T
TheSpiritHeals
Guest
Why does the Church allow communion in bread only?
- Status
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
It depends on the church. Some offer the wine too.
C
Colt
Guest
Neither “bread” nor “wine.”
BOTH species of the Eucharist independently contain the fullness of His Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity…
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
That is true, however, it is a nice feeling to have communion in both.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Traditionally as we see on Sunday in most parishes Holy Communion is given to the faithful under both species Body (Host) and Wine (Blood).
A priest however; is not bound in his discretion to offer both consecrated species for a number of various reasons. Nor does explanation require pertinent cause.
Holy Communion under One Consecrated Species is in every way valid.
As always you entirely receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the species of the Host as the faithful would the same under reception of both species.
Peace
Chris
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
There is only one church in my city that give both, bread and wine.
C
Colt
Guest
It’s NOT “wine” or “bread.”
If you want to say “Precious Blood” and “Sacred Host”, that’s fine, but not “wine and bread.” That’s simply wrong.
If you want to say “Precious Blood” and “Sacred Host”, that’s fine, but not “wine and bread.” That’s simply wrong.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
So Jesus isn’t the “Bread” of Life?
C
centurionguard
Guest
There are parishes in my archdiocese that only distribute Holy Communion under one species. Perhaps some parishes can’t afford the costs in the greater amount of wine needed to be consecrated. It goes without saying that some parishes are more well off financially than others. I don’t find this difficult to foresee.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Because Jesus Christ is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Body alone and in the Blood alone. To receive one species is to receive His entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
There are many people who incorrectly believe that unless you partake of both species, you are somehow being deprived. That is not true. There is no more spiritual grace conferred for receiving both species, just as there is no more spiritual grace conferred for drinking a gallon of Blood versus the tiniest fraction of a milliliter. Thank our shoddy state of catechesis for these incorrect beliefs.
There are many people who incorrectly believe that unless you partake of both species, you are somehow being deprived. That is not true. There is no more spiritual grace conferred for receiving both species, just as there is no more spiritual grace conferred for drinking a gallon of Blood versus the tiniest fraction of a milliliter. Thank our shoddy state of catechesis for these incorrect beliefs.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the Church has allowed the celebrant the option of communicating the faithful with both the sacred Body and the Precious Blood for 40 years, so your premise is incorrect. In the Eastern rites communication under both species is and always has been the practice almost universally from the beginning.
R
Rdunbar123
Guest
I guess something is a tradition depending on your age! Until after VII only one species was offered. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox have always given both AFAIK. Just like it is funny to hear people complain about the changes in the liturgy. It is simply the same translation that was in my old Latin missal. Welcome to the world of pre VII Catholics.
O
odile53
Guest
To the OP: By the time the Eucharist is distributed, it is no longer either “bread” or “wine.” Only the appearances of those items remains, or the “accidents,” as we learned back in catechism class in the early 1960’s. Each of them is, after the consecration, fully Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity, so we refer to each species as the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ.
Most commonly, the Body of Christ is distributed in the form of the Sacred Host to the faithful. A lot of parishes stopped distributing the Precious Blood during the swine flu scare a couple of years ago, and never went back to it. It’s more cost-effective in a large parish of modest means, and more easily distributed (less likelihood of spillage.) Working in a hospital as I do, I’ve seen a couple of cases where a critically ill patient received the Eucharist when the priest placed a couple of drops of the Precious Blood in the patient’s mouth during the Sacrament of the Sick when the patient would be able to consume anything solid, even the Host, because of tubes, etc. (I’m currently assigned to do physical therapy in a trauma ICU, and occasionally get assigned to assist Father when the nurses are too busy to do so. The nurses know I’m a devout Catholic, and welcome the help. It’s a real blessing to me to know that in some small way I helped to make an anointing of a dying person happen.)
Most commonly, the Body of Christ is distributed in the form of the Sacred Host to the faithful. A lot of parishes stopped distributing the Precious Blood during the swine flu scare a couple of years ago, and never went back to it. It’s more cost-effective in a large parish of modest means, and more easily distributed (less likelihood of spillage.) Working in a hospital as I do, I’ve seen a couple of cases where a critically ill patient received the Eucharist when the priest placed a couple of drops of the Precious Blood in the patient’s mouth during the Sacrament of the Sick when the patient would be able to consume anything solid, even the Host, because of tubes, etc. (I’m currently assigned to do physical therapy in a trauma ICU, and occasionally get assigned to assist Father when the nurses are too busy to do so. The nurses know I’m a devout Catholic, and welcome the help. It’s a real blessing to me to know that in some small way I helped to make an anointing of a dying person happen.)
P
pat_mc_1
Guest
To prevent liturgical abuse. Like the over use of EMHC. The chalice shouldn’t be offered at every Mass. Nor the use of the EMHC.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I once attended a Mass where there weren’t enough consecrated Hosts to accommodate everyone so the priest decided to break the remainder into halves. I heard one complain that he felt he got only a half of Christ. He was obvious wrong but you can’t change people’s perception of things, I guess.
T
thomas_jd
Guest
There was a heresy many centurys ago regarding both species. The church resolved that issue . I hear this statement repeated on this site yet never has anyone cited a specific instance of this alleged theory.
I have never heard of anyone, anywhere that believes you must receive both species jointly to receive The Eucharist.
Shoddy state of catechesis ? You are talking about the preaching of heresy.
I see no evidence of this disinformation regarding the Eucharist!l
Those that prefer to receive both species should not be discriminated against.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Good insight to bring up, my mother was a Mass this past Sunday and she received two consecrated host accidentally stuck together. She brought it up to me and I told her it was the same as if she had received one host or a miniscule crumb.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
One doesn’t have to actively preach to qualify catechesis as “shoddy.” It’s almost always due to a lack of preaching, more than anything else.
I have full faith that most Catholic priests are thoroughly orthodox in their Eucharistic beliefs
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I’m new. Was there a time when the Church disallowed communion with both species?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
For at least as long as the Extraordinary Form was the only Form, and probably also before that, at least in the Roman Rite.
- Status