Dunk the host, the Chalice is gross!

[Brendan]

I
All this being said, the Byzantine and Maronite Catholics (among other Eastern Catholics; the BCs are the Catholic equivalent of the EO) also use intinction, as well as Roman Catholics in the Anglican Use parishes (at least mine does).

Intinction by the priest is the normative method of reception in my Roman Catholic parish as well.

 

[Brendan]

No matter what, there is no rule that says one must receive under BOTH species. So, if you are afraid of germs then don’t approach the Chalice for the Precious Blood.

Glenda

Or you could just receive the Host and thus receive the Precious Blood.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread. Each species contains the complete Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

They only differ in how they appear to our senses.

When one receives the Host, they receive the Blood of Christ, no less than someone who drinks of the chalice.

 

[Brendan]

“Take this all of you and drink from it.”

Drinking from the chalice better conforms to Jesus’ instructions…

Not entirely true

The command is fulfilled in the reception of a single species, as we receive the Living Christ. His Blood is not separated from Him. So when we receive the entirety of Christ, we receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. There is no other way to receive Christ.

We certainly do not feel the sensory experience of that consumption. For example, our eyes do not see a Risen Lord, nor do our hands feel human flesh, nor do our arms feel the weight of a full grown human. Those are sensory properties that are hidden from us, though the Reality exists. We do consume Christ, His Flesh (all of it) and His Blood (all of it).

That is the core of the Church’s teaching on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

What you are refering to is sensory effects of fluid, but that too is hidden, but the Reality is there. If you receive the species of Bread alone, you both eat AND drink.

The command of Christ is fulfilled no matter which species we partake of.

You are correct that here is a certain symbolism in the sensory experience of drinking, but Intinction also offers it’s own sensory symbolism. It more clearly indicates that we are receiving the Risen Christ, as the body and blood are united in a sensory experience that more closely reflects the underlying reality.

 

[johnmann]

It more clearly indicates that we are receiving the Risen Christ, as the body and blood are united in a sensory experience that more closely reflects the underlying reality.

The underlying reality is most perfectly expressed symbolically in the original form as Jesus presented it. I.e., eat then then drink.

That isn’t to say that other methods are inadequate but as long as we’re talking about symbols, there is a perfect form to imitate.

 

[tee_eff_em]

BTW

This is known as intinction and is an acceptable form of communion in the Roman Catholic Church. Each bishop will decide for the diocese whether this practice (or other forms of communion) will be allowed.

I believe this is not completely correct. The ordinary may be able to temporarily suspend the practice of intinction (as they seem to be able to do otherwise wrt the chalice during “flu season”), but a plain reading of *Redemptionis Sacramentum *seems to indicate it may not be generally prohibited.

[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.

tee