both at once.

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?

I don’t know the answer; I suspect it is in part a lack of familiarity with the physical process, by many priests; there may be other issues afoot. And I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole on “political motivation”.

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

tee

From what I have read of the GIRM, as I recall, what is set out is separate reception; that is, the Host from one minister, and the Cup from another, I don’t recall a great deal of discussion about intinction, other than that it has to be done by the priest (and possibly the deacon???) but not by an EMHC. Again, I don’t want to go off the rails.

 

[otjm]

One thing to clarify, there is no additional gift. The Church considers it to be a singular reception of Holy Communion. Otherwise, it would fall under the conditions specified in Can 917

So the gift offered would have been received, not refused.

I was using the term in a generic reference to being able to receive from the Cup, which, as I was using the term, was a reflection on 500 or so years of practice in which the laity were not allowed to receive. Gift was not intended to imply anything else; I do understand your point, but it was not my intention to imply that receiving the Eucharist either by Host, or Cup, or both is anything other than receiving the Eucharist.

The Church has the authority to restrict reception to one mode or the other, or allow both. I consider it a gift from the Church to be able to receive under both the Host and the Cup - and as a child who made his First Communion in the early 1950’s, it seemed odd to me then that we could not. So I consider it a great privilege and a gift to be able to receive both the Host and the Cup. In other words, the gift is the permission.

 

[otjm]

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.

From newadvent.org: “These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John 6:54, Matthew 26:27, and Luke 22:17-19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John 6:54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declaring that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed below (II).”

My bold.

 

[ProVobis]

From newadvent.org: “These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John 6:54, Matthew 26:27, and Luke 22:17-19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John 6:54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declaring that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed below (II).”

My bold.

Things are still unclear as to the actual heresy, except for denial of the Real Presence and the Sacrifice. Seems like they’re mixing doctrine with practices on the other matters. The Divine part is right when it comes to the priest’s communion. Maybe they formed the start of the “priesthood of the laity” herd mentality which we seem to be spiriting in today. I’ve heard congregations reciting parts of the EP with the priest until the bishop caught on.

The laity is not required to receive EVER in order to make the Sacrifice work. (Once a year is only a church law.) For them to say otherwise would indeed be heresy. Receiving in one form only is perhaps an afterthought. Or perhaps a concession/compromise, but nevertheless it is practice/discipline only. Submissa voce in the Mass is more doctrinal than that. But undermining or ignoring doctrine is not heresy. All my opinion.

 

[Kmon23]

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

I’m pretty sure gluten free hosts are of invalid matter for the sacrament according to my knowledge of Catholic teaching. ?

 

[otjm]

I’m pretty sure gluten free hosts are of invalid matter for the sacrament according to my knowledge of Catholic teaching. ?

Sometimes very low gluten items are referred to by some people as gluten free. So one needs to be careful that it is not simply a matter of miscommunication.

 

[Brendan]

I was using the term in a generic reference to being able to receive from the Cup, which, as I was using the term, was a reflection on 500 or so years of practice in which the laity were not allowed to receive. Gift was not intended to imply anything else; I do understand your point, but it was not my intention to imply that receiving the Eucharist either by Host, or Cup, or both is anything other than receiving the Eucharist…

I understand your point, I just wanted to clarify that when one chooses to receive Communion by a single species, there is no rejection involved.

 

[pianistclare]

I understand your point, I just wanted to clarify that when one chooses to receive Communion by a single species, there is no rejection involved.

I just want to add, that our priest teaches us that if one should decide not to partake of the Precious Blood, we should reverence it with a slight bow as we pass…not just saunter by.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Because we were specifically discussing the reception, or lack thereof, of the Cup, not alternative forms of reception.

You may have been specifically discussing the Cup, but the thread title says Communion in both species, not “Communion from the Cup”. Indeed, the [post=13474168]cup[/post] was not even mentioned for the first 7 posts.

The only parish I have experienced intinction in has been St. Rita’s in Portland, which is Ruthenian Rite, and intinction is not an option; it is the only form. I have no clue if intinction wwere to be the mode in a Roman rite parish, if it would be optional to receive only the Host, or both at once.

Then, though you First Communicated in the 1950’s, your experience is as blinkered and parochial as the material utraquists* who come to this forum with questions like *I was visiting another parish and they withheld the cup! Have I been cheated out of half my communion? *or, eg, the merely confused, who have been able to receive the cup, but: I was visiting another parish, and they used white wine! Isn’t this an abuse!? or any number of other parochial questions people come to the forum with.

Or maybe I am that blinkered and parochial? We are all intimately familiar with our own experiences, and can be thrown for a loop when others’ experience is not the same (though we’ve no right to expect them to be). I made my First Communion kneeling at an altar rail in the early 1970’s**. About a year later, the parish built a new building, with no rails, and Communion was administered standing. During the sweet spot between that event and the indult for Communion in the hand, I routinely received by intinction in my Roman rite parish.

From what I have read of the GIRM, as I recall, what is set out is separate reception; that is, the Host from one minister, and the Cup from another, I don’t recall a great deal of discussion about intinction, other than that it has to be done by the priest (and possibly the deacon???) but not by an EMHC. Again, I don’t want to go off the rails.

I don’t want to go off the rails either, but with due respect, I would say your recollection in this case is mistaken.*** GIRM 285a and 286 (separate reception from the cup) is 143 words; GIRM 285b and 287 (intinction) is 123 words. Not what I would call significantly different. :twocents:

(* FTR, I am pretty sure I was the first person in the thread to [post=13474304]bring up heresy[/post].)

(** Yes. Though I was catechized during those stormy post-Vatican-II years, I escaped relatively unscathed and IMHO well-catechized. :twocents: )

(*** The instructions for concelebrants’ Communion, #245-249 does devote significantly more text to receiving directly from the cup. I cannot, on a cursory read, tell why )

tee

 

[ProVobis]

(* FTR, I am pretty sure I was the first person in the thread to [post=13474304]bring up heresy[/post].)

No thanks. I’m all heresied out now.

Let’s just hope the ministers of communion don’t get asked by patients in hospitals and nursing homes to have the Precious Blood along with the Precious Body.

That IMO would be like a beehive ready to get stepped on.

 

[otjm]

You may have been specifically discussing the Cup, but the thread title says Communion in both species, not “Communion from the Cup”. Indeed, the [post=13474168]cup[/post] was not even mentioned for the first 7 posts.

Then, though you First Communicated in the 1950’s, your experience is as blinkered and parochial as the material utraquists* who come to this forum with questions like I was visiting another parish and they withheld the cup! Have I been cheated out of half my communion? or, eg, the merely confused, who have been able to receive the cup, but: I was visiting another parish, and they used white wine! Isn’t this an abuse!? or any number of other parochial questions people come to the forum with.

Or maybe I am that blinkered and parochial? We are all intimately familiar with our own experiences, and can be thrown for a loop when others’ experience is not the same (though we’ve no right to expect them to be). I made my First Communion kneeling at an altar rail in the early 1970’s**. About a year later, the parish built a new building, with no rails, and Communion was administered standing. During the sweet spot between that event and the indult for Communion in the hand, I routinely received by intinction in my Roman rite parish.

I don’t want to go off the rails either, but with due respect, I would say your recollection in this case is mistaken.*** GIRM 285a and 286 (separate reception from the cup) is 143 words; GIRM 285b and 287 (intinction) is 123 words. Not what I would call significantly different. :twocents:

(* FTR, I am pretty sure I was the first person in the thread to [post=13474304]bring up heresy[/post].)

(** Yes. Though I was catechized during those stormy post-Vatican-II years, I escaped relatively unscathed and IMHO well-catechized. :twocents: )

(*** The instructions for concelebrants’ Communion, #245-249 does devote significantly more text to receiving directly from the cup. I cannot, on a cursory read, tell why )

tee

Tee - calm down. You and I are working from the same page, and I don’t have a bone to pick with you.

 

[DeusExMachina]

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand from these replies that if the chalice is not offered separately than intinction is an acceptable option at most parishes. Is that right?

 

[tee_eff_em]

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand from these replies that if the chalice is not offered separately than intinction is an acceptable option at most parishes. Is that right?

It is a *legitimate *option (always and everywhere, by my understanding).

But it’s not like you can process up to a priest distributing the host and request, *“I’d like to receive by intinction, please, thanks.” *The option needs be offered before one may partake of it.

tee

 

[pianistclare]

It is a *legitimate *option (always and everywhere, by my understanding).

But it’s not like you can process up to a priest distributing the host and request, *“I’d like to receive by intinction, please, thanks.” *The option needs be offered before one may partake of it.

tee

As I said before, it is forbidden in our Archdiocese. It’s not an option everywhere in the US

 

[tee_eff_em]

Tee - calm down. You and I are working from the same page, and I don’t have a bone to pick with you.

tee

 

[DeusExMachina]

As I said before, it is forbidden in our Archdiocese. It’s not an option everywhere in the US

May I ask which archdiocese you belong to?