Communion in One Species

[Jerry-Jet]

Do some Catholics think they’re more Catholic by making the Theological point of only receiving under one kind?

And how many Catholics are germophobes?

I’ve got nothing against receinving one kind–all I know is everytime I’m offered both kinds I take both kinds–I figure if I get sick and die by taking the precious blood that it would be God’s permissive will.

I also figure if Jesus says to eat His body and drink His blood that taking by both kinds better conveys his sacrifice than taking by one kind–I think the Catechism says somthing like that.

 

[ProVobis]

-I think the Catechism says somthing like that.

The translated catechism mentions that receiving both constitutes a fuller sign but it says nothing about Catholics being short-changed by consuming only one species (or half a Host, for that matter) for whatever reason. Some obviously can’t consume both, even if offered.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Do some Catholics think they’re more Catholic by making the Theological point of only receiving under one kind?

No, but it helps immensely to combat the uninformed ignorance of thinking both have to be received and/or the heresy of being told that only one species has to be received but still proudly thinking that both have to be received.

 

[puzzleannie]

It’s been communicting the faithful with both the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood for close to 2000 years now.

The faithful recieve the Precious Blood and the Sacred Body in the form of either species.

yes in the Eastern rites, as I said. Also in the Latin rite at least for last 150 years or so, before distribution under both kinds became common, it was permitted on special occasions: nuptial Mass, 1st communion etc. at some times and places.

 

[Brendan]

yes in the Eastern rites, as I said. Also in the Latin rite at least for last 150 years or so, before distribution under both kinds became common, it was permitted on special occasions: nuptial Mass, 1st communion etc. at some times and places.

the Church has allowed the celebrant the option of communicating the faithful with both the sacred Body and the Precious Blood for 40 years, .

Anne, you missed my point. The Sacred Body and Precious Blood are united. When one recieves a single species, one DOES recieve BOTH the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood.

That has been true for close to 2000 years in all Ries of he Catholic Church now and will always be true as long as the Church Militant exists.

It is impossible to recieve Holy Communion in any valid form WITHOUT recieveing both the Body and the Blood of Christ.

 

[dochawk]

I was thinking about why this seems to have been a Roman Rite practice so specifically and then thinking of people going trough the streets to meet secretly at the tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs. You can easily be carrying a small amount of bread and conceal it, carrying wine would be much more problematic and evidence of possibly going to a Christian Mass, either going to or from, because you have to carry the container back with you. So it bread only could easily become the common practice.

No, distribution under a single species is much later than that.

The Ultraquists, described above, denied that reception of a single species wS full reception of the Sacrament, and refused to partake of just the Host. The prescription oc Constance was to flush them out. This predated the reformation, and was one of Luther’s beefs.

Unfortunately, the disciplinary measure survived the problem by several centuries.

However, the fact that the controversy arose indicates that both reception under a single species and both species were practiced I the early 15th century.

hawk

 

[japhy]

No, distribution under a single species is much later than that.

Distribution under a single species in the Mass may be much later, but already in the first few centuries of the Church, the consecrated bread (and not the consecrated wine) was taken to the ill and the homebound, and hermits frequently reserved the consecrated bread for the purpose of communicating throughout the week.

 

[thomas_jd]

Distribution under a single species in the Mass may be much later, but already in the first few centuries of the Church, the consecrated bread (and not the consecrated wine) was taken to the ill and the homebound, and hermits frequently reserved the consecrated bread for the purpose of communicating throughout the week.

Thats not quite accurate." About the twelfth century the custom of receiving Holy Communion out of both species began to be disused :" Chardon, Storia dei sacramenti" I ,III,VI.E That covers the first 1100 years.

There is also reports of deacons bringing bread, water and wine,Consecrated of course to the sick during the first millennium. There are also reports of people bringing home Consecrated Bread to use at a later date, thus expanding Communion to all the faithful, not just hermits.

It appears that the time of Trent there was a problem involving heresy which prompted the declaration that the both species equally contained the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The Precious Blood represents Life itself. There is no mass without consecrated Blood.
Our Lord stated that without eating and drinking His body and blood you have no life.
During the Passover Blood was smeared over the door posts to inform the angel of death that life was within and to bypass these homes so marked thus preserving the life within.

Communion under one species seemed to evolve pastorally for valid and various reasons.

There almost seems to be a bias reserved to those that receive under both species.
Remarks such as not necessary, not needed, etc… seem to diminish the reverance that the Precious Blood is required by all the faithful!
I do not accuse you of this, your posts are usually well done ,but this time rather incomplete.