Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

[Walking_Home]

In other words, it will not end in the near future.

All this being said, the “fuller form” question hasn’t really been answered. The Church expressed it’s belief that reception of both elements is the “fuller form”. Following the command of Christsupports that view. Yet local bishops can choose to opt out and offer the “lesser form” and effectivly disregard the GIRM and the historical agreement of the 4 Gospels.

Perhaps part of the problem with the laity’s grasp of what the Holy Euchrist / the Lord’s Supper, really is can be attributed to the Church itself confusing the issue.

---

There is no such thing as a “lesser form” in the language of the Church. The Church is not confused on this issue.

As I stated to before–the Church has not mandated that the Chalice be offered thru out the universal Church or that the laity all receive from the Chalice. What you seem not to grasp is that the fullness, the totality of God’s grace is in each individual species. That is the fullness that counts.

 

[frommi]

I support this statement, because if the Church doesn’t change its practice, the use of EMHCs will cease as soon as the crisis of vocations ends. (Hey frommi, I am going to quote RS again )

Still…even if every church had 3 priests tomorrow…do you really think we’d stop needing emhcs?

 

[Walking_Home]

Still…even if every church had 3 priests tomorrow…do you really think we’d stop needing emhcs?

---

If each church had 3 priest to distribute–and the EMHCs are still clinging on—I’d say—the Church has a problem.

 

[frommi]

---

If each church had 3 priest to distribute–and the EMHCs are still clinging on—I’d say—the Church has a problem.

It’s not ‘clinging’ on…

If both species are distributed to a congregation of 400-500 people…im quite sure it will take more than three priests…

Apparently all 3 of them will be concelebrating at each weekend liturgy.

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s not ‘clinging’ on…

If both species are distributed to a congregation of 400-500 people…im quite sure it will take more than three priests…

Apparently all 3 of them will be concelebrating at each weekend liturgy.

Quote=frommi
Still…even if every church had 3 priests tomorrow…do you really think we’d stop needing emhcs?

---

Actually frommi—I am tempted to agree. Even if we had enough priests --and the Church abolished the EMHCs—there are those bishops and priest who will disregard the directives from Rome–and continue to allow EMHCs to cling to their “role”.

 

[CommonMan]

There is no such thing as a “lesser form” in the language of the Church. The Church is not confused on this issue

If there is a “fuller form” then there must be a lesser one otherwise the statement from the GIRM was superfluous. If there isn’t a lesser form why speak of a fuller one?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What the church needs is more deacons and less EMMCs–deacons helped the original apostles–we need more of them to help the priests.

 

[frommi]

What the church needs is more deacons and less EMMCs–deacons helped the original apostles–we need more of them to help the priests.

Deacons are the ordinary minister of the cup…so your suggesting one bread minister (the priest) and an army of cup ministers.

 

[Brendan]

Deacons are the ordinary minister of the cup…so your suggesting one bread minister (the priest) and an army of cup ministers.

They, like the priests, are also ordinary ministers of Intinction, so perhaps what is really be suggested is that there be a priest and several deacons all offering intincted Eucharist

 

[Walking_Home]

If there is a “fuller form” then there must be a lesser one otherwise the statement from the GIRM was superfluous. If there isn’t a lesser form why speak of a fuller one?

---

The sign of the two species is refered to as the fuller form–but only as a sign. As far as substance (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity , plus full total grace) there is no such thing as a lesser form. There is no less grace in receiving one species. There is no more grace in receiving both.

 

[frommi]

They, like the priests, are also ordinary ministers of Intinction, so perhaps what is really be suggested is that there be a priest and several deacons all offering intincted Eucharist

Which is basically a way to get around the allowance for communnion in the hand…right?

 

[Walking_Home]

Which is basically a way to get around the allowance for communnion in the hand…right?

---

So what is your point. Intinction shouldn’t be used since the laity will not receive in the hand. From a prior post you said intinction was a suitable solution. Although from re-reading what you said before–it seems you are leading to the continued use of EMHCs even with the use of intinction.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1850633&highlight=frommi#post1850633

Quote=frommi
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.

 

[Lover_of_Jesus]

At a parish I use to attend ,communiom was given under both species for those that wanted that way, by way of indiction.

I f you wanted under both species you stuck your tongue out to recieve, the Host was the indincted and given to the reciepient.

If you only wanted to recieve the Host you would have your mouth closed of course and your hands out streached together to recieve.

This was a very large church( approx 2,500 at any given Mass ) and Extraordinary ministers were used as well as the priest and deacons.

 

[Brendan]

Which is basically a way to get around the allowance for communnion in the hand…right?

Nope.

Just the fullest possible sign of the Eucharist. The Body and Blood together in a Ressurected Christ.

 

[frommi]

Nope.

Just the fullest possible sign of the Eucharist. The Body and Blood together in a Ressurected Christ.

But you said theologically receiving the blood wasn’t necessary because we received a full form by receiving one species.

Intinction is certainly one option…although I believe some pastors utilize it simply to prevent people the option of taking communion in the hand. Of course, I also believe that dipping bread into wine and putting it on someone’s tongue isn’t exactly what Jesus meant when he said ‘do this in memory of me’.

 

[Walking_Home]

But you said theologically receiving the blood wasn’t necessary because we received a full form by receiving one species.

Intinction is certainly one option…although I believe some pastors utilize it simply to prevent people the option of taking communion in the hand. Of course, I also believe that dipping bread into wine and putting it on someone’s tongue isn’t exactly what Jesus meant when he said ‘do this in memory of me’.

---

So then–are you saying that distributing via intinction–would be contrary to Christs command. Spiting the command of Christ.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

When I receive Holy Communion I receive His Body and as I walk past His Blood I bow out of reverence. It is not necessary to receive both species, one is sufficient. As far as the EMHC distributing the Blood of Christ I refrain for my own reasons but some don’t receive for sanitary reasons. There are some EMHC’s in our parish who do not wipe the Chalice after they drink and then they offer to others. I think our priest should explain the importance of wiping after each person. But especially the EMHC.

 

[frommi]

---

So then–are you saying that distributing via intinction–would be contrary to Christs command. Spiting the command of Christ.

Hard to go that far with it…the church has determined it’s a legitimate method…so go for it. I just don’t agree with using it as a reason not to use EMHCs or to avoid communion in the hand…which are also licit options.

But I do believe that the mandate to take and eat, take and drink was just that, a mandate.

 

[Walking_Home]

Hard to go that far with it…the church has determined it’s a legitimate method…so go for it. I just don’t agree with using it as a reason not to use EMHCs or to avoid communion in the hand…which are also licit options.

But I do believe that the mandate to take and eat, take and drink was just that, a mandate.

---

Since communion by intinction does not quite fit the mandate of two separate actions —take and eat , take and drink----then you see intinction as being contrary to the mandate.

So basicly you are not in favor of intinction because:

—1. contrary to the mandate from Christ.
—2. does not allow for communion in the hand
—3. does not allow for EMHCs

.

 

[frommi]

---

Since communion by intinction does not quite fit the mandate of two separate actions —take and eat , take and drink----then you see intinction as being contrary to the mandate.

So basicly you are not in favor of intinction because:

—1. contrary to the mandate from Christ.
—2. does not allow for communion in the hand
—3. does not allow for EMHCs

.

No…I do not prefer intinction for some of those reasons.

Basically put, I’m a tactile person…I like to touch things. I think there is a sacredness in the moment when the minister of communion (ordinary or extraordinary) presses the body of Christ into my hand for my consumption.

Intinction does not do that, but it is a legitimate form of distribution so far as our current church discipline reads.

What I said I objected to was those who would use intinction for no other reason beyond the idea that they disagree with communion in the hand. I object to those who do use it to curry favor with people who have problems with EMHCs (also a legitimate ministry, provisional or not).