Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

[Kanda]

---

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.

Sorry about the mix-up. I guess I had just assumed since your post directly followed my question. I thought, well, let’s just say that’s what I get for thinking.

Peace.

 

[palmas85]

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.

Priests are never to my knowledge insulted by someone questioning them about the faith. In fact most of them love to speak about it. In my post I wasn’t trying to answer your question, which had already been answered rather it was merely an observation. Many people who are used to receiving under both species feel offended and insulted if the chalice is not made available to them at all times and do in fact feel deprived of grace… That to me demonstrates a misunderstanding of the sacrament and could be construed as disbelief that the fullness of grace is present if you receive under only one species. And that is totally incorrect. It is all the same you receive no more and certainly no less as long as you receive worthily.

Officially though, the Church allows communion under both species but does not mandate it.

It may also interest you to know that NO ONE is required to receive under both species except the Priest, and there are exceptions to that AND no one has an absolute right to receive under both species either. The Priest can at his discretion refuse to extend the Chalice at his Mass. There is no requirement that he do so. Although if the Chalice is offered to the laity at large in a Mass no one can be excluded.

I think what the church means by a fuller sign is that by receiving under both species we are in effect actually imitating in totality the actions of the Apostles at the first Mass.

I bring up historical facts from time to time because many people are totally unaware that a lot of things that are going on these days in the Church as well as outside have in the past been condemned as heresies and resulted in excommunications and worse.

It is true as they say that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it…

 

[maryjk]

It may also interest you to know that NO ONE is required to receive under both species except the Priest, and there are exceptions to that AND no one has an absolute right to receive under both species either. The Priest can at his discretion refuse to extend the Chalice at his Mass. There is no requirement that he do so. Although if the Chalice is offered to the laity at large in a Mass no one can be excluded.

I know that at my Mother’s parish, they never extend the Chalice. What do people like me do? I cannot receive the Host. Does that mean that if I attended her parish, I would never receive? Or is the priest, at some point, required to extend the Chalice?

It is not a problem at my parish. I can receive every Sunday, if I wanted to.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I know that at my Mother’s parish, they never extend the Chalice. What do people like me do? I cannot receive the Host. Does that mean that if I attended her parish, I would never receive? Or is the priest, at some point, required to extend the Chalice?

It is not a problem at my parish. I can receive every Sunday, if I wanted to.

If I were in your position I would approach the priest before Mass and explain the problem asking if you could received just from the Precious Blood becuase you cannot receive the Consecrated Bread (I assume you have Celiac Disease). Most clergy are happy to do this – although if he is serving alone he may ask you to receive after Mass when it would be more convenient for him (otherwise he has to 1: remember you, 2: go to the altar and get the chalice, 3: give you communion, 4: return to the altar to get the ciborium, etc.).

Deacon Ed

 

[Jamie_Burns]

I had always heard that receiving under both kinds was a fuller sign because at communion, Jesus body appears to us to be just like bread…the most basic of all foods…what we need to survive. Jesus blood appears to us to be just like wine…which in its sweetness reminds us of the pleasure of receiving the grace of the sacrament.

The symbols of bread and wine symbolize to me what we need, AND what we want.

The grace of the sacrament is the same if we receive just the Precious Body, but when we are able to receive (even if only occasionally) both species, it helps the faithful understand both the necessity and the sweetness of the sacrament.

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

 

[Genesis315]

“Fuller form” is used as opposed to “fuller substance” because the substance is the same under each species individually, but the form (outward sign) is in it’s fullest with both species.

 

[Brendan]

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,

I would be reluctant to use that particular interpretation as the sign given, as it excludes Intinced Eucharist, either in the Western Form or the Eastern Form.

I don’t think it can be said that the Catholic East does not participate in the fullest sign of the Eucharist, as they to do not offer the chalice to drink.

Rather, the sign to be seen from both species is that of the Resurrection. We physically see signs of the Union of Body and Blood.

 

[Lover_of_Jesus]

While I know it is not common to recieve under both species at a TLM ,is it ever done for those other than the priest or deacons ?

 

[Divine_mercy]

I have to say that I have been following this thread since the beginning and I am really getting disturbed by the amount of times the Eucharist as been referred to as a sign or symbol.

I hope we are all in agreement that Communion under Both Kinds is the real presence of Jesus and have the fullness of the Body, Blood ,Soul & Divinity of Our Lord and not just a symbol or sign.

Sorry if I am nitpicking but it is a very important point to me.

 

[CommonMan]

It is true as they say that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it…

The 4 accounts of the Lord’s Supper are as far back in history as we have on this subject. Jesus offered both elements. That seems to be the forgotten history and perhaps the “fuller form” is meant to mean let’s commune as Jesus did, with both elements available to all who desire that fuller form.

 

[palmas85]

The 4 accounts of the Lord’s Supper are as far back in history as we have on this subject. Jesus offered both elements. That seems to be the forgotten history and perhaps the “fuller form” is meant to mean let’s commune as Jesus did, with both elements available to all who desire that fuller form.

I wasn’t speaking about the Last Supper at all, but various heresies that have sprouted up over the yearsr concerning the Eucharist and other things.

As far as communing as Jesus and his apostles likely did, I doubt it would be accepted by most people today.

 

[Brendan]

While I know it is not common to recieve under both species at a TLM ,is it ever done for those other than the priest or deacons ?

It was not unheard of on special occasions ( First Communion, Corpus Christi, Easter)

But if it was done, it was always intincted. The faithful were NEVER handed the chalice to drink from.

The priest or deacon would dip the Host in a small chalice and then would offer the intincted Eucharist to the recipient.

 

[frommi]

I’m still not clear what the truly compelling theological reason for not offering the cup to the people would be…

I only ever hear pastoral concerns (too many people…not enough wine…etc).

Can anyone offer a solid theological reason not to offer both body and blood to the congregation?

 

[Brendan]

I’m still not clear what the truly compelling theological reason for not offering the cup to the people would be…

I only ever hear pastoral concerns (too many people…not enough wine…etc).

Can anyone offer a solid theological reason not to offer both body and blood to the congregation?

From a THEOLOGICAL point, there is no reason to do so, once recieves the Fullness of the Sacrament with only one species.

The reason for doing so, the physical sign, is strictly Pastoral in nature, as are it’s objections.

 

[frommi]

From a THEOLOGICAL point, there is no reason to do so, once recieves the Fullness of the Sacrament with only one species.

The reason for doing so, the physical sign, is strictly Pastoral in nature, as are it’s objections.

So there is no theology in the mandate of Jesus to ‘take and eat, take and drink’?

Basically…theologically then…it’s an optional mandate?

 

[Brendan]

So there is no theology in the mandate of Jesus to ‘take and eat, take and drink’?

Basically…theologically then…it’s an optional mandate?

Theologically we DO Drink his Blood and eat His Body whenever we recieve either species. That command is fulfilled by a single species alone.

The purely physical act of drinking is strictly an accident, not Substance.

And the signs of the accidents are Pastoral in nature.

 

[frommi]

Theologically we DO Drink his Blood and eat His Body whenever we recieve either species. That command is fulfilled by a single species alone.

The purely physical act of drinking is strictly an accident, not Substance.

And the signs of the accidents are Pastoral in nature.

What you are arguing is why it is ‘ok’ to only receive one species…

I’m looking for a specific theological reason why we should not have the blood of christ in the appearance of wine offered at every single mass?

 

[CommonMan]

I’m looking for a specific theological reason why we should not have the blood of christ in the appearance of wine offered at every single mass?

There is none. Notice, a priest would never think of not having the cup an, it’s an essential part of the communion rite.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon,

I would be reluctant to use that particular interpretation as the sign given, as it excludes Intinced Eucharist, either in the Western Form or the Eastern Form.

I don’t think it can be said that the Catholic East does not participate in the fullest sign of the Eucharist, as they to do not offer the chalice to drink.

Rather, the sign to be seen from both species is that of the Resurrection. We physically see signs of the Union of Body and Blood.

I think we’re speaking at cross purposes. In terms of “fullness of sign” the Host and the Chalice are fuller than eitherm and fuller than intinction. In terms of theological truth, either species is complete and Jesus in His entirity.

As a bi-ritual deacon I give communion nearly every Sunday by intinction to my people. They are receiving the fullness of Jesus. Yet the Divine Litugy of St. James does include receiving the species separately (it’s the source for the current practice in the Latin Church).

We have to be careful about the difference between the sign value and the reality that is signified by the sign.

BTW, I fully agree that the resurrection is the sign for communion. It is the resurrected Lord who shares His body and blood with us. That’s a very Eastern understanding – you must be being formed well.

Deacon Ed

 

[Brendan]

What you are arguing is why it is ‘ok’ to only receive one species…

I’m looking for a specific theological reason why we should not have the blood of christ in the appearance of wine offered at every single mass?

No, I am simply saying that since is no Theological reason to offer more that one.

You are rejecting Pastorial reasoning to what is exclusively a Pastorial, not Theological problem.