Since the body, soul, and divinity is truly present under both species, would it be okay for someone to skip the bread and only partake of the consecrated wine? After all, so many people skip the chalice, despite the fact that Jesus said, “Drink of it all of you.”
For people who have, e.g., celiac disease, this is a completely viable possibility. For other people it would also be okay in the sense that there is nothing “wrong” about it, but it would certainly be untraditional and quite unusual. (It bears pointing out that there is no requirement to offer the chalice to the congregation at all, and in many places it is very rare to do so.)Since the body, soul, and divinity is truly present under both species, would it be okay for someone to skip the bread and only partake of the consecrated wine? After all, so many people skip the chalice, despite the fact that Jesus said, “Drink of it all of you.”
To be accurate, Jesus is speaking to the Apostles here, not to the layity, which is the reason that the Priest must consume the host and the precious blood, but no one else is required to do so.After all, so many people skip the chalice, despite the fact that Jesus said, “Drink of it all of you.”
Yes.Since the body, soul, and divinity is truly present under both species, would it be okay for someone to skip the bread and only partake of the consecrated wine?
Since he was talking only to the Apostles and not the “laity” (what laity?), wouldn’t that mean that mean that none of us in the laity today have to receive at all? After all, He was “only” talking to the Apostles.If it is offerred, you can just take the precious blood, as either contain Jesu’s body, blood, soul and divinity.
To be accurate, Jesus is speaking to the Apostles here, not to the layity, which is the reason that the Priest must consume the host and the precious blood, but no one else is required to do so.
No, I’m sorry, but it does not. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper mean that only the clergy celebrating the Mass are requried to receive under both forms. It is optional (a discipline) for everyone else. As a discipline, certain rites can and do receive under both all the time, but it is optional for the latin rite.Since he was talking only to the Apostles and not the “laity” (what laity?), wouldn’t that mean that mean that none of us in the laity today have to receive at all? After all, He was “only” talking to the Apostles.
Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” Therefore at Mass, when the priest is standing in the person of Christ, and says, “Eat of it all of you, drink of it, all of you,” it applies to everyone.
The Eastern churches never had this issue, as the congregation ALWAYS receives under both species.
I don’t suppose you can back up your response with sources? E.g., theologian(s), a council, a historical analysis from a canon law commentary…No, I’m sorry, but it does not. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper mean that only the clergy celebrating the Mass are requried to receive under both forms. It is optional (a discipline) for everyone else. As a discipline, certain rites can and do receive under both all the time, but it is optional for the latin rite.
Isn’t this the third time I have posted this in response to you?I don’t suppose you can back up your response with sources? E.g., theologian(s), a council, a historical analysis from a canon law commentary…
And by the way, do you doubt for a second that the early church members didn’t partake of both the bread and the wine? In 1 Cor. 11:23-29, Paul, when addressing his community (not fellow priests), he always speaks of partaking the bread and wine in the same breath.
So to recap:
- I’m open to your opinions, but I need sources, because I’m skeptical of your conclusions without authorities;
- Do the doubt that the early Church (1st few centuries) partook of both?
Now THAT is a useful reply (except for the irritation I sense in your post—people really need to calm down on these boards). But no, you’ve never posted in reply to me regarding this particular question.Isn’t this the third time I have posted this in response to you?
Council of Trent, Session 21:
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND ON THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS
CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
CANON II.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.
CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.
Thanks for looking that up.Isn’t this the third time I have posted this in response to you?
Council of Trent, Session 21:
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND ON THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS
CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
CANON II.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.
CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.
No I don’t but that is not the question, is it? I think what is still causing you confusion is the requirement to receive under both species (which is for the clergy celebrating Mass) and the option to receive under both species, which is a discipline that has changed over the years.
- Do the doubt that the early Church (1st few centuries) partook of both?
Sure, no problem. I do so now and then for an unusual reason. In my parish, the function of EMHC is staffed by an inordinately high percentage of people who treat others poorly within the context of a church community. They look down on others. Dismiss them, complain about them behind their backs, play political games, etc. I can’t honestly say it happens to me, but I observe it on a regular basis and it’s disgusting.Since the body, soul, and divinity is truly present under both species, would it be okay for someone to skip the bread and only partake of the consecrated wine? After all, so many people skip the chalice, despite the fact that Jesus said, “Drink of it all of you.”
(Not sure why this was resurrected 4.5 years later, but I’ll bite)But still, that doesn’t mean that the Church *ought *to distribute only one species: drink of it, all of you, He said of the wine.
I think they ought to move to mandate the practice of intinction so all can receive the Precious Blood under the form of wine as well. The GIRM already allows for intinction. (see 245 of the GIRM)
Those who can’t for whatever reason could simply quickly inform the eucharistic minister, though I imagine it would rarely happen.
That’s simply not true. It would be up to the parish pastor or at absolute most, the local ordinary.(Not sure why this was resurrected 4.5 years later, but I’ll bite)
That’s fine as long as you realize that mandating intinction means only a priest can distribute the Eucharist. EMHCs cannot distribute by intinction and the current understanding in the Latin Church is that even deacons cannot intinct the host (I beleive in some eastern rites deacons and subdeacons can). Personally that doesn’t bother me, but I suspect you’d have many people up in arms about it.