Holy communion?

[japhy]

what would be wrong with me bypassing the host altogether and going straight to the chalice?

Nothing is wrong with it. Some people do it because their bodies cannot tolerate the Host, because the accidents (physical properties) of bread remain after the consecration, and one of those accidents is gluten, and some people cannot digest gluten.

There are some people who only receive from the Chalice, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

In theory I should be able to pass by the host & drink the “blood of Christ” and receive the same thing as some one who just ate the host.

Yup, in theory and in practice!

 

[Jason_1977]

Nothing is wrong with it. Some people do it because their bodies cannot tolerate the Host, because the accidents (physical properties) of bread remain after the consecration, and one of those accidents is gluten, and some people cannot digest gluten.

There are some people who only receive from the Chalice, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Yup, in theory and in practice!

OK, THANK YOU!!! awesome. OK…so. (pheew!!!) I can get fullness either way. SO…for me personally, it would be a PERONAL CHOICE to partake in both. so long as I choose one of them at a minimum, SO. In summary, if you consume the host, then (not being a requirement after consuming one or the other), then the only purpose for partaking in the chalice is I guess for a feeling of completeness? I guess? good measure? I think I get it. I think of all the things & particulars about the church’s teaching & practice, I find this particular one odd. Not the Eucharist, but the one or the other thing. I guess I’ve not been catholic long enough for that to sink in? (episcopalian for 30 years, catholic for 2, LOL)

 

[japhy]

In summary, if you consume the host, then (not being a requirement after consuming one or the other), then the only purpose for partaking in the chalice is I guess for a feeling of completeness? … good measure?

I used to receive under both species regularly, but I realize that, in the United States at least, the constant concession of the Chalice to the laity creates an environment where extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are constantly used. I am not a supporter of this overuse and misuse of an extraordinary ministry, and I have documented the “explosion” of the circumstances where the Chalice may be offered to the laity.

In the words of the Church (Eucharisticum Mysterium 32, from 1967):
Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception (without prejudice to the principles laid down by the Council of Trent, that under each element Christ whole and entire and the true sacrament are received), a fuller light shines on the sign of the eucharistic banquet. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom (see Mt 26:27-29).

I do not have a personal need to receive under both kinds in order to (better) recognize the sign of the Eucharist, nor that the New Covenant was ratified in Christ’s blood, nor that the Eucharist we partake of on earth is a foreshadowing of the eschatalogical marriage supper of the Lamb in Heaven, where the sacramental veil will be lifted, and we will see God face to face as He is.

As such, I now only receive under both kinds on particular occasions, such as the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord.

(P.S. If you have been to the Liturgy of the Passion on Good Friday, you will notice that it is not a Mass but a Communion service: the priest does not pray the Eucharistic Prayer, and (formerly consecrated and reserved) Holy Communion is distributed under the form of bread only.)

 

[puzzleannie]

our church is old, tiny and crowded, if you tried that in our church, stopping to bow as you pass by the ministers, about 10 people would soon be toppling to the floor

do whatever you are directed to do in your parish, and don’t sweat it, and don’t make your personal sensibility the rule for the whole Church

if your personal sensibility stems from a misaprehension about Church teaching: hat Jesus Christ is truly, fully, completely, sacramentally present–Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity–complete and entire under both the form of consecrated bread and of consecrated wine, and that reception of either is consumption of the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our risen glorified Lord, then please seek out competent catechesis and correct your misunderstanding before your next communion.

 

[k5thbeatle]

Thanks for the replies to my query. Unfortunately my post got integrated in with an unrelated albeit similar post on the surface about receiving the body vs. the blood of Christ.

All I wanted to know was whether the church has any official stance on bowing to the blood of Christ if not receiving and apparently the answer to that is no they do not have any official recommendation on this.

Thanks again all!

 

[fabricdragon]

in the one church locally that offers both specie…
people who pass by the Chalice walk around at a rapid clip… mostly due to the narrow spacing and the danger of tripping.
i know a few people who normally DO receive both, who have by passed the Chalice because of the build up of people behind them.

while it would certainly be respectful to bow if not receiving the Chalice, there is no specific rule on it that i have ever heard… and like many things practicality has to intrude.
mind you… in the church i go to that offers the Chalice… if you notice, most folks would still be crossing themselves from the Host when passing the Chalice… so that works out. (grin)

and i know a celiacs sufferer who goes to churches that offer both just so she CAN skip the host and receive the wine…
i heard from an online friend that in her home parish they have an unpublished rule that says Celiac sufferers come up to the side when the extraordinary ministers do, so they can receive the Chalice and not the Host without having to offer the cup to the general congregation…

 

[tee_eff_em]

SO, if this is true, (and I’m not trying to be argumentative) I’m a catholic myself, lol…but now that we’ve esablished the fact that both items, (body, blood, bread, wine) are sacred, & we get the fullness of either one, then what would be wrong with me bypassing the host altogether and going straight to the chalice? If I can receive just as much of Christ in one, and equally as much as the other, then if it’s ok to elect to pass by the chalice, then there should be no harm in passing the bread & going for the chalice. Both are equal in their sacred nature. One doesnt have more Christ than the other, …again, I’m not being one of “THOSE” people, but I just want to understand it. In theory I should be able to pass by the host & drink the “blood of Christ” and receive the same thing as some one who just ate the host.

While [user]japhy[/user] has rightly noted an exceptional case when one might partake of the species of wine alone, it is just that: *exceptional *-- In *ordinary *circumstances, I would not advise that anyone do so on a whim. The GIRM codifies the *ordinary *method of communicating:

1. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,
   …]
   Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.
   …]
2. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant,

after receiving the Body of Christ

, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says, Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

tee

 

[maryjk]

SO, if this is true, (and I’m not trying to be argumentative) I’m a catholic myself, lol…but now that we’ve esablished the fact that both items, (body, blood, bread, wine) are sacred, & we get the fullness of either one, then what would be wrong with me bypassing the host altogether and going straight to the chalice? If I can receive just as much of Christ in one, and equally as much as the other, then if it’s ok to elect to pass by the chalice, then there should be no harm in passing the bread & going for the chalice. Both are equal in their sacred nature. One doesnt have more Christ than the other, …again, I’m not being one of “THOSE” people, but I just want to understand it. In theory I should be able to pass by the host & drink the “blood of Christ” and receive the same thing as some one who just ate the host.

Three Sundays ago, I received the Host, no Chalice, I bowed, then simply walked by. Two Sundays ago, I received from the Chalice after bowing and walking past the Host. Last Sunday, I received the Host, then received from the Chalice.

Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But each of those days I received the Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ.

I am one of those that have Celiac. Three Sundays ago, the Chalice that was offered to me was the Presider’s Chalice and had the piece of Host in it, I can’t receive from that Chalice. Two Sunday’s ago, we had a visiting priest. He didn’t know about the low gluten host that I receive, so I simply received from the Chalice. Last week, the Pastor was back, and I could receive the low gluten Host and from the Chalice.

 

[benedictgal]

This is what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Lauda Sion, the traditional hymn we chant on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

This is the clearest and most succinct explanation that I can think of for the OP.

 

[Jason_1977]

for myself, i would stop and receive in both specie . UNLESS i had an illness i thought was transmissible…
you see, if i had a cold/potential flu/whatever i would be concerned about giving that to someone. so that is one reason I would abstain.

others do so because they cannot have any alcohol, either because of medication, or problems with it.
because they have weak immune systems and are concerned with catching illness
or because they usually go to a church where only the bread/body is presented to them, and they are uncertain of how to deal with anything else…

many churches do NOT serve the wine/blood to the congregation. (personally having grown up Episcopalian i prefer it in both forms) and i have seen many people who grew up in a “bread only” church not have any idea what to do with that second stop…

as long as the person isnt doing it for bad cause (disdaining the Blood of Christ) its fine.

See, you know where I’m coming from. I spoke to a sister @ pauline’s today & she said I might have a little bit of protestant in me, to the contrary, I didnt know any better when I was younger, it wasnt til I was 25 when I was asking questions & questioning my beliefs & figuring things out for myself, etc. here I am, 32, catholic & happier for it! I ALSO feel that the blood is important, & between you & me, I STILL BOW when the cross passes by me, (something I’m suprised catholicism doesnt really stress.) Kinda like saluting whenever a flag passes by, same holds true w. the cross or crucifix in procession. I stil bow my head. Catholicism may teach it, it may not, RCIA was kind of hodge podge, everything I know, I know because I’m a book worm & dumped a few hundred in books at the monastery & Pauline’s. RCIA kinda shows you how to go through the motions & makes sure you’re purified before confirmation, that is the long & the short of it. If I didnt do any homework before-hand, I’d be lost. I’ll tell you what though, after spending a week w. the monks on retreat, I am quick & saavy when it comes to the mass, I love it. I"ll tell you a few things that get to me (WAY OFF TOPIC) people leaving after the eucharist & before “the mass is ended, go in peace” People showing up late for mass & not genuflecting upon entering the pew, there is a lot of sloppiness, I guess I’d call it.some people dont cross their foreheads, moouths, & hearts upon announcing the reading of the gospel, I mean, I almost wish the priest would have a “you guys…” session & letting the congregation have it for being sloppy during mass, such as chewing gum during mass. You’re supposed to fast at least 1 hr. before mass. anyway, and people say catholicism is regimented. I’d argue to the contrary…lol

 

[dennis01]

…As far as acknowledging or reverencing the Precious Blood when not receiving, this part of the GIRM seems relevant source]:

1. …When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

It says to make a sign of reverence before receiving the Precious Blood, but doesn’t say to do so if you’re not receiving.

My understanding is that, after receiving the blessed host, we don’t bow to the tabernacle or make the sign of the cross because we have received Christ.

If we have received the blessed host, it would seem that we need not bow before the chalice containing Precious Blood as we pass by.

I’ve never bowed in the past as I pass by the Precious Blood, but this has me thinking it might be better to err on the side of reverence.

 

[Digitonomy]

If we have received the blessed host, it would seem that we need not bow before the chalice containing Precious Blood as we pass by.

The logic seems sound, since at that point we already have Christ within us. However, we are directed to give the same sign of reverence when receiving from the chalice, even though in most cases we have just received the host. This suggests to me that it’s more consistent with current instructions to give the bow when passing, despite having Christ within us at that time.

 

[cvdream]

My church does not give out the blood at all. I thought that was odd but now I see that it is not. I’ve never seen a church that didn’t offer the blood…we also take communion kneeling and receive the host on the tongue. It’s considered a scandal to receive it in the hands!