Receiving the Eucharist in Both Species?

[billycatholic]

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,

 

[ProVobis]

You receive the COMPLETE Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ with either species.

Is it redundant? Good question. I don’t know if you’ve had electrical or logic experience but an OR circuit means that if one switch or the other or both are turned on, then the output is positive. It isn’t any stronger if both switches are turned on.

Now the priest’s communion to validate the Mass must include consuming both species. Your communion is optional.

 

[PJM]

=billycatholic;6028189]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,

Dear Brother in Christ,

There are three Vatican II Documents that relate to your topic.

**Memoriale Domini: Where the Fathers actually VOTED DOWN the practice of both Communion in the hand, and Communion under both species, BY VERY SIGNIFIANT margins.

And Sacramentali Communione says the following in #3. "THIS FACULTY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ON OCASSION WHERE THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF COMMUNICATES.

Also Eucharisticum Mysterium in #32 points out that tehre are ONLY specified times and circumstances when it may be applied.**

Hope this helps you? Your second point hit the “bulleye”

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Trishie]

You’ll find that Celiacs like me are very grateful to be able to receive the chalice. When my parish priest offers me the chalice, he says, “Body and Blood of Christ”. For Celiacs, wheat is essentially poison. Low gluten hosts are now available but it isn’t always possible, and for some, any level of gluten is harmful. Wheat and wheat products cause autoimmune reaction with further consequences.
This is a practical problem not a theological one, except for someone sitting in the congregation with tears in their eyes in being unable to receive the Lord.

God bless you!

 

[bpbasilphx]

\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.\

**The Eastern Catholic Churches, especially the Byzantine ones, have ALWAYS given communion to the faithful, including infants, in both kinds.

Where’s the confusion?

Are you saying that YOU are confused by this?**

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Actually, it depends on the church you attend and whether the priest feels as though he will give out both species. Several churches that I attended allowed me to take both.

I understand your feelings…it seems as though both should be consumed at every Mass.

 

[Ocarm]

There are three Vatican II Documents that relate to your topic.

It’s perhaps worth pointing out that all three of the documents that you cite are dated after the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, and that none of them are specifically conciliar documents. The last of the three that you list is a product of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which document was conciliar; the first two are statements of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship dating to 1969 and 1970 respectively.

Memoriale Domini: Where the Fathers actually VOTED DOWN the practice of both Communion in the hand, and Communion under both species, BY VERY SIGNIFIANT margins.

There is no mention of communion in both kinds in this document, which is available at: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

It does record the negative votes against communion in the hand, but does not proscribe the practice. It later states:

‘The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully. In effect, since human attitudes are in question, it is linked with the sensibility of the person receiving communion. It should therefore be introduced gradually, beginning with better-educated and better-prepared groups.’

Although the pope frequently consults the college of bishops on important issues, obviously he is not bound by their views, and here seems to have decided to overrule their wishes.

And Sacramentali Communione says the following in #3. "THIS FACULTY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ON OCASSION WHERE THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF COMMUNICATES.

This instruction from the dicastery, which is available at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWBOTH.HTM says:

‘Vatican Council II decreed that in certain instances, to be determined by the Apostolic See, the faithful could receive communion under both kinds. ---- The will of Vatican Council II in this regard has been gradually put into practice, as the preparation of the faithful has gone forward, in order to ensure richer results in devotion and spiritual profit from this change in eucharistic discipline.’

As you say, there is an instruction against communion in both kinds for large numbers of the faithful. There is some discretion given to bishops and other ordinaries in the use of the practice.

Also Eucharisticum Mysterium in #32 points out that tehre are ONLY specified times and circumstances when it may be applied.

This is another instruction from the dicastery, and predates that above by more than 3 years. It is available at:adoremus.org/eucharisticummysterium.html

As you note, it states on which occasions communion in both kinds is permissible, as referred to in Sacramentali Communione above.

As instructions on form and discipline, the three documents show a progression of permitted practices when placed in correct chronological order. Because such matters are reformable and do not bind either the current or future popes, these practices have been further extended in documents published in the 40 years since.

Without prejudice to whether these changes are welcome or not, they are entirely unremarkable in terms of exercising the authority of the Holy Father and the appropriate dicastery, and are a textbook example of disciplinary change that is introduced slowly and in stages. Again, that is without prejudice to whether such changes are seen by everyone as beneficial or not.

With reference to the OP’s question, Eucharisticum Mysterium states:

‘Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent,84 by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire ), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).’

 

[Ocarm]

There is no mention of communion in both kinds in this document, which is available at: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Allow me to correct myself here (before someone else does). The document does briefly mention communion in both kinds as quoted below:

’ a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity’s participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced. It had once been common in the Latin Church too, but had subsequently been progressively abandoned.’

There is also a later instruction to avoid the placing in the hand of a communicant a host dipped in the precious blood.

Apologies for my mistake.

 

[PJM]

Re: Receiving the Eucharist in Both Species?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJM
There are three Vatican II Documents that relate to your topic.

Partial reply:

It’s perhaps worth pointing out that all three of the documents that you cite are dated after the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, and that none of them are specifically conciliar documents. The last of the three that you list is a product of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which document was conciliar; the first two are statements of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship dating to 1969 and 1970 respectively.

***To keep the record correct what I quoted were taken from

“Austin Flannetry, O.P…The Vatican Collection… Vatican Council II…Volume 1 The Concilar and Post Concilar Documents of Vatican II.”

Mike as you no doubt the Fathers authorized further clairifications and explainations. Further these documents carry The Teaching Authority of our Supreme Pontiff, even if, thy are Post Concilar.

Perhaps with your expertise you can point us to the FATHERS of Vatican II authorizing*…

The removal of Communion rails
Hidden tabernacles
Walk around altars
Priest saying Mass facing the congregation
Complete removal of Latin
Altar Girls
Removal of nearly all and in some cases all pious images
and churches made into “gathering Spaces.”
Communion under both species
“Ordinary” ministers of the Eucharist. Nearly everywhere, everyday is hardly extrodinary
Communion in the hand

EACW is neither a vatican II document or a vaild and licit instruction.

Love and prayers my friend,

Pat**

 

[tabsie3210]

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?

I can’t speak from official sources, but from my own personal reception of the Eucharist, I prefer to receive both simply because both are offered, Christ is fully present in both, and I have a particular devotion to the Sacred Blood. Since the Blood is not always offered, there’s no harm in receiving the Body only, since Body and Blood are both fully present. I just enjoy receiving the Blood because of my personal devotion to it.

I know of someone (though only through second-hand information) who receives only the Blood, because she has wheat alergies, but she doesn’t consider it any way defficient or weird. She knows she is receiving the full Presence, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, so she just receives without worrying about which species she’s getting.

When the Sacred Blood isn’t available, I don’t feel like I’m getting anything inadequate.

I hope this opinion helps you out some.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

Perhaps the confusion arises when the priest or minister says “Body of Christ” prior to your reception. Even in the EF, the priest or deacon would say “May the Body of Christ lead you into eternal salvation”. This could very well leave you with the impression that that is all you receive. But the Church teaches that you receive both the Body and Blood no matter under which species you receive.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Re: Receiving the Eucharist in Both Species?

---

Perhaps with your expertise you can point us to the FATHERS of Vatican II authorizing***…

The removal of Communion rails
Hidden tabernacles
Walk around altars
Priest saying Mass facing the congregation
Complete removal of Latin
Altar Girls
Removal of nearly all and in some cases all pious images
and churches made into “gathering Spaces.”
Communion under both species
“Ordinary” ministers of the Eucharist. Nearly everywhere, everyday is hardly extrodinary
Communion in the hand

EACW is neither a vatican II document or a vaild and licit instruction.

Love and prayers my friend,

Pat

The Eastern Churches have NEVER had communion rails, and have ALWAYS had “walking around”–properly, free-standing altars, female servers in women’s monasteries, and Communion in both kinds.

Certain ancient and historical liturgies, STILL celebrated in the Catholic Church, have called for Communion in the hand BY RUBRIC. So this is nothing new.

Furthermore, even before Vatican2, the Latin Rite allowed for celebrating in the basilican orientation–that is, versus populum. I’ve seen the very rubrics for this in the altar missals.

Nor has Latin ever been the exclusive liturgical language of the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses along the Adriatic for CENTURIES before Vatican II. (I won’t even talking about the complete disuse of Latin in other Catholic Churches.)

Finally, the ONLY Ministers of the Eucharist are Priests and Bishops.

Under certain circumstances, minor clerks and even laymen can be EXTRAORINARY Ministers (that is, distributors) of Holy Communion.

You’ll save yourself a lot of grief if you use the terminology the Church does.

Believe it or not, PJM, the post Tridentine Latin Church has NEVER been the perfect standard of Catholicism for the entire Church.

Deal with it.

 

[mick321]

The Eastern Churches have NEVER had communion rails, and have ALWAYS had “walking around”–properly, free-standing altars, female servers in women’s monasteries, and Communion in both kinds.

Certain ancient and historical liturgies, STILL celebrated in the Catholic Church, have called for Communion in the hand BY RUBRIC. So this is nothing new.

Furthermore, even before Vatican2, the Latin Rite allowed for celebrating in the basilican orientation–that is, versus populum. I’ve seen the very rubrics for this in the altar missals.

Nor has Latin ever been the exclusive liturgical language of the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses along the Adriatic for CENTURIES before Vatican II. (I won’t even talking about the complete disuse of Latin in other Catholic Churches.)

Finally, the ONLY Ministers of the Eucharist are Priests and Bishops.

Under certain circumstances, minor clerks and even laymen can be EXTRAORINARY Ministers (that is, distributors) of Holy Communion.

You’ll save yourself a lot of grief if you use the terminology the Church does.

Believe it or not, PJM, the post Tridentine Latin Church has NEVER been the perfect standard of Catholicism for the entire Church.

Deal with it.

Give it a rest, Sport.

 

[ProVobis]

The Eastern Churches have NEVER had communion rails, and have ALWAYS had “walking around”–properly, free-standing altars, female servers in women’s monasteries, and Communion in both kinds.

Nice to know but does this make/made them superior? What’s the point? Don’t we have to look at the bigger cultural picture before we start mixing rites and practices? Wasn’t that the thrust of Vatican II?

 

[otjm]

Nice to know but does this make/made them superior? What’s the point? Don’t we have to look at the bigger cultural picture before we start mixing rites and practices? Wasn’t that the thrust of Vatican II?

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.

Except by those who don’ t like them.

and as to being “superior” - the Church in allowing reception of the Cup has pointed out the benefits of it. I don’t think the language used makes it “superior”, but can bring about a fuller understanding of the Eucharist - a sacrament so fully loaded with meaning that one can spend a lifetime dwelling on it.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

Except by those who don’ t like them.

and as to being “superior” - the Church in allowing reception of the Cup has pointed out the benefits of it. I don’t think the language used makes it “superior”, but can bring about a fuller understanding of the Eucharist - a sacrament so fully loaded with meaning that one can spend a lifetime dwelling on it.

This is nicely put.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Billy,

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

OK, thanks! I mean no offence, just commenting.

I know the earlier church offered both species at communion.

Absolutely correct.

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 might agree. Then of course, I would have to use that position to argue it was wrong to change the practice in the first place (800AD - 1100AD? I don’t know when it was changed … but the older practice of communion in both kinds had been the norm for many centuries since Pentecost), then we would not have seen this problem at all.

It happened twice actually, the first time as communion in both species was gradually suppressed, and the present era. It can also be argued that this ‘confusion’ has been a perennial problem since the communion in one kind was first mandated, for there has never been a time when it was universally enforced.

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.

I do not think that the church itself has ever argued that to receive both kinds is redundant.

At least I hope not, because Jesus Christ Himself did not consider it redundant and recognizing that difference could inspire other more serious doubts.

Yours in Christ,

And yours, brother.

 

[ProVobis]

Except by those who don’ t like them.

Now who exactly wouldn’t like to have both species available or valid or legitimate? But that’s not the point. The point is that EITHER SATISFIES RECEPTION OF THE COMPLETE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. My father was given an extremely small particle of the consecrated host, so small we barely saw it, prior to death. Who are you to tell us that it would have been more meaningful if he had received consecrated wine too?

and as to being “superior” - the Church in allowing reception of the Cup has pointed out the benefits of it. I don’t think the language used makes it “superior”, but can bring about a fuller understanding of the Eucharist - a sacrament so fully loaded with meaning that one can spend a lifetime dwelling on it.

Yes, please do give us more meaning and understanding. What was there 40 years ago that we didn’t understand?

 

[bpbasilphx]

From what I understand, Communion under one kind became the custom in the West for two reasons.

1. People were not so much “denied” the Cup as they themselves avoided drinking from it. For a while in the early Middle Ages, some places in Germany were practicing intinction. This was forbidden by a local council on grounds that Christ said, “Take and drink,” not “Take and dip.” If the faithful were not going to drink from the Chalice, then don’t intinct. Leave it alone.
2. Frequent Communion by the laity had become very much the exception, and NOT the norm. (Read some of the exhortations in the First Book of Common Prayer, for example.) When they DID received, frequently it would be OUTSIDE of Mass–either before or afterwards. Devout people would then make their assistance at the following mass an act of Thanksgiving–or the preceding Mass an act of preparation. I’ve seen 19th century lay prayer books with such devotions.

And when distributed outside of Mass, obviously it was from the Reserved Sacrament, which was usually only under one kind.

Even in the Altar Missal of 1962, there are NOT rubrics for distributing Communion to the People during the Mass. This is why that extra Confiteor and Domine non sum dignus have gotten interpolated–it’s from the Order of Communion OUTSIDE of Mass.

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.

 

[otjm]

Now who exactly wouldn’t like to have both species available or valid or legitimate? But that’s not the point. The point is that EITHER SATISFIES RECEPTION OF THE COMPLETE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

a) Don’t shout. B) no one here has denied that; why do you bring it up? C) there are a number of people who would not like to have both species present and available at Mass; they have spoken up repeatedly in these forae. And as I noted, which you seem to have either slid over or ignored, the Church has said there is a good and valid reaon to have both available and to have people consume both. If you have an arguement with that, take it up with those who have said it, not me; I didn’t say it; I only repeated it. My father was given an extremely small particle of the consecrated host, so small we barely saw it, prior to death. Who are you to tell us that it would have been more meaningful if he had received consecrated wine too? To begin with get off your high horse. I never said anything whatsoever about anything meaningful to your father or to you and your family at his death. And guess what: you are not so special. You want to play that card on me? I will trump you: I got to watch my father waste away and die due to a brain tumor and he was totally incapable of injesting either. Your father got to recieve and mine didn’t, and neither of them have anything to do with this conversation. Stow it, ok? Try keeping it to the topic.

Yes, please do give us more meaning and understanding. What was there 40 years ago that we didn’t understand?

The same thing you don’t get now.

There are people who, if approaching Communion, after receiving the Host and by miracle Christ Himself should appear in the place of the deacon or EMHC holding the Cup and He offered it to them, would pass by with not so much as a glance. Makes for an interesting sprituality.

Christ Himself gave us the Eucharist in the two species. Just a hint: any possiblity He might have had something in mind? Just a slight smidgin of a possibility He did not intend it as redundant? Any possibility that Jesus meant something by providing it to us in both species, that you might be overlooking? Or are we to assume Christ did not know what He was doing?

Theologically Trent was correct, in that Christ is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species. And assuming that is the sum and substance of the issue is to skate theologically close to minimalism, negaitivism and legalism. Skate all you want. But if someone tries to extend an invitation to know Christ more intimately, to become more aware of His passion and death, responding to them with rolling your eyes and playing an emotion card isn’t going to get you too far.