Communion Under Both Species

[Bernardous]

I am a Eucharistic Minister at our church in San Francisco, CA. Our priest is from the Holy Land and is here to serve the Arab American Catholics in Norther California. It is the usual tradition in the Middle East for Catholics to receive communion under both species (by intinction). The priest and the transitional deacons are the only people who distribute communion. Here, in San Francisco, the Archdiocese has a polcy against Intinction…I have heard a few of the arguments on why intinction is not allowed but have never been convinced. What I find as a Eucharistic Minister is that if people don’t receive communion under both species via intinction (which is what we used to do untill we found out about this rule) generally they shy away from consuming the Precious Blood, and generally only take the Eucharist. I have always wondered, if communion under seperate species, discourages complete communion isn’t it better that intinction is done? I am wondering if anyone can give me some insight on these matters.
Thanks and God Bless.

 

[canne]

It is my understanding that in recieving either form I am indeed recieving the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. Both forms are present but it is not necessary to recieve for example from the comminion cup.

 

[bauerice]

I work with RCIA. We instruct that the “Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity” is contained completely under either species. That taking either is a complete Eucharist. Taking both is a more complete sign, but not more Jesus. There has been cases where a person is wheat intolerant and therefore receives only the cup, and that is a complete Eucharist.

 

[msproule]

Bernardous:

Here, in San Francisco, the Archdiocese has a polcy against Intinction

Can you provide a link to a website where this policy is spelled out? I did not think a Bishop could forbid intinction, as long as it is performed by the priests and deacons only. The laity are never allowed to “self-intinct”.

 

[Seatuck]

Many people do not like drinking out of the same cup as the rest of the congregation.

BTW , try to use Extraordinary Mininister of Holy Communion. Little nitpicky , but please try to use the correct term.
I am also a EMOHC and we have had to try to determing how much wine needs to be consecrated by how much is left in the cups from Mass to Mass. We rarely get it right.Very frustrating. Either I have a half of cup to consume or I am left standing with an empty cup and a line of people to apologize to.

 

[palmas85]

msproule:

Can you provide a link to a website where this policy is spelled out? I did not think a Bishop could forbid intinction, as long as it is performed by the priests and deacons only. The laity are never allowed to “self-intinct”.

I believe it is at the discretion of the Bishops in the same way the availability of the chalice to the laity is at the discretion of the Bishops. I don’t recall the name of the document where it is spelled out however.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Seatuck:

I am also a EMOHC and we have had to try to determing how much wine needs to be consecrated by how much is left in the cups from Mass to Mass. We rarely get it right.Very frustrating. Either I have a half of cup to consume or I am left standing with an empty cup and a line of people to apologize to.

Um, sorry if a hijack, but: Why would you stand there with an empty cup?

I would think all that would be required would be to excuse yourself to the next communicant, and remove yourself to the altar, credence table, or where ever the vessels are purified, no?


tee

 

[msproule]

palmas85:

I believe it is at the discretion of the Bishops in the same way the availability of the chalice to the laity is at the discretion of the Bishops. I don’t recall the name of the document where it is spelled out however.

The GIRM states:
283…The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese…The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
The subsequent USCCB document, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, refers to the same section of the GIRM plus seems to favor intinction over using excessive numbers of EMHC:
24…In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
I guess I just take issue with a Bishop forbidding intinction altogether. I fail to see the reason behind such a policy, unless the prohibition only applies to EMHC and Communicants doing the intinction instead of the priest or deacon. Intinction by EMHC and individual Communicants is clearly forbidden throughout the Church, at least the Latin Rite.

 

[msproule]

Bernardous:

I have always wondered, if communion under seperate species, discourages complete communion isn’t it better that intinction is done?

Yes, I think intinction should be performed in areas where the few receive the Chalice. But, only the priest and deacon are allowed to perform intinction.

Please do not take offense to this as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, but while some may not receive the Chalice because they wrongfully think they will catch the previous Communican’s cold, many pass the Chalice out of fear of spillage by the EMHC. I prefer to receive Holy Communion under both species, but I make my decision (about whether or not to receive from the Chalice) based upon a number of factors. For example, one local parish uses far too many EMHC for the number of people present (IMO). Furthermore, they use glass chalices that are filled to within 1/4" of the rim, and the “modern” church-in-the-round design causes a lot of people to nearly bump into one another as they approach for Holy Communion. If the situation is not perfect, I most often will not receive from the Chalice.

 

[Brendan]

Bernardous:

I I have always wondered, if communion under seperate species, **discourages complete communion ** isn’t it better that intinction is done? I am wondering if anyone can give me some insight on these matters.
Thanks and God Bless.

Can I ask what is incomplete in the Eucharist being given??

The only difference between the contents of the chalice and the contents of the ciborium is how it appears to our eyes.

The people you mentioned recieveed the Full and Complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divintity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I understand that some may prefer to recieve both species, but it’s gross misunderstanding of the Eucharist to say that recieving one species an incomplete reception of the Eucharist.

In fact, that called the Ultraquist heresy.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bernardous:

I am a Eucharistic Minister at our church in San Francisco, CA. Our priest is from the Holy Land and is here to serve the Arab American Catholics in Norther California. It is the usual tradition in the Middle East for Catholics to receive communion under both species (by intinction). The priest and the transitional deacons are the only people who distribute communion. Here, in San Francisco, the Archdiocese has a polcy against Intinction…I have heard a few of the arguments on why intinction is not allowed but have never been convinced. What I find as a Eucharistic Minister is that if people don’t receive communion under both species via intinction (which is what we used to do untill we found out about this rule) generally they shy away from consuming the Precious Blood, and generally only take the Eucharist. I have always wondered, if communion under seperate species, discourages complete communion isn’t it better that intinction is done? I am wondering if anyone can give me some insight on these matters.
Thanks and God Bless.

" I have always wondered, if communion under seperate species, discourages complete communion isn’t it better that intinction is done?"

First receiving Holy Communion under only one form is not in any way an incomplete Communion.

Yes some Eastern Catholics do receive Communion by intinction

 

[Bernardous]

Brendan, in your answer you state:

I understand that some may prefer to recieve both species, but it’s gross misunderstanding of the Eucharist to say that recieving one species an incomplete reception of the Eucharist.

I never knew that recieving sommunion under both species is a matter of preference. I have always thought that through trans-substanciation, the contents of the ciborium (the bread) becomes the body of Christ, and the contents of the chalice (the wine) becomes the blood of Christ. It is the first time that I hear about both species being present in the most Holy Eucharist.
In fact, my understanding (and also what I have learned from the Church) is that in John 6:53-54 Jesus says: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

Am I misinformed that it is our obligation to take communion under both species…Please explain.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Bernardous:

Am I misinformed that it is our obligation to take communion under both species…Please explain.

This is what the Church teaches:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Catechism of the Catholic Church​

Which refers to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

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.
   
   GIRM​

tee

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Is it intinction that the bishop is forbidding, or SELF intinction?

Self-intinction is not permitted, but intinction from the priest or (I think) the EMHC IS.

So the thing is, you can’t have people receiving the host and taking it over to the cup, dipping it in the blood, and consuming it.

If that is what you had been doing, then it is a good thing it was stopped.

If the proper intinction done by the priest was done before, but is not now, it is probably because the bishop has had problems with other parishes or for some good reason (for example, last year our diocese chose not to use the chalice from the first Sunday of Advent to Easter Sunday, because of the lack of flu vaccine and the possibility of grave illness on the part of many of the people in the diocese who are elderly or otherwise at risk–obviously this stopped intinction for that time period).

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bernardous:

Brendan, in your answer you state:

I understand that some may prefer to recieve both species, but it’s gross misunderstanding of the Eucharist to say that recieving one species an incomplete reception of the Eucharist.

I never knew that recieving sommunion under both species is a matter of preference. I have always thought that through trans-substanciation, the contents of the ciborium (the bread) becomes the body of Christ, and the contents of the chalice (the wine) becomes the blood of Christ. It is the first time that I hear about both species being present in the most Holy Eucharist.
In fact, my understanding (and also what I have learned from the Church) is that in John 6:53-54 Jesus says: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

Am I misinformed that it is our obligation to take communion under both species…Please explain.

At a specific point in the Mass called the Fraction a small particle of the Host is placed in the Chalice and by this the Body and Blood of Christ are reunited. For a valid Mass the only person required to receive Communion under both forms is the main priest and concelebrants.

 

[palmas85]

Bernardous:

Brendan, in your answer you state:

I understand that some may prefer to recieve both species, but it’s gross misunderstanding of the Eucharist to say that recieving one species an incomplete reception of the Eucharist.

I never knew that recieving sommunion under both species is a matter of preference. I have always thought that through trans-substanciation, the contents of the ciborium (the bread) becomes the body of Christ, and the contents of the chalice (the wine) becomes the blood of Christ. It is the first time that I hear about both species being present in the most Holy Eucharist.
In fact, my understanding (and also what I have learned from the Church) is that in John 6:53-54 Jesus says: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

Am I misinformed that it is our obligation to take communion under both species…Please explain.

Church teaching is that the whole of Christ is present in both or either species. In other words the Body and Blood are fully present under the appearance of either bread or wine. While the Church says receiving under both species is a fuller “sign” whatever that means, it is not more complete or less complete by receiving both or only under one species. Until fairly recently the laity were not offered the Chalice, even though they had been in the early church.

 

[Kielbasi]

…I have heard a few of the arguments on why intinction is not allowed but have never been convinced

There really hasn’t been a protocol established for intinction in the Latin rite. Most parishes don’t own the gold plated spoons, most priests have been trained in giving communion , most of the faithful haven’t been briefed in how to receive communion by intinction.

Besides, the methods that the Latin rite has available are satisfactory already, further choices is just more likely to confuse the faithful.

 

[netmilsmom]

Kielbasi:

There really hasn’t been a protocol established for intinction in the Latin rite. Most parishes don’t own the gold plated spoons, most priests have been trained in giving communion , most of the faithful haven’t been briefed in how to receive communion by intinction.

Besides, the methods that the Latin rite has available are satisfactory already, further choices is just more likely to confuse the faithful.

We receive by intinction at my NO church.
No spoons, just small cups in the middle of a gold dish.
The Priest or Deacon takes the Body and dips it into the Blood.
By tongue only. Kneeling, I may add.

 

[Seatuck]

Um, sorry if a hijack, but: Why would you stand there with an empty cup?
I would think all that would be required would be to excuse yourself to the next communicant, and remove yourself to the altar, credence table, or where ever the vessels are purified, no?

Well It depends what station I am at. We have 2 or 4 stations at particular masses. We are not to awkwardly disrupt the procession of people.Two of the stations have two lines converging on one cup . Too little room to leave . I cover up the cup with my hand and purificator and apologise if necessary. We need to work out that particular kink.

It isn’t “right” to have people waiting on a line to recieve and then the cup person walks away. I’d personally rather not do cups at all.What if one of those people who gets turned away could only recieve from the cup but just happend to sit at the back of the church that day? Then they are waiting on line. Its rude, its disappointing, . Shouldn’t happen.I do know one woman who it happend to who now always sits in front. Of course then I feel guilty if we don’t do cups because of lack of EMOHC. I hope a person would ask the priest if they really want communion on a particular day.Because there is no way to tell if there will be cups until the mass is about to begin.

 

[Brendan]

Bernardous:

I have always thought that through trans-substanciation, the contents of the ciborium (the bread) becomes the body of Christ, and the contents of the chalice (the wine) becomes the blood of Christ.

If you hold that the contents of the ciborium and the chalice differ in anything but accident (such as the chalice holds only the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, not the Body, then that is exactly what the Ultraquist heresy is.

The Eucharist is the Full and Complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Each speciecs is the EXACT same thing, the only thing that seperates them are the Accidents, they are all the same Substance.

Christ is one Substance. The Eucharist becomes that one Substance, but with the Accidents of Bread and Wine. The Substance of the Bread and Wine change to the single Substance of Christ.

So by recieving one Substance, either the Host or from the Chalice, one recieves ALL of Christ, both his Body and his Blood.

A full and complete Eucharist.

As pointed out above it is a greater symbol when we recieve both species, especially when the two species are united, as in intinction. But it is just a symbol, the fullness of Grace comes with a single reception.

Am I misinformed that it is our obligation to take communion under both species…Please explain.

Greatly misinformed.