H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
I don’t see what the fuss or issue is. We never recieve under both species - ever.
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
Why make such a ridiculous suggestion? What part of what I wrote did (you) fail to understand that made you give such a suggestion in the first place?
I did not make any suggestion.
C
centurionguard
Guest
My apologies it seemed you were asking two different questions.
I did not make any suggestion.
No you (don’t eliminate the faithful receiving the consecrated Blood of Christ.)
You eliminate the Abuse.
Sorry for my misperception.
Peace
Chris
N
Newbie2
Guest
I’ve been receiving under both for nearly 40 years. It would be an issue for me.
T
thomas_jd
Guest
Sad to read this- as abuse is a problem due to the priests not following the proper guidelines. Precious Blood must be consumed , not thrown away.
Hosts are to be consecrated with the amount determined before mass as to comply with the guidelines.
Perhaps requireing priests to complete continuing education might help eliminate these abuses.
This is not to be mistaken as a attack on our priests but rather a suggestion as to improve
the liturgy that the laity are entitled to.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I have to agree. Ever since I made my First Communion, we have been offered both species. I know that it is not “required”, but I do like that it is a “fuller sign”.I’ve been receiving under both for nearly 40 years. It would be an issue for me.
While I understand that in some places, even in my own diocese, that there are questionable practices and maybe even abuses, but IMHO, what is needed is better catechesis, not “knee-jerk” reactions.
N
Newbie2
Guest
W
Will_S
Guest
Hip Hip Hooray for Bishop Olmstead!
C
cspb56
Guest
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” John 6:53-56
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:26-28
No more needs to be said.
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:26-28
No more needs to be said.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Communion under both kinds is actually the ordinary way to receive the Eucharist as instituted by Christ. Of course because of how it turned out in the Latin Rite, it is perceived by some as a “special occassion” thing.
C
Corki
Guest
+1
It’s not a reaction, let alone a knee-jerk reaction. It’s simply a choice. Offering Communion under both kinds is a choice. Receiving under both kinds, where offered, is a choice. The Bishop was good enough to explain his choice, which he didn’t have to do. Considering some of the reactions, he may have been better off to have just made the change quietly.
The problem comes in when some people think Communion is better under both kinds. The Church is pretty emphatic that “fuller sign” does not mean better. And that’s very important. Look at the reaction from people when some dioceses suspended the shared cup during flu season. People thought they were getting less, which they weren’t. Nor are people getting “less” Communion in countries where the cup is never offered to the congregation.
C
Corki
Guest
Do you have a source for that? As far as I know, the most recent norm was set out in Redemptionis Sacramentum
The entire section preceding paragraph 100 speaks of the distribution of Communion in terms of the host alone.
The liturgical books mentioned are quoted in the OPs link
At least in the Latin Church, the idea of “special occassion” reception of Communion under both kinds is not just a perception but has been a discipline of the Church.
W
Will_S
Guest
Oh I think we can add a bit…
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
CANON II.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.
CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.
…
CHAPTER I. That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : 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 (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
CHAPTER II. The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. And indeed it [Page 142] is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,–from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,–she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself.
CHAPTER III. That Christ whole and entire, and a true Sacrament are received under either species.
It moreover declares, that although, as hath been already said, our Redeemer, in that last supper, instituted, and delivered to the apostles, this sacrament in two species, yet is to be acknowledged, that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament are received under either species alone; and that therefore, as regards the fruit thereof, they, who receive one species alone, are not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation.
Council of Trent, 21st session
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Redemptionis Sacramentum is setting out what is the discipline today. There is no Vatican document for tradition. Christ instituted the Eucharist that way and it has been that way for over 1000 years before events forced the Latin Church to institute different norms for the sake of better catechesis for the people.
P
ProVobis
Guest
With the declining number of priests, I’d be more concerned if they were to limit how many Masses I could attend.I’ve been receiving under both for nearly 40 years. It would be an issue for me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It sucks that we live in a secular world where we have to conform to the demands of the secular world. Back then when entire kingdoms revolve around the Liturgical schedule, it wasn’t an issue even if there were only one Mass per day.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Not to derail this thread but there are several reasons why there’s a declining number of priest in the Church.
A Crisis of True Faith in the Catholic Church amongst all its members.
Perhaps too a chastisement from God not unlike Moses who led his people in the desert.
Such a Crisis in the Church today is resemblance of a desert where there is little (True) Faith if people have eyes to see…
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
You knew what I meant when talking about communion under the 2 species: The Eastern Rite.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I agree with this. It is one thing that bothers me. I understand the reasons for why over time only the body is given, in some congregations or forms, but Jesus did say to do both.
- Status