H
His_Servant_1
Guest
Why do some parishes offer the Eucharist in both forms but not others.
- Status
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
It is entirely optional, so some parishes, for various reasons, just don’t make use of the option.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
there are good reasons for not offering communion from the cup for the congregation. lack of space, lack of ministers–people commit but just don’t show up for their assignments. Another good one is that the norms state if it is offered, it must be offered to everyone, yet usually no matter how much wine is consecrated, it is gone before everyone has a chance to receive, which means the norm is constantly violated. Many places do this for special feasts but not every Sunday, or for first communicants only. The priest is the one who makes this decisions based on the needs of his parish.
L
love4mary
Guest
In regards to this question, and if I am “hijacking” this thread please moderators remove my post.
When Jesus instituted Holy Communion at the Last Supper, He did so in two separate actions. Jesus held up the bread and said this is “MY Body” and then after supper, held up a cup and said “Drink, This is My Blood”. If Jesus established Holy Communion under both forms, why does some parishes-dioceses-etc, not offer both? I know that Jesus is fully present under both forms, but this question has nagged at me a bit, maybe because I am a recent convert with much to learn yet.
When Jesus instituted Holy Communion at the Last Supper, He did so in two separate actions. Jesus held up the bread and said this is “MY Body” and then after supper, held up a cup and said “Drink, This is My Blood”. If Jesus established Holy Communion under both forms, why does some parishes-dioceses-etc, not offer both? I know that Jesus is fully present under both forms, but this question has nagged at me a bit, maybe because I am a recent convert with much to learn yet.
S
Sixtus
Guest
To receive Him under either is to receive Him under both 
O
otjm
Guest
However, to receive Him under both is a fuller sign. So sayeth the Church.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, I guess I could say practice makes perfect, as we seem to manage it alamost all of the time.
Or his own personal preference.
M
MusicMan
Guest
I have been the last one in line, and was offered a cup that was half-full.
I had read on EWTN that if you are the last person to receive from the cup, it is considered “polite” to finish the cup to minimize the amount of wine that the Communion Distributors would have to consume if there was Precious Blood left over, so I consumed the remaining Precious Blood.
The EMHC noted that I consumed all of the Precious Blood in the cup and whispered a hearty “Thank you.”
This only happened to me once, and I am curious if this was correct.
C
Catholig
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I think you were correct. In many parishes, if communion is offered under both species, the cup runs out before the people are finished receiving. But I have also been in parishes where many parishioners receive the host only, bypassing the chalice, leaving a large quantity, which MUST be consumed by the priest or EMHC’s. The thing is, consecrated hosts can be stored in the tabernacle. The precious blood cannot. It must be consumed.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
My high school insisted on having the Blood even though a quarter of us received both species.
None of the other EMs would consume the blood (Father had to leave right after Mass to teach a class and the Mass coordinator was a recovering alcoholic), so I was left with 2 full goblets of Christ’s blood. While I am embarrassed by the following, it is kinda funny in a sad way: I was drunk on Jesus.
None of the other EMs would consume the blood (Father had to leave right after Mass to teach a class and the Mass coordinator was a recovering alcoholic), so I was left with 2 full goblets of Christ’s blood. While I am embarrassed by the following, it is kinda funny in a sad way: I was drunk on Jesus.
A
Angels_Watchin
Guest
Not required. Not required. Not required. It did not occur for hundreds of years. We weren’t wrong then and we’re not wrong now. One species is completely sufficient.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Being a downtown parish, we have more than our fair share of recovering alcoholics, so most of the time, we receive under the form of bread only.
On special occasions, we do receive under both, and I agree with the person above that it is definitely a fuller sign, without being “more Jesus.” It’s the same Jesus, either way.
M
MusicMan
Guest
What otjm posts is accurate. The Church does say that receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign.
What you post is also accurate. It is not required that one receive under both kinds to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
I dare say that the Church has generated something of a paradox here.
C
Cari
Guest
As an EM who is also pregnant
rolleyes: ), I would also have offered a hearty “thank you!” There have been times when I’ve all but begged people to consume more of the Precious Blood. I sometimes have decidedly unholy images of frat boys at keggers after the parish has finished communion.As for the OP’s question, the priest is the only one who has to consume Eucharist under both species, precisely to reunite Christs’ Body with His Blood.
P
palmas85
Guest
I think that what has happened is that the Church issued a directive that while theologically sound, is somewhat difficult for the average layperson to grasp. While most priests and other religious can probably easily understand the differing concepts at work the average person probably cannot. To hear the words a fuller sign, could and does seem to indicate that those receiving under one species only are not receiving the full benefits.
I think they used a poor choice of words.
O
otjm
Guest
Did I say required? Did I use the word or even hint at it?
It is the Church itself that says that a) it is optional, and b) it is a fuller sign.
And as for it not occuring for hundreds of years, you are correct; but at least be honest and say that it did occur for hundreds of years before that, going right back to the time of the Apostles.
P
PKinsale
Guest
I receive under both species usually, and here the Sacred Blood is usually gone halfway through the distribution.
But what does it *really *mean when one says it is a “fuller sign”? Are there any extra graces conveyed?
But what does it *really *mean when one says it is a “fuller sign”? Are there any extra graces conveyed?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ to confer grace, so on its face it would seem a fuller sign is better. But when it comes to graces received, we know that a full host does not contain more of Christ (and thus more grace) than the smallest particle, so there are no more graces objectively received. Still, I think the case could be made (and this coming from someone who doesn’t receive from the cup and doesn’t at all like the way this distribution currently takes place) that communion under both species, as a fuller sign, enables the recipient to more fully appropriate or activate the graces received. One can, after all, receive sacramentally but not spiritually (and vice versa), so there is more at work than the simple objective reception of Christ.
M
MusicMan
Guest
It’s a simple marketing ploy aimed at getting people to receive both when both are offered.
- Status