Receiving the Eucharist in Both Species?

[ProVobis]

Whether these reasons that explain the origin of Communion in one kind are reasons to continue this practice today…well, it’s not for me to pronounce upon, though if anyone were to step out from behind a bush and ask, I’ll give my personal opnion.

No one asked for my personal opinion but I’ll give it anyway. In the manner which it is received, communion of the cup is the same as communion in the hand, and that is, by self-communicating. Yes, it is allowed, but nevertheless, it is still self communicating. You consume it when and how you wish. Communion by intinction makes more sense in that the priest takes total responsibility of all the particles entering your mouth. Communion by intinction is rare in the Latin rite but I have seen it done.

 

[ProVobis]

1. Frequent Communion by the laity had become very much the exception, and NOT the norm.

Yes, in fact the Council of Trent encouraged spiritual communion as very few thought themselves worthy of actually receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Later, the Church required that all must receive at least once a year. Also they had had to fast from midnight which meant that in the later morning masses there were virtually no communicants. It wasn’t until the 1950’s when the fast was cut to 3 hours and more people communicated every week.

 

[Hesychios]

… Also they had had to fast from midnight which meant that in the later morning masses there were virtually no communicants.

Gosh!

You really think we have a cause and effect here? People couldn’t skip breakfast for the sake of Holy Communion, so reception was not as common? I find that rather incredible, in fact I doubt it (except in the case of people with a condition, such as pregnancy or diabetes).

What qualifies as a later morning Mass, as related to this idea?

 

[ProVobis]

Gosh!

You really think we have a cause and effect here? People couldn’t skip breakfast for the sake of Holy Communion, so reception was not as common? I find that rather incredible, in fact I doubt it (except in the case of people with a condition, such as pregnancy or diabetes).

What qualifies as a later morning Mass, as related to this idea?

I don’t have the stats on this. Perhaps there weren’t that many later morning Masses (say, 11am or noon) back in 1570 AD. But people also took mortal sins a little more seriously (or just had more scrupulous consciences) before Vatican II and I suppose before Trent as well so that without confession they didn’t receive for that reason as well.

 

[peary1]

I hope this subject has not already been discussed. I tried to find something on it and was not successful. In any case, I would like to offer the following comments.

1- I know the earlier church offered both species at communion. I am not sure when this practice was discontinued but when I became Catholic in 1959, only the Eucharist in the form of bread was acceptable and this is the only form I have ever received. It is illogical that the central focus of our faith, The Holy Eucharist, is being received in two different ways and causing confusion for some. I think we’ve all been taught or should have been taught, that the Eucharist in the form of bread really contains both the body and the blood of Christ. Therefore to receive both bread and wine is redundant.

2- I am not sure if the Vatican has officially suggested this change. If someone has information on the subject, I would appreciate being advised. I have the feeling that regardless of who is leading this change in liturgy, the purpose is to allow non-catholics to feel more comfortable if they are considering conversion to our faith. But the difficulty I am having with this practice is that some people now receive in both forms and others receive in only one form (usually bread). Then those who usually receive in both forms,sometimes receive in only one form, (usually bread). Do these people feel they are receiving a more complete Eucharist when in both forms? If these same people attend a mass where only the form of bread is offered, do they now feel their communion is inadequate?

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
Yours in Christ,

It is and *never has been necessary *to receive Communion under both species (bread AND wine). Vatican II suggested that it be offered to the faithful as a more theologically complete understanding of the Mystery. However, the Eucharist (whether just the Bread *or *the Wine) contains the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ Himself, so it is really not necessary to receive both.

Now, what the Eastern churches do is have one receive both. It is called tincture, and the priest dips the bread into the wine and the communicant receives in the mouth via a special spoon. This has been an eastern custom for thousands of years, and I think even predates the way the Latin church distributes Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, what the Eastern churches do is have one receive both. It is called tincture, and the priest dips the bread into the wine and the communicant receives in the mouth via a special spoon. This has been an eastern custom for thousands of years, and I think even predates the way the Latin church distributes Communion.

That seems to be a variation of the priest immersing the Precious Body in with the Precious Blood before placing on the tongue of the communicant. (He uses a special “ciborium” for this, not sure what you call it.) I haven’t seen the one with the spoon in the Latin Rite. Either way, I’m not sure if special permission is required, though. It definitely makes more sense from a practical point of view if we were to receive both the consecrated host and consecrated wine.

 

[billycatholic]

Well, it seems this topic was worth bringing up. Many readers have different reactions and some I think took the topic outside of the real question which is:
If receiving in both kinds is healthy for our soul why hasn’t the church simply made it a necessity?
By the way, most Catholics should know it is not proper to receive the eucharist more than once in a 24 hour period. If the wine and the host are spirtually equal then isn’t this a violation of the 24 hour rule?

By the way, one of the responders thought for soome reason, that prior to Vtican II, people “took mortal sins more seriously than they do today”. I don’t think this is the case at all. The problem is, many people today simply do not accept the dogma/doctrine of “mortal sin” at least as it applies to some of the serious sins ie; abortion, divorce/adultery, fornication. A most serious problem which must be related to lack of emphasis in Catholic education either by the catechists or by parents or both.

 

[Brendan]

Given that Communion under both species was part of the Latin rite originally, there is no “mixing rites and practicies”. It is a legitimate return to prior practices.

My parents were raised in Ireland. They both recieved their First Holy Communion in both species, in the form of an Intincted Host.

This was back in the late 30’s early 40’s.

They also recieved the Eucharist that way on special occasions of Eucharistic significance, ( Feast of Corpus Christi, Holy Thursday, Easter)

So it was clearly not unknown in Pre-Vatican II days, it just was not used all that often, especially here in the States.

This came about when my parents came to our parish for my son’s First Holy Communion, In our parish, the Eucharist is recieved kneeling at the rail, Intincted, from ordained Ministers.

My parents were happily reminising that that was exactly how they recieved THEIR FHC’s

So no, it’s not a mixing of rites.

 

[Brendan]

(He uses a special “ciborium” for this, not sure what you call it.) I haven’t seen the one with the spoon in the Latin Rite. Either way, I’m not sure if special permission is required,

It is a combination ciborium and chalice,the small chalice fits into a hole in the ‘doughnut’ shaped ciborium. The two seperate for purificaiton. This saves the priest from having to hold two sacred vessels at the same time.

Attached is a picture of my daughter’s First Holy Communion, and you can see the combination set.

No special permission is necessary.

Cardinal Arinze even recommended Intinction as the preffered means, noting that it is an option “always and everywhere”

If Communion in both kinds is offered in these circumstances, it may be administered by intinction, as Cardinal Arinze’s letter noted:

Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

adoremus.org/1106ExtraordinaryMinisters.html

The communicant cannot, of course, do the intinction themselves, that must be done my the minister.

FYI, the altar boy in the picture is my son, the same one I reffered to in the previous post

 

[peary1]

Well, it seems this topic was worth bringing up. Many readers have different reactions and some I think took the topic outside of the real question which is:
If receiving in both kinds is healthy for our soul why hasn’t the church simply made it a necessity?

The tradition goes back to the early missionary activity of the Church. The Host can be carried by the priest to far away places without threat of becoming moldy because it is made from unleavened bread and has a longer lifespan. Wine, however, goes rancid for a number of reasons (usually temperature) and does not last long, so carting it around with you for weeks makes no sense. One has the option of receiving just the Eucharistic bread or under both species. Theologically, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RECEIVE UNDER BOTH BECAUSE THE HOST OR WINE CONTAINS THE FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST., each separate in its own right.

By the way, most Catholics should know it is not proper to receive the eucharist more than once in a 24 hour period. If the wine and the host are spirtually equal then isn’t this a violation of the 24 hour rule?

You really don’t “get it”, do you?

By the way, one of the responders thought for soome reason, that prior to Vtican II, people “took mortal sins more seriously than they do today”. I don’t think this is the case at all. The problem is, many people today simply do not accept the dogma/doctrine of “mortal sin” at least as it applies to some of the serious sins ie; abortion, divorce/adultery, fornication. A most serious problem which must be related to lack of emphasis in Catholic education either by the catechists or by parents or both.

It’s called a loss of conscience, to be exact.

 

[Joseph651]

Could anyone tell me where to find information on how the Eucharist was practiced with the first Christians and at what year that it began? Both body and blood were received as Christ dictated to his followers, not to mention the washing of feet?

 

[peary1]

Could anyone tell me where to find information on how the Eucharist was practiced with the first Christians and at what year that it began? Both body and blood were received as Christ dictated to his followers, not to mention the washing of feet?

At the Last Supper. But its origins go back to the Exodus and Seder meal.

The washing of the feet occurred also at the Last Supper. Many if not most Catholic churches honor that tradition by doing the same on Holy Thursday.

 

[bpbasilphx]

No one asked for my personal opinion but I’ll give it anyway. In the manner which it is received, communion of the cup is the same as communion in the hand, and that is, by self-communicating. Yes, it is allowed, but nevertheless, it is still self communicating. You consume it when and how you wish. Communion by intinction makes more sense in that the priest takes total responsibility of all the particles entering your mouth. Communion by intinction is rare in the Latin rite but I have seen it done.

In my brief life as an Episcopalian, the Priest or Deacon held the chalice, and it was gently guided by the communicant to the lips.

While I have seen in Latin Churches the ministers of the Chalice handing the Chalice to the communicant, I don’t see how this is “self-communicating” any more than when the minister places the Host in the communicant’s hand.

Calling this practice “self-communicating” will not make it so.

IF the communicant went to the altar or other table and TOOK FOR HIMSELF the Gifts, THIS would be self-communicating.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Yes, in fact the Council of Trent encouraged spiritual communion as very few thought themselves worthy of actually receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Later, the Church required that all must receive at least once a year. …

Actually this was required by one of the earlier Western councils–one of the Lateran councils, I think, though I may be mistaken.

 

[bpbasilphx]

***1.***Well, it seems this topic was worth bringing up. Many readers have different reactions and some I think took the topic outside of the real question which is:
If receiving in both kinds is healthy for our soul why hasn’t the church simply made it a necessity?
2By the way, most Catholics should know it is not proper to receive the eucharist more than once in a 24 hour period. If the wine and the host are spirtually equal then isn’t this a violation of the 24 hour rule?

…

1. It IS in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Latin Church is NOT the entirety of the Church.
2. No, it’s not. Aside from the fact that present canonical discipline of the Latin Church permits reception twice in a 24 hour period (and 3 times if the third is the Viaticum), consider the following:

Does the Priest receive Communion twice when he communicates in Both Kinds? In fact, since the Priest usually breaks the big Host and receives both halves, does this mean he receives communion THREE times?

Does the Priest or Deacon receive Communion yet another time when the Ablutions are taken?

When excess hosts are consecrated and are consumed rather than being reserved, does the minister who consumes them receive a separate communion for each host consumed?

When, as sometimes happens, a Melkite Priest gives two pieces of the Precious Body to the communicant, is he receiving Communion twice?

The obvious answer to all of these is, “No.”

You might compare communion in both kinds to Baptism.

Just as there are THREE immersions (or pourings) to confer ONE sacrament of Baptism, so receiving under BOTH kinds makes one sacrament of Communion.

(For that matter, in the Byzantine tradition, Confirmation is administered by multiple anointings. Does that mean the Confirmand is receiving Confirmation more than once?)

 

[ProVobis]

F the communicant went to the altar or other table and TOOK FOR HIMSELF the Gifts, THIS would be self-communicating.

Yes, it would. But the minister only expedites the process when he or she places Him on your hands. He only saved you the walk in your example. But you still self-communicate. Yes, you’re allowed to, but it’s still self-communicating. You decide exactly if and when you wish to put it in your mouth, right? Certainly you can see the difference when you attend a wedding and see the bride and groom feed each other the cake rather than self-feed themselves, can’t you? They make a big deal out of it, in fact. It holds a special meaning for them.

I have presented my thoughts on this matter on a thread in the Liturgy and Sacrament forum. I’ll go and round up some websites if you or anyone else wish/wishes to further this discussion. I’ll post them here or on that other thread.

 

[otjm]

No one asked for my personal opinion but I’ll give it anyway. In the manner which it is received, communion of the cup is the same as communion in the hand, and that is, by self-communicating. Yes, it is allowed, but nevertheless, it is still self communicating. You consume it when and how you wish. Communion by intinction makes more sense in that the priest takes total responsibility of all the particles entering your mouth. Communion by intinction is rare in the Latin rite but I have seen it done.

Given the fact that Church has defined what self-communicating is, and it is clear from the Church definition that what you describe as self=communicating isnot such, you might want to rethink that.

Self-communicationg by the Church is fobidden - and that means that we are not to reach into the ciborium and remove a Host, nor are we to go up to the altar (or any other object upon which the Cup rests), and pick it up and consume from it. these are the two things the Church defines as self communicating; both are forbidden, and it would be obstinancy to maintain that receiving the Host from whomever is distributing, or receiving the cup from whomever is distributing it is an act of self communication. It most definitely is not.

One is certainly most welcome to prefer receiving by intinction ( I have received it as such in both the Maronite rite and the Byzantine rite, and find the method in the Maronite rite much easier practically) as opposed to receiving both speices independently. But receiving them independently is not self-communication.