Communion Under Species of Bread and Wine "More Complete?"

[TrueLight]

I know that it is fine to receive communion under the bread alone because Christ is present in both species.

The CCC (1390) says:

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."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

– What are these pastoral reasons? Does that mean it is more practical or maybe more financially feasible?

– Does “the sign of communion is more complete” mean that even though the usual form is to give communion under the bread alone, parishes should strive to give communion under both if possible?

Thanks.

 

[MarkThompson]

I know that it is fine to receive communion under the bread alone because Christ is present in both species.

The CCC (1390) says:

– What are these pastoral reasons? Does that mean it is more practical or maybe more financially feasible?

– Does “the sign of communion is more complete” mean that even though the usual form is to give communion under the bread alone, parishes should strive to give communion under both if possible?

Thanks.

The main pastoral reason for limiting communion to the form of bread alone was an important one about 500 years ago: to help stamp out the incorrect view that each species contained only the Body or the Blood, and thus that one had to communicate under both forms. One can also imagine a wide variety of other “pastoral” factors that were probably at play: wine is expensive; liquids are easy to spill; distributing under both forms would probably have required having twice as many ministers present; it is awkward to drink from a cup while kneeling; etc.

As to your second question, the answer is yes, though it is not strictly required. The GIRM states:
85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.
And Redemptionis Sacramentum explains:
100. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

 

[TrueLight]

Thanks Mark.

I actually would prefer to receive it under both species. I think.

I saw a Catholic Answers apologist answer that it is possible to spread germs through giving the blood, although for some reason, I always thought the risk was low because of the alcohol.

How about intinction? Is that allowed?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It says “the sign is more complete”. Remember with Sacraments its always an outward sign of an inward reality. What our senses perceive in thy physical world, the water, oil, bread, wine, hear and say the vows, etc., it the outward signs. Specific matter has been chosen because of appropriate symbolism. That is why they say the sign is more complete.

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks Mark.

I actually would prefer to receive it under both species. I think.

I saw a Catholic Answers apologist answer that it is possible to spread germs through giving the blood, although for some reason, I always thought the risk was low because of the alcohol.

How about intinction? Is that allowed?

Intinction is allowed if the priest or deacon practice it. Self - intinction is never allowed.

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks Mark.

I actually would prefer to receive it under both species. I think.

I saw a CAF Apologist answer that it is possible to spread germs through giving the blood, although for some reason, I always thought the risk was low because of the alcohol.

I have read differing account of to what extent the alcohol content in wine allows it to serve as an effective antiseptic. Also, the liquid would probably not come in contact with the exterior rim of the chalice where your lower lip would touch it. Nevertheless, I have never heard of anyone becoming sick from drinking from the chalice, and personally I am firmly against trying to live an “antibacterial lifestyle.”

How about intinction? Is that allowed?

Yes, but it is very uncommon; I for one have never seen it done. Self-intinction, where the communicant dips the host himself, is never allowed. The main issues are: (1) intinction must be done by the priest, so Communion will be slow as other ministers cannot be used, and (2) it can only be received on the tongue, so this will never be proposed in a parish where people are accustomed to receiving in the hand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Intinction is allowed if the priest or deacon practice it. Self - intinction is never allowed.

Only a priest or bishop may intinct hosts. A deacon isn’t permitted.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

In our parish Both Species are available at Communion at every mass. I receive the Host (on the tongue), and never the Blood. It makes no sense to me to receive the Blood because of exactly what you point out, Both Species are present in EACH.

I have no issue about receiving the Blood, just seems silly to go stand in another line to receive what I just received, that is time I could be back in my pew praying.

Interestingly, almost all of the parishioners do receive both Host and Chalice. About 25% of these people also receive Communion on the tongue, yet clearly have no hesitation taking the Chalice into their hands. I will say in this parish, both EMHCs and parishioners are highly reverent in their approach to Communion.

 

[TrueLight]

In our parish Both Species are available at Communion at every mass. I receive the Host (on the tongue), and never the Blood. It makes no sense to me to receive the Blood because of exactly what you point out, Both Species are present in EACH.

I have no issue about receiving the Blood, just seems silly to go stand in another line to receive what I just received, that is time I could be back in my pew praying.

Interestingly, almost all of the parishioners do receive both Host and Chalice. About 25% of these people also receive Communion on the tongue, yet clearly have no hesitation taking the Chalice into their hands. I will say in this parish, both EMHCs and parishioners are highly reverent in their approach to Communion.

I didn’t realize the chalice was given to the parishioner? What if they drop it?

 

[MarkThompson]

I didn’t realize the chalice was given to the parishioner? What if they drop it?

I have never seen or, actually, even heard of a communicant dropping the chalice. And if they did then the answer would be, the same outcome as if the priest dropped the chalice.

 

[Vico]

Many forms are available for the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist:

Body by self by hand
Body by minister by tongue,
Blood by spoon by minister or
Blood by Chalice by self,
Body and Blood together by spoon by minister,
Body and Blood together by intinction from minister.

Blood only for infants by spoon is done in some eastern Churches.

CDC on disease and communion:

home.catholicweb.com/DOSP_OFW/files/Communion_and_the_Flu_handout.PDF

 

[choliks]

I have read differing account of to what extent the alcohol content in wine allows it to serve as an effective antiseptic. Also, the liquid would probably not come in contact with the exterior rim of the chalice where your lower lip would touch it. Nevertheless, I have never heard of anyone becoming sick from drinking from the chalice, and personally I am firmly against trying to live an “antibacterial lifestyle.”

When I attend Mass that has communion with both species, the Chalice won’t be handed out completely. The minister would always be there to assist the communicant. He would always keep a hand on the chalice as the communicant holds it with both hands and drinks. This also prevents the chalice from being dropped. Moreover, the minister would always have a purificator in hand to wipe the rim for the next communicant.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When I attend Mass that has communion with both species, the Chalice won’t be handed out completely. The minister would always be there to assist the communicant. He would always keep a hand on the chalice as the communicant holds it with both hands and drinks. This also prevents the chalice from being dropped. Moreover, the minister would always have a purificator in hand to wipe the rim for the next communicant.

I don’t see how this can be done safely. I would be concerned that the Chalice may be knocked out of my hand by the extra hand on it.

When I am serving as an EMHC and I have the Chalice, I do not let go of it until I feel that the communicant has taken it into his grasp. Continuing to hold on to it while the communicant has it would concern me as he does not know what I am going to do and would just seem awkward. After all, the communicants are different sizes and strengths, also not many Chalices I have seen that can accommodate three hands.

 

[TimothyH]

In our parish Both Species are available at Communion at every mass. I receive the Host (on the tongue), and never the Blood. It makes no sense to me to receive the Blood because of exactly what you point out, Both Species are present in EACH.

I have no issue about receiving the Blood, just seems silly to go stand in another line to receive what I just received, that is time I could be back in my pew praying.

Interestingly, almost all of the parishioners do receive both Host and Chalice. About 25% of these people also receive Communion on the tongue, yet clearly have no hesitation taking the Chalice into their hands. I will say in this parish, both EMHCs and parishioners are highly reverent in their approach to Communion.

Not silly at all. As a practical matter, it helps prevent Jesus from sticking to the roof of one’s mouth or possibly to the teeth where a portion may be lost later through normal activity like talking or coughing. I usually get a small drink of water after Mass for just that reason and believe that some of the eastern Churches use holy water right after reception for that reason as well.

Our parish is so big that it is hardly practicable to destribute under both species. We have eight people distributing at 9:00 AM and noon Mass on Sunday. We tried to do it under both species a few years ago but with hundreds of people present at each Mass, it was confusing and people were bumping into each other as some recieved under both species and other’s recieved under one. Families got seperated as some members headed back to the pew after receiving only one species while others lingered to receive under both. This caused commotion as kids tried to reunite with both parents in the pews with strangers inbetween. it was a mess.

Our Senior Pastor made a pastoral decision not to distribute under both species in order to maintain proper decorum and reverence. Some people didn’t like it but I agree with him. Under pressure from some members of the parish, Father was willing to try it again but said that he would only do it if enough people signed up to be EMHC so that reverence could be maintained- This required eight to ten people for each Mass but guess what? The same people who wanted to receive under both species didn’t sign up to become EMHC’s and Father rightly said no way. Again, I agree with him.

-Tim-

 

[lena28]

I have also heard of people only receiving under the species of wine, due to gluten intolerance or other allergies. Not sure if this is a usual pastoral reason, but thought I would add it to the discussion

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have never seen or, actually, even heard of a communicant dropping the chalice. And if they did then the answer would be, the same outcome as if the priest dropped the chalice.

Actually just this Sunday one of the EMHCs dropped the chalice which the priest managed to catch although some of the Blood was spilled. The priest immediately handed the chalice to an altar server, went to the sacristy, came back with water and towels, and washed and blotted the floor and a bit of the shirt of the EMHC where I imagine some of the Blood had splashed. . .all done very quickly, quietly, and reverently. Only when every trace was removed did the priest continue on with giving the chalice to the other EMHCs and then to the congregation.