Offer Communion Under Both Kinds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kliska
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
And at least in my experience, communion moves much faster when it’s only one form and it’s distributed on the tongue. Maybe some prefer that.
Click to expand...
Is that a good thing? I’m not sure that it is. Some will bring up temporal concerns like parking to advocate for faster communion/Masses but I’m just not convinced that’s a good thing.
 
pianistclare said:
Nobody said that.
Generally, these kinds of threads are designed to start a fight. It’s doing a pretty good job thus far.
I’m out.
The Laity can discuss these things, but we should not question the judgement of the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s the case at all. Then again, I’m new here. Your comment though implied that the laity are not to discuss such things and that’s simply wrong.

You bet laity can question the judgement of the Church if done so in an honest, informed, constructive and most importantly genuinely caring manner. The belief that laity is not to question the Church has aided some pretty dark periods in Her history.
 
JChapel said:
Out of curiosity, why would someone be glad not to have access to the precious blood, or wish they didn’t?
Click to expand...
I voted before I read the responses so my vote is not in any way just to address your question.

Here is my reason. I recieve the precious blood about half the time. Usually if I’m sitting close. Many times they run out. Or if I have a cold. Or if I’m more than like 30 people behind the cup, or if the person ahead of me has a cough that sounds like a donkey… Etc.
and also because without it there would be no need for emhcs. Not so much that I “hate” the use but rather because almost always there is an issue. One of my daughters is small and even though she is obviously chewing the host, some emhcs will always try to bless her (another of my peeves). Or even go so far as to try to tell her she can’t. This is not a one time issue. It happens a lot and it’s incredibly hard for me to stay in a holy state when thoughts of grabbing the emhc and setting them strait in volume ten is crossing my mind!🙂

Then comes flu season with the annual debate on suspension of the cup calls for diocese wide communion wars. To me I just wish it were not offered at all.
 
Kliska said:
I made this poll because I was curious, and I read threads on these boards about receiving both kinds and was interested in the wide spread of opinions, some of which were that some preferred not to have both offered. From what I gathered some were nervous about how it was handled (afraid it would spill), and some for the “original” reason of a danger of heresy (that you MUST receive both), etc…
Click to expand...
You are right. Some mass/parishes offer both, some don’t. In some countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, and Australia as well, there’s no choice, only the host is given.

Some people like to receive both. I think it is because they love the Eucharist so much that they really want to consume the fullness of the species available. Some people do not have any preference while others feel it is too much to receive the Blood especially if they are not brought up in that culture.

The Eucharist, being true Body and true Blood of Jesus, it is about reeverence and can be overwhelming to some. Thus people react to it in different ways. Both are not wrong.
 
JChapel said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I’d prefer they didn’t offer the Precious Blood for the same reasons they didn’t do it for several centuries, and I don’t see the point of receiving the Precious Blood as a layman.
 
pianistclare said:
I would think that since the Apostles received under both kinds…that would be considered “traditional”.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that was the way communion was received by the laity in both the east and the west for the first 1200 or so years.
 
Surely receiving under the species of bread is still the body and blood of Christ, likewise the chalice is still the body and blood of Christ. So having both is just like lining up again, nothing bad. The only negative thing it could do is lead to confusion that the chalice is only the blood etc.

At the end of the day it’s the same thing and same God.
 
Thank you all for your answers thus far, I hope it’s obvious I’m not trying to start a fight or question a teaching, I’m truly curious about it (as most probably know protestants usually offer both bread and juice/wine at each communion service, so this is an aspect that is different in some respects). I understand the “why” I was just curious as how that looks now in the Catholic Church in modern context.

Does anyone here know; was I accurate about Eastern Catholic Churches? Is it usually under both kinds?
 
For Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition, Communion is administered under both species.
 
I haven’t been to an OF mass in quite some time, but I still remember a few years ago, seeing the priest giving out the Eucharist, while female Eucharistic ministers gave out the Precious Blood. It was common to see 10 people in a row walk past them before someone stopped and took a sip.
 
Seamus_L said:
I haven’t been to an OF mass in quite some time, but I still remember a few years ago, seeing the priest giving out the Eucharist, while female Eucharistic ministers gave out the Precious Blood. It was common to see 10 people in a row walk past them before someone stopped and took a sip.
Click to expand...
In our parish the Precious Blood is offered at all Sunday and Holy Days Masses. Since we only have 1 priest and no deacons that means 1 EMHC at the Saturday evening and Holy Day Masses and 2 at the Sunday morning Mass. I estimate that only about 25-30% of communicants receive under both species.
 
Kliska said:
Thank you all for your answers thus far, I hope it’s obvious I’m not trying to start a fight or question a teaching, I’m truly curious about it (as most probably know protestants usually offer both bread and juice/wine at each communion service, so this is an aspect that is different in some respects). I understand the “why” I was just curious as how that looks now in the Catholic Church in modern context.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. As this is a matter of belief and preference, people can be very passionate about it. Fight can be easily started if they are pitted against each other. So far it is handled maturely.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be quite similar with Protestant high churches but very much different from other Protestant denominations that regards communion as symbolism.
 
Speaking for myself, it is hard for me to get past Christ’s words “Drink this, all of you…”
 
I received the Blood once. Wow, pretty strong stuff if you’re not used to it.
 
Kliska said:
Thank you all for your answers thus far, I hope it’s obvious I’m not trying to start a fight or question a teaching, I’m truly curious about it (as most probably know protestants usually offer both bread and juice/wine at each communion service, so this is an aspect that is different in some respects). I understand the “why” I was just curious as how that looks now in the Catholic Church in modern context.

Does anyone here know; was I accurate about Eastern Catholic Churches? Is it usually under both kinds?
Click to expand...
Usually, yes. In the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church, both kinds are commingled in the form of cubes of bread in wine, distributed with a spoon.
 
Yes, always, without exception. In fact (other than the Tridentine of course) I don’t know of any parish in the area where the Precious Blood is not routinely offered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top