Communion under both forms

[mspencer]

As I recall, ten years or so there was a liturgical regulation against having communion under both forms every day of the week. I wonder if this is no longer in effect, since I see it happening now. (I am curious more than concerned about this matter, however.)

 

[John_Lilburne]

New “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America” received Vatican recognitio on 22 March 2002. They are at usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml#N_36_

No mention is made of restrictiing “under both kinds” to Sundays.

But it quotes the 2002 GIRM n. 283: “the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed”.

 

[Pondero]

Even if the church offered Communion under both kinds, I would not be interested. I am quite content to receive Holy Communion under one species as at present.

I have visited a church in Florida where they do offer communion under both species on Sundays, but I just ignore it.

 

[jpjd]

Every Roman Catholic church I’ve ever attended, in my 44 years of being cradle Catholic, has offered Communion under both species on Sundays. At daily Mass I’ve attended for the past two years, it has been offered under both species also.

I look forward to partaking of the Real Presence not once, but twice! (in the Precious Body and again in the Precious Blood).

 

[awalt]

Our Church also does it under both species every day of the week. They make some exceptions, like the Saturday Vigil 4 PM Christmas Mass (2000 people there - 1 species only).

For me, if Jesus is offered twice, I take Him twice. :yup:

 

[bauerice]

My Parish offers Communion under both species everyday.

 

[Jamie_Burns]

Some time ago our Archbishop directed all pastors to make the Eucharist available as much as possible under both species.

I have met Catholics who passionately disagree with the Precious Blood being offered to the laity, because they remember when we only recieved the Precious Body, and so dismiss distribution under both species as “the spirit of Vatican II”. So they gotta be against it.

Yes, either species fully contains the body, blood, spirit, and divinity of Christ. But I like the symbolism of both species. Yes symbolism…because the Body of Christ has the appearance of bread - taste and touch it seems to be bread…“the staff of life” the food of all ordinary people, the food we NEED.
the Blood of Christ has the appearance of wine. It seems to be wine, so we think of the sweetness of fruit and the pleasure of tasting it. the food we WANT.

Communion is complete if I just take the Precious Body, I get all the grace. But taking both species gives my simple mind more to experience and think about.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jamie Burns:

Some time ago our Archbishop directed all pastors to make the Eucharist available as much as possible under both species.

I have met Catholics who passionately disagree with the Precious Blood being offered to the laity, because they remember when we only recieved the Precious Body, and so dismiss distribution under both species as “the spirit of Vatican II”. So they gotta be against it.

Yes, either species fully contains the body, blood, spirit, and divinity of Christ. But I like the symbolism of both species. Yes symbolism…because the Body of Christ has the appearance of bread - taste and touch it seems to be bread…“the staff of life” the food of all ordinary people, the food we NEED.
the Blood of Christ has the appearance of wine. It seems to be wine, so we think of the sweetness of fruit and the pleasure of tasting it. the food we WANT.

Communion is complete if I just take the Precious Body, I get all the grace. But taking both species gives my simple mind more to experience and think about.

You’re actually echoing something HH Pope John Paul II said, that communion under both species was a “fuller sign.” I, too, always rec. both of the Sacred Species.

 

[SnorterLuster]

I have never partaken of the “cup”. It always seemed redundent to me-the Host is the complete Christ, so why go to a second line to receive the exact same thing in a different form?

I have seen, in other threads on the same subject, that at least a few people are in the belief that they are getting more grace or a more complete Communion by taking both species. I think that is the type of thinking that got the Church to change to only one specie in the first place. I hope the leaders of the Church are monitoring the faithful to guard against error creeping in like it did in the early Church.

Since I have been going to a TLM mass for the past year, I luckily have the decision made for me–only one specie is offered.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SnorterLuster:

I have never partaken of the “cup”. It always seemed redundent to me-the Host is the complete Christ, so why go to a second line to receive the exact same thing in a different form?
**Communion isn’t so utilitarian, it’s rather lavish, ie, God’s giving of Himself. Why go to the second line? It’s commended by the Church (which doesn’t order anyone to receive both) as a “fuller” sign and it was given by Christ in the Two Species. To the argument that it was only given to the Apostles that way, well, that was how they passed it on as well. While we cannot appeal to antiqurianism to counter a current practice of the Church, we can, on this and other questions, look back to Apostolic and Patristic understanding (ie., we can say it couldn’t have possibly have been that only the Apostles were to rec. in both Species, since their understanding of it and their disciples understanding of it doesn’t support that assertion). Why wouldn’t you want to receive it that way, is the question I would ask, in the absence of an allergy to alcohol (but I won’t, since the Church permits you the option)? It’s true that the Church forbade that Chalice (generally, but not a hard and fast binding without exception) around the 1200’s in answer to the heresy that One was only the Body, the Other only the Blood. She has determined (wisely, in my opinion) that it is no longer necessary to do so. Of course, you don’t have to receive from the Chalice. **

 

[thistle]

I’ve attended Mass and received Communion in 8 different countries (USA not one of them) and in 7 of them only the host was offered.
I think being offered both ways is not common.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

thistle:

I’ve attended Mass and received Communion in 8 different countries (USA not one of them) and in 7 of them only the host was offered.
I think being offered both ways is not common.

Let’s pray they come around.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I can’t stand the taste of wine, even consecrated wine. Nothing sweet about it to me. :nope: If I ever tried it, I’d be struggling not to retch rather than communing with my God.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

I can’t stand the taste of wine, even consecrated wine. Nothing sweet about it to me. :nope: If I ever tried it, I’d be struggling not to retch rather than communing with my God.

HAH!!! I knew you’d show up!!!
(But then you could have said the same thing about me!!!)

If it makes you sick, you shouldn’t rec. it, or feel bad about not rec. it
(and by now, you surely know that’s what I was gonna say).

 

[thistle]

JKirkLVNV:

Let’s pray they come around.

There is no need as the real presence of Jesus is fully there in both the host and the wine. You do not receive any more of Jesus by taking both.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

thistle:

There is no need as the real presence of Jesus is fully there in both the host and the wine. You do not receive any more of Jesus by taking both.

Very true, but see what I wrote in post #10. I’d post it again, but that would just be repeating myself! I don’t require others to rec. both, I’m just glad I’ve got that option.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

HAH!!! I knew you’d show up!!!
(But then you could have said the same thing about me!!!)

If it makes you sick, you shouldn’t rec. it, or feel bad about not rec. it
(and by now, you surely know that’s what I was gonna say).

Oh, no. Am I that predictable?

I was never even tempted to dip into the altar wine when I was a wee lad serving. All I needed to do was smell it to know that’s not something I wanted to put in my mouth.

 

[SnorterLuster]

**

Why wouldn’t you want to receive it that way, is the question I would ask, in the absence of an allergy to alcohol (but I won’t, since the Church permits you the option)?

**
I just can’t imagine that I could feel anymore united with Christ than I do at the moment I receive the Host. Why wouldn’t I partake of the Chalice? A couple of reasons: I receive the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Host that I would receive from the Chalice. In my mind, there is no difference in receiving both species and in asking the Priest for two hosts. What do I gain taking more quantity? I would rather spend the time I would have spent taking the Chalice on kneeling in prayer & thanks back at the pew. Oh, and incidentally, I am a recovered drunk but if I for one moment believed that the drinking of the Blood added anything to Holy Communion I would be first in line to receive.

**

It’s true that the Church forbade that Chalice (generally, but not a hard and fast binding without exception) around the 1200’s in answer to the heresy that One was only the Body, the Other only the Blood. She has determined (wisely, in my opinion) that it is no longer necessary to do so.

**
I wonder exactly what has changed that led the Church to determine that the heresy wouldn’t raise its ugly head again. As I indicated earlier, I hope the Bishops are monitoring to insure that the laity continues to believe in the completeness of Holy Communion regardless of which specie is taken.

As an aside JKirk, how much do you think the Bishops wanted to have more things for the laity to do during mass entered into their decision? With the number of ladies administering the cup in my old parish, you might think that was the only reason. The last time I went to mass there, I would guess far fewer than half went to receive from the cup, yet there must have been at least 12-15 administering the Precious Blood. And that is not counting the larger number of ministers with the host.

 

[mspencer]

While looking at GIRM just now I saw that the U.S. bishops have legislated that communion under both forms can be provided on Sundays, if the bishop decides, as well as on weekdays. So now I am able to answer my own original question. It is in section 242 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, by the way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SnorterLuster:

I just can’t imagine that I could feel anymore united with Christ than I do at the moment I receive the Host. Why wouldn’t I partake of the Chalice? A couple of reasons: I receive the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Host that I would receive from the Chalice. In my mind, there is no difference in receiving both species and in asking the Priest for two hosts. What do I gain taking more quantity? **In answer to this part of your post, I would say you cannot quantify Christ in this way (ie, when you’re rec. the Host and then from the Chalice, you don’t get Jesus X 2, and obviously, in accordance with the teaching of the Church, when you only rec. the Host or only rec. from the Chalice, you’re not receiving Jesus divided in half. Again, it goes back to what Jesus originally gave us and what was Apostolic/Patristic understanding and to the Church’s understanding of Both being a more complete sign. **I would rather spend the time I would have spent taking the Chalice on kneeling in prayer & thanks back at the pew. Oh, and incidentally, I am a recovered drunk but if I for one moment believed that the drinking of the Blood added anything to Holy Communion I would be first in line to receive. My father died as a result of alcoholism and I always admire those who have overcome this demon. Since the accidents remain after the Consecration and still have the full force of any natural effect, I would say that prudence is on your side as to not receiving.

I wonder exactly what has changed that led the Church to determine that the heresy wouldn’t raise its ugly head again. As I indicated earlier, I hope the Bishops are monitoring to insure that the laity continues to believe in the completeness of Holy Communion regardless of which specie is taken. Heresy always has the potential to raise it’s ugly head. Perhaps the bishops in wanting it and the Pope in granting it determined there was an equal danger in the Most Precious Blood coming to be considered as “more sacred or precious” than the Most Sacred Body in the minds of the faithful (both are of equal and inestimable value) as well as a desire, again, for the “more complete sign.” The answer to “heresy raising it’s ugly head” is better catechesis.

As an aside JKirk, how much do you think the Bishops wanted to have more things for the laity to do during mass entered into their decision? With the number of ladies administering the cup in my old parish, you might think that was the only reason. The last time I went to mass there, I would guess far fewer than half went to receive from the cup, yet there must have been at least 12-15 administering the Precious Blood. And that is not counting the larger number of ministers with the host.

And at my parish, quite a few more than half rec. the Most Precioius Blood. I doubt that the bishops, when making this request, were attempting to insure that the ladies “got their share of the lollies,” or that there was greater lay involvment. I’ve no idea how large your parish is, but we only have two EMHC offering the Chalice at any given Mass, one at the week day services. Ours is very large urban parish, one of the top three in the diocese, if parking is any indication. I know our masses are generally packed. I’ve been to parishes where there are far too many EMHCs. The priest could easily have communicated the Most Sacred Body alone, with one lay EMHC to offer the Most Precioius Blood. There, we are on the same page. Even though there’s a priest shortage, there are far too many EMHCs.