Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

[Walking_Home]

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).

---

Ok–I get it --you like to handle Christ. Now–as to a priest who distributes via intinction–which as you said --is a legitimate form—the fact that it is legit–does away with the objection that the reason would be to do away with communion in the hand and the use of EMHC’s. What was said in some thread–a person who wants to receive in the hand–all they have to do is extend their hands—( the priest will not intinct the Host)–then place the Host in the persons hands.

 

[frommi]

---

Ok–I get it --you like to handle Christ. Now–as to a priest who distributes via intinction–which as you said --is a legitimate form—the fact that it is legit–does away with the objection that the reason would be to do away with communion in the hand and the use of EMHC’s. What was said in some thread–a person who wants to receive in the hand–all they have to do is extend their hands—( the priest will not intinct the Host)–then place the Host in the persons hands.

So the choice there is “receive on the tongue” or “receive only the body”. Sounds like liturgical gun pointing.

And for the record, you make it sound like I want a commodity…“to handle Christ”. Not accurrate…as I have said many times, I think it is good to have that moment of intimacy with the real presence…but it’s not as if I want to put him in my hands and carry him around the church.

 

[Walking_Home]

So the choice there is “receive on the tongue” or “receive only the body”. Sounds like liturgical gun pointing.

And for the record, you make it sound like I want a commodity…“to handle Christ”. Not accurrate…as I have said many times, I think it is good to have that moment of intimacy with the real presence…but it’s not as if I want to put him in my hands and carry him around the church.

Quote=frommi
You see, thats where we disagree…I dont think taking Jesus Christ further away from the people increases reverence…

---

Receive only the Body–taking Jesus Christ further away.

I will restate what Brendan said to taking Jesus further away:

“You are on really shakey theological ground here frommi”

 

[CommonMan]

I suggest the GIRM be rewritten to remove that “fuller sign” passage. Every attempt I have read here to explain this term has failed to do so. It’s fuller or it aint. If you aren’t offered the cup you don’t have the fuller sign, that much is clear. Christ told all to drink. Drinking does not equate to chewing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I suggest the GIRM be rewritten to remove that “fuller sign” passage. Every attempt I have read here to explain this term has failed to do so. It’s fuller or it aint. If you aren’t offered the cup you don’t have the fuller sign, that much is clear. Christ told all to drink. Drinking does not equate to chewing.

It isn’t simply in the GIRM. It’s in the Catechism, “the sure norm” for instruction in the faith. That STILL doesn’t mean that Both must be taken or that Both must be offered.

 

[CommonMan]

Both should be offered.

Christ used commonly used practices and items to make his message clear. Parables and objects that were familiar became part of His methodology for driving home a point. Real world objects we can relate to. This methodology included food. Notably and prominently Scripture uses wine.

From Genesis 9:21 “He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent.” to Revelation 19:15 “From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” Wine, vines and related references abound.

Yes, you received the grace that Christ’s body and blood grant upon reception of the host, I never said otherwise. What you don’t receive is the physical sensation of drink when you take only the host. The aroma, the taste and all that wine offers the human palate is not there. Fully 50% of the physical meal Christ commanded we partake in is left out. Considering the marked difference in the complexity of taste that wine offers vs. a piece of bread, you are deprived of than 50% of that physical sense.

Christ could have used water at the Lord’s Supper. He could have skipped the cup altogether, but he did not. He said take all of you. All , interesting that this is a word the he didn’t use with the breaking of the bread. Christ indicates that *all *are to drink of the cup. Unless there is some common sense reason we have to do otherwise we should endeavor to do as He commanded.

 

[frommi]

---

Receive only the Body–taking Jesus Christ further away.

I will restate what Brendan said to taking Jesus further away:

“You are on really shakey theological ground here frommi”

My oh my…

We believe Jesus is present fully in both species right…so if you withhold one…you are moving him further away.

It’s a physics lesson.

 

[Brendan]

My oh my…

We believe Jesus is present fully in both species right…so if you withhold one…you are moving him further away.

It’s a physics lesson.

No because Christ is there right in front you in the ciborium.

If He exists Substantially elsewhere, such as in the chalice on the Altar, or in a tabernacle in Alaska, it does not matter. It in no way lessens His Presence in Front of you in the minister’s hand.

To follow you logic frommi, all confected Eucharist anywhere in the world would have to be brought into your physical reach. Otherwise, it would be ‘further’ from you.

 

[Brendan]

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

And once again frommi, any time you recieve one species, that command is being fulfiilled completely.

You DO Eat His Flesh and, at the same time you DRINK His Blood.

And belief otherwise is the Ultraquist Heresy.

 

[Brendan]

Christ could have used water at the Lord’s Supper. He could have skipped the cup altogether, but he did not. He said take all of you. All , interesting that this is a word the he didn’t use with the breaking of the bread. Christ indicates that *all *are to drink of the cup. Unless there is some common sense reason we have to do otherwise we should endeavor to do as He commanded.

CM, all you are refering to here are Accidents. What we consume are the Substance of Body and Blood.

And we do eat the Substantial Body and we drink the Substantial Blood.

How are bodies consume the accidents is not the same as we, as full human persons (body and soul), consume the Substance.

 

[frommi]

CM, all you are refering to here are Accidents. What we consume are the Substance of Body and Blood.

And we do eat the Substantial Body and we drink the Substantial Blood.

How are bodies consume the accidents is not the same as we, as full human persons (body and soul), consume the Substance.

And for a thousand years Catholics received under both kinds…then for questionable reasons they weren’t allowed to touch a chalice for another 963 years…

It’s a fuller sign of the covenant of the lamb.

Why anyone would want to restrict it or refuse it’s use is beyond my comprehension…

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

The Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we "receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace

 

[frommi]

The Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we "receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace

I don’t think I’m debating the reception of Eucharsitic grace with anyone in this forum.

I’m debating the lack of opportunity for communicants to not only receive the bread of life, but to drink from the one cup.

There is something to be said for a community joining together in “COMMUNION” to take that ritual action.

I’m not clear why we would not want to offer the cup to everyone present…if the only reason is to have fewer EMHCs then that’s pretty pathetic.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think I’m debating the reception of Eucharsitic grace with anyone in this forum.

I’m debating the lack of opportunity for communicants to not only receive the bread of life, but to drink from the one cup.

There is something to be said for a community joining together in “COMMUNION” to take that ritual action.

I’m not clear why we would not want to offer the cup to everyone present…if the only reason is to have fewer EMHCs then that’s pretty pathetic.

---

We do frommi–whether one receives the Host alone–both species --or the Chalice alone --we are joined to the community thru reception of our Lord Christ.

What is being reflected in your statements–is that without the Chalice --communion is incomplete—which brings me back to:

“you are on shakey theological grounds there frommi”

 

[frommi]

---

We do frommi–whether one receives the Host alone–both species --or the Chalice alone --we are joined to the community thru reception of our Lord Christ.

What is being reflected in your statements–is that without the Chalice --communion is incomplete—which brings me back to:

“you are on shakey theological grounds there frommi”

It’s not incomplete…anymore than it’s incomplete to receive a dab of chrism on your forehead to be confirmed as opposed to having it used generously as a sign of the outpouring of the spirit.

It’s (as has been said in this thread) “fuller”, it’s, quite frankly, a better recognition of the real presence and a better opportunity for us to live our call as disciples.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

QUOTE=Walking_Home;1864765]----------------------------------------------------------------------

We do frommi–whether one receives the Host alone–both species --or the Chalice alone --we are joined to the community thru reception of our Lord Christ.

What is being reflected in your statements–is that without the Chalice --communion is incomplete—which brings me back to:

“you are on shakey theological grounds there frommi”

I think we can say that Frommi would be one of those progressive liturgist.

 

[Brendan]

And for a thousand years Catholics received under both kinds…then for questionable reasons they weren’t allowed to touch a chalice for another 963 years…

It’s a fuller sign of the covenant of the lamb.

Why anyone would want to restrict it or refuse it’s use is beyond my comprehension…

Frommi, for a thousand years, the faithful did recieve both species. But that doesn’t mean that they were allowed to touch the chalice.

The Precious Blood was given on a spoon by a chalice held by the Deacon in the East, or by a small golden tube in the West.

And, as I have said on my occasions, I’m all for returning to that traditional method of offering the species.

And the reason that this was there was a heresy that developed that stated that the Eucharist was not complete unless both Species were given. And I’m seeing a lot of that in modern times as well.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

I don’t have a problem with EMHC when they are needed, but sometimes in my parish it looks like a three ring circus up on the alter during Communion. Too many running up onto the altar and getting in the way of the priest.

 

[Brendan]

So, to recap.

We have determined that

1. The Eucharist is a fuller sign when both species are presented
2. EMHC’s may be reduced in number by the use of the valid option of intinction.
3. Frommi wants those EMHC’s to remain because he is a “tactile’ person”, who wants to “touch things”.

 

[frommi]

Maureen_Fiore:
I think we can say that Frommi would be one of those progressive liturgist.

Care to define that for me please? Usually ‘progressive’ equals ‘doesnt follow the girm’ around these parts…which would not describe me.