Communion under one kind

[6glargento]

why did the catholic church for so long only offer communion under one kind when jesus said “drink my blood”. I know the response is usually “We don’t want to risk it being desicrated by being spilled” but it doesn’t sound like jesus was too concerned about this at the last supper. When i read the early church fathers, it sounds like they practiced communion under both kinds and one Eastern Orthodox person said to me “If your church is the true church, why did your church for so long only offer communion under one kind, while we have always offered it under both kinds in accordance to tradition?” When trying to explain the real presance to a protestant I sometimes get slapped with “I find it interesting that catholics make a big deal over the lords supper and then turn around and celelbrate it improperly by only offering the bread.” How do we respond to thoes who try to use the practice of communion under one kind to attack the catholic churches credibility and consistancy.

 

[Rykell]

When trying to explain the real presance to a protestant I sometimes get slapped with “I find it interesting that catholics make a big deal over the lords supper and then turn around and celelbrate it improperly by only offering the bread.”

The scriptures themselves may be of help in offering an explanation.

catholic-forum.com/saints/trent21.htm

CHAPTER I: LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness, and following the judgment and custom of the Church, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation.

For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors.

For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>, also said: ; and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,> also said: ; and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>, said, nevertheless:

It may be a little difficult to explain to a Protestant, for they do not generally accept the teaching authority of the Church to interpret the Holy Scriptures and Tradition. (Note the very sublime opening sentence of this document…“This holy council, etc.”)

The new GIRM has set forth instruction encouraging the reception under both forms.

1. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.

1. In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth safeguarding “things old,” that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth “things new.”

 

[JimG]

One reason for communion under one kind is practicality and logistics. There are seven weekend Masses at our parish and possibly 9 to 10 thousand total people attending. Probably the majority receive communion. Receiving under both species is more time consuming, plus that’s a lot of wine to get every weekend. I know such reasons may not be on the top of the list spiritually, but believe me, you don’t want to have one crowd of persons leaving Mass converging with another crowed of people coming in for the next Mass.

 

[Wendy-Kay]

One reason for communion under one kind is practicality and logistics. There are seven weekend Masses at our parish and possibly 9 to 10 thousand total people attending. Probably the majority receive communion. Receiving under both species is more time consuming, plus that’s a lot of wine to get every weekend. I know such reasons may not be on the top of the list spiritually, but believe me, you don’t want to have one crowd of persons leaving Mass converging with another crowed of people coming in for the next Mass.

True! What a mess to those that want to get some quiet prep time before Mass!
This is amongst many reasons my parish only offers under one species. We don’t want to resort to the use of EMHCs when the need is not actually ‘extraordinary’, we do not have alter boys to spare anyways, our masses run close together, and one wouldn’t want the masses to not start at the time that is literally set in stone because the priest has extra vessels to purify, nor does one want to be disrespectful and have the Lord in the sacristy waiting to be consumed and thus looking like common dishes. It is much more prudent in these scenerios to have it under one species. Most parishes that offer under one species offer The Blood on Easter and Christmas.