Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CommonMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CommonMan

Guest
What does the Church mean when it says “Fuller form”. I was told that this phrase has no clear meaning.

GIRM, Chapter 4:

Communion under Both Kinds
  1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear 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 relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.105
 
The key is actually “fuller form as a sign.” I don’t really know just how deep that is meant to go. It could, for instance, mean simply that receiving both species reminds us that the Eucharist is Body AND Blood (not to mention Soul and Divinity). Perhaps it is also meant to indicate, however, that the two kinds symbolize the separation of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Crucifixion. Maybe there’s even more.
 
CommonMan said:
What does the Church mean when it says “Fuller form”. I was told that this phrase has no clear meaning.

GIRM, Chapter 4:

Communion under Both Kinds
  1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear 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 relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.105
Click to expand...
Someone explained it this way. When we receive the Host we receive individually from the one Body of Christ. When we receive His Blood from the chalice we receive communially from the one cup. It speaks of the sign of how we receive Christ Sacramentally, not what we receive.
 
CommonMan said:
What does the Church mean when it says “Fuller form”. I was told that this phrase has no clear meaning.

GIRM, Chapter 4:

Communion under Both Kinds
  1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear 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 relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.105
Click to expand...
An excellent resource for information on this topic is Redemptoris Sacramentum. This document is covered in an “Arinze - Podcasting with a Vatican Official Podcast.” This is a Podcast or MP3 of Francis Cardinal Arinze the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments speaking on this issue. In the Podcast titled “More on the Mystery of the Eucharist” He talks not only about communion under both Kinds but also about Glass vassals.

Bottom line it is only a “Fuller Sign” no extra Graces are given.

You can find this on iTunes or go to this Link:

arinze.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=109625#

God Bless
 
We need to interpret this in terms of what Jesus commanded at the last suppoer – to “take, eat…drink.” By doing both actions we have a “fuller sign” of following the command. Of course, Jesus is fully present under either species so we don’t get “extra Jesus” by taking both forms, we simply act more in line with the command.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon_Ed said:
We need to interpret this in terms of what Jesus commanded at the last supper – to “take, eat…drink.” By doing both actions we have a “fuller sign” of following the command. Of course, Jesus is fully present under either species so we don’t get “extra Jesus” by taking both forms, we simply act more in line with the command.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you Deacon, that does Clarify it for me.
 
I would like to add that one of the reasons among many that the Church went to receiving under one species only, was the inability of a large segment of the laity and apparently the clergy as well, to understand that you did in fact receive the entirity of Christs Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species.

One of the early reformers most potent accusations was that the Church, by denying the laity the Chalice, was in effect depriving them of grace and reserving it to themselves.

It is interesting that in these enlightened times that we live in now, many people apparently think the same thing.
 
We receive in the form of the Host, but know that I am receiving the Body, Blood ,Soul & Divinity of Our Lord!🙂
 
…by taking both forms, we simply act more in line with the command.
Click to expand...
A rather important aspect wouldn’t you think? After all, of the seven Sacraments, how many others were so clearly demonstrated by word and action than this one and by Christ hinself?
 
This isn’t really even a debatable issue…“Take and eat, take and drink” was the command.

Sadly, I think this philosophy gets lost in the pestering debate over the appropriateness of extraordinary ministers.
 
frommi said:
Sadly, I think this philosophy gets lost in the pestering debate over the appropriateness of extraordinary ministers.
Click to expand...
Frommi,

I think you may have hit on something here, I am probably more bothered by having 4 EM when you have one priest giving Communion? Never though about it this way!
 
Divine_mercy said:
Frommi,

I think you may have hit on something here, I am probably more bothered by having 4 EM when you have one priest giving Communion? Never though about it this way!
Click to expand...
I think the two issues do collide sometimes…generally speaking if you are going to have communion under both kinds the general “ratio” is 2 cups for 1 bread minister (often times for reasons of ‘flow’…which makes prudent sense so people aren’t tripping all over each other just to avoid the use of an extraordinary minister)…so this usually means employing extraordinary ministers or one employs fewer ems and goes the intinction route.

To me, either are suitable solutions.

I certainly don’t think it makes sense to withold the blood of christ simply to make a point about not using extraordinary ministers.

Put another way…wine in general is meant to be enjoyed with food…it brings out the flavor and fragance of the wine in a much fuller way…and enhances the food you are eating. The same with the Eucharistic meal…you can certainly choose one or the other and be fulfilled, but having both leaves things more complete.
 
Please let me know if I should start another thread, but I have a related question:

Is it okay to not be offered both kinds?

I went to a small family mass. (Dh’s great uncle is a priest). There were probably about 50 people or so receiving communion. The priest did the blessing/consecration on the bread and wine. Then when he took his, he drank all of the wine, leaving none for anyone else. There was enough to begin with for everyone to have taken the blood if they had wanted to.

I was just wondering if this was okay? All of the masses I have ever attended, I have been offered both body and blood.

Thanks.
 
palmas85 said:
I would like to add that one of the reasons among many that the Church went to receiving under one species only, was the inability of a large segment of the laity and apparently the clergy as well, to understand that you did in fact receive the entirity of Christs Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species.

One of the early reformers most potent accusations was that the Church, by denying the laity the Chalice, was in effect depriving them of grace and reserving it to themselves.

It is interesting that in these enlightened times that we live in now, many people apparently think the same thing.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Kanda said:
Is it okay to not be offered both kinds?
Click to expand...
It is not mandated that Communion under both Kinds be offered.

Especially in cases where there may be too much left and the Precious Blood cannot be reserved like the Eucharist in the Tabernacle or when their are no other ministers available to distribute.
 
Divine_mercy said:
It is not mandated that Communion under both Kinds be offered.

Especially in cases where there may be too much left and the Precious Blood cannot be reserved like the Eucharist in the Tabernacle or when their are no other ministers available to distribute.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for such a quick answer!
 
Walking_Home said:
Originally Posted by palmas85
I would like to add that one of the reasons among many that the Church went to receiving under one species only, was the inability of a large segment of the laity and apparently the clergy as well, to understand that you did in fact receive the entirity of Christs Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species.

One of the early reformers most potent accusations was that the Church, by denying the laity the Chalice, was in effect depriving them of grace and reserving it to themselves.

It is interesting that in these enlightened times that we live in now, many people apparently think the same thing.​

I agree.
Click to expand...
I understand that in only receiving under one form I am recieving Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divintiy. I know that I am not being deprived by not being offered the chalice.

My question was directed more towards what is offical and proper. I am very new to the faith and there is still much I do not know. I want to make sure that I and the masses I attend follow the doctrines of the church. If I had learned that we were supposed to receive under both forms, then I would have politely spoken to the priest in question. I asked here first because I did not want to embaress or insult him with my ignorance.

Thanks.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Someone explained it this way. When we receive the Host we receive individually from the one Body of Christ. When we receive His Blood from the chalice we receive communially from the one cup. It speaks of the sign of how we receive Christ Sacramentally, not what we receive.
Click to expand...
Thank you. As a Recovered Alcoholic (taking antabuse), I will be taking the bread only when confirmed. I put my trust in Christ.
 
Kanda said:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Originally Posted by palmas85
I would like to add that one of the reasons among many that the Church went to receiving under one species only, was the inability of a large segment of the laity and apparently the clergy as well, to understand that you did in fact receive the entirity of Christs Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species.

One of the early reformers most potent accusations was that the Church, by denying the laity the Chalice, was in effect depriving them of grace and reserving it to themselves.

It is interesting that in these enlightened times that we live in now, many people apparently think the same thing.​

I agree.

I understand that in only receiving under one form I am recieving Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divintiy. I know that I am not being deprived by not being offered the chalice.

My question was directed more towards what is offical and proper. I am very new to the faith and there is still much I do not know. I want to make sure that I and the masses I attend follow the doctrines of the church. If I had learned that we were supposed to receive under both forms, then I would have politely spoken to the priest in question. I asked here first because I did not want to embaress or insult him with my ignorance.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Kanda—my response to palmas85 post —was not directed towards your question in any way. That was not my intent.

I am glad that you did seek to find the answer to your question in this forum. There are good people here–who will help you with any other questions you may have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top