Is the holy communion less without the Wine- Blood of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rowel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
I understand that Anglicans are the ones who self-intinct, so I would wonder if this visiting person is even a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m Lutheran and about 50-60% self-intinct, the rest of us sip from the chalice in my parish, a Lutheran church in communion w the regional Anglicans.
Maybe he or she was a not-so-well-cathechized convert but it’s still strange.

Tbh it’s kinda hard to receive in hand from the priest, and turn to the priest/deacon with the chalice and not do either of those.
 
Although Christ is totally and substantially presence in both species, I’d personally recommend to receive both when possible:

‘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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.’
 
casslean said:
Even if all they choose to do is politely debate with you
Click to expand...
Hmm… not sure where I see the ‘debate’ dynamic. “I’m sorry, you must consume the Eucharist before receiving from the chalice.” No debate – just a simple statement of policy. (Heck, you can even follow it up with, “please talk to Father after the Mass if you have any questions”…)
 
Last edited:
Really? I think it’s obvious where the possibility can arise.

“I’m sorry, you have to consume the Eucharist first.”

“I’m just going to dip it in.”

“I’m sorry, that’s not permitted.”

“Oh yes, I do it all the time at my church.”

By this point people are lining up and you’re starting to become a distraction…
 
Last edited:
[moved to Liturgy & Sacraments]
Rowel said:
Do we receive less if we only receive the Body of Christ in the holy communion ( without the Blood)
Click to expand...
No.

Furthermore, the notion that Communion is incomplete or lesser when in only one species is a heresy, and the reason that the Cup was withheld for several hundred years. In particular, it flushed them out, as they refused to receive under only one species.

And operating on church time, it was hundred o years before the Cup was retuned. :roll_eyes:

hawk
 
Last edited:
casslean said:
Really? I think it’s obvious where the possibility can arise.

“I’m sorry, you have to consume the Eucharist first.”

“I’m just going to dip it in.”

“I’m sorry, that’s not permitted.”

“Oh yes, I do it all the time at my church.”

By this point people are lining up and you’re starting to become a distraction…
Click to expand...
You’ve left out the last word: “I see. Perhaps, but that’s not our practice as Catholics. I would invite you to discuss it with Father after Mass. Now, would you like to receive from the chalice?”

End of story.
 
@Gorgias @casslean
Our previous Bishop instructed that if we saw someone walking up with a host in hand to cover the chalice with a purificator, tell them as previously stated, ‘Please consume the host before receiving from the chalice.’ At the first sign of any confused look or mouth movement of dispute, simply say, “That’s the bishop’s requirement here.”
 
In a Lutheran service, I see people dipping the host, I feel it is wrong. I am a Catholic that takes part in Lutheran services for ecumenical reasons but this practise leaves me cold,
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
Our previous Bishop instructed that if we saw someone walking up with a host in hand to cover the chalice with a purificator, tell them as previously stated, ‘Please consume the host before receiving from the chalice.’
Click to expand...
That’s our approach, too. It works. 👍
 
I have seen a priest run after someone taking the host away without consuming. So glad.
 
The Eucharist under either species is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. However, receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign and when available is my preference. I do wish it was more widely available.
 
If we had explicitly received that direction here, I would not hesitate to follow it. However, we have not. Therefore, I feel the correct thing to do is to report it to Father and let him instruct me as to how to handle it the next time it occurs.
 
I am old school. I was taught that the body and blood are included in the eucharist. I receive the eucharist by having the priest or deacon place it on my tongue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top