Receiving Under Both Species

[tegray4444]

A question has been posed to me regarding why Catholics do not received under both species (and have an option) when in John Christ asks us to take his Body and Blood-he says this three times… We understand that Christ is present wholly even in a morsel or a drop - but why did he ask us to do both in the gospel but we can opt out of the blood?–even though he is present in both.

This is one passage we take literally, so why the option?

We would like to have some solid theology answers for an RCIA young man that wants not to be simply appeased with the general answers.

 

[beng]

Reciving under both species is for the reason of symbolism.

 

[mrS4ntA]

The Body and Blood of Our Lord is present in either substance (bread or wine). Therefore we need only take one species (or both in special ocassions).

We tend not to distribute the Body and Blood under the wine species because of the complications that follows: danger of spilling, etc.

 

[rarndt01]

The real truth of the matter is, is that for centuries both the consecrated bread and wine were offered in a Catholic churches. There was never a time one specie was offered, except for the dying or invalid. I’m talking about healthy Christians presenting themselves before the Lord.

                           What happened is that the population of the church grew WORLDWIDE. Millions now were embracing the faith. So was it sanitary to pass around one goblet to say hundreds of people? No.  Also there were times when the wine was actually spilled by people not grasping the goblet securely.Thus our Lord's precious blood was spilled on the floor. 

                             So one of the councils, I believe the council of Trent made a change and decreed that the blood and body would now be accessible in one species. And it pretty much has remained that way ever since.
                               But there are still Catholic parishes that offer both the wine and the wafer. But they are hard to find. This is all I know about the whole subject. Perhaps someone more learned can give us a more in depth treatise. I hope I helped.

Ron from Ohio

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

tegray4444:

A question has been posed to me regarding why Catholics do not received under both species (and have an option) when in John Christ asks us to take his Body and Blood-he says this three times… We understand that Christ is present wholly even in a morsel or a drop - but why did he ask us to do both in the gospel but we can opt out of the blood?–even though he is present in both.

This is one passage we take literally, so why the option?

We would like to have some solid theology answers for an RCIA young man that wants not to be simply appeased with the general answers.

Christ’s death was accomplished by separating His blood from His body at the crucifixion. In the Mass after the consecration but before the priests Communion he places the “Fraction” into the chalice. This is symbolic of the resurrection as well as a literal re-uniting of the Body with the Blood of Christ.

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

The real truth of the matter is, is that for centuries both the consecrated bread and wine were offered in a Catholic churches. There was never a time one specie was offered, except for the dying or invalid. I’m talking about healthy Christians presenting themselves before the Lord.

                           What happened is that the population of the church grew WORLDWIDE. Millions now were embracing the faith. So was it sanitary to pass around one goblet to say hundreds of people? No.  Also there were times when the wine was actually spilled by people not grasping the goblet securely.Thus our Lord's precious blood was spilled on the floor. 

                             So one of the councils, I believe the council of Trent made a change and decreed that the blood and body would now be accessible in one species. And it pretty much has remained that way ever since.
                               But there are still Catholic parishes that offer both the wine and the wafer. But they are hard to find. This is all I know about the whole subject. Perhaps someone more learned can give us a more in depth treatise. I hope I helped.

Ron from Ohio

Wrong.

The Church HAS ALWAYS believed that reception of either species IS receiving the whole Christ.

Why?

Simple, because if you believe that we should receive both before getting the full Christ than you have seperated Christ, whcih we can’t have.

Even before Trent there was a practice of receiving under the bread only. Why? Because tehre’s this heresy that state you have to receive both species.

As a homework, identify the heresy and when was it happen.

 

[rarndt01]

beng

         Your logic and statement is faulty. If one specie would be all that was necessary to begin with, then our Lord would not have held up TWO. Nor would the early church fathers have wrote of receiving BOTH the bread and the wine. If only one host was always the mode. The change did occur after the church grew into a huge populace. YOU need to read your history a bit more my friend. I have.

                                        Ron from Ohio

 

[mrS4ntA]

Whilst it is true that receiving under one species became popularised. The fact remains that the Church does hold doctrinally that one species already consists of the fullness of Christ.

No Council ever changed a doctrine. The idea that the Council of Trent just doctrinally changed a doctrine is unfathomable.

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

beng

         Your logic and statement is faulty. If one specie would be all that was necessary to begin with, then our Lord would not have held up TWO.

He held up two FOR SYMBOLISM!

Your believes that only two species made a full Christ will open a can of worm that you won’t even believe.

Do some gooling and find out the heresy with the same premise as yours. You will understand why your conclusion is can not be. Even Orthodox, who receive under both species (I think they even go as far as saying that receiving one is illicit, altho I’m not sure) can NOT deny that receiving EITHER species is receiving THE FULL Christ.

Nor would the early church fathers have wrote of receiving BOTH the bread and the wine. If only one host was always the mode. The change did occur after the church grew into a huge populace. YOU need to read your history a bit more my friend. I have.

                                        Ron from Ohio

Do me a favour. When you find what heresy I was referrring to, you may shove your “YOU need to read your history a bit more” comment to me.

Thank you very much.

 

[puzzleannie]

how lovely that sharing the Eucharist makes us one in Christ and full of fraternal charity for each other, as is so evident in this friendly discussion. You boys need a short course in “If you approach the altar and realize you have something against your brother, go and forgive him and ask his forgiveness, then return to present your gift on the altar”

 

[amarischuk]

Br. Rich SFO:

Christ’s death was accomplished by separating His blood from His body at the crucifixion. In the Mass after the consecration but before the priests Communion he places the “Fraction” into the chalice. This is symbolic of the resurrection as well as a literal re-uniting of the Body with the Blood of Christ.

I am sorry Brother but I was unable to find this interpretation in Joseph Jungmann’s “The Mass of the Roman Rite” (1955 edition). The simpler answer to the fermentum is:
p.311-313

V II

"5. The Commingling

In the present-day Roman liturgy the fraction is followed at once by the commingling: the separated particle is dropped into the chalice with the accompanying prayer that had been used in a similar way already in the papal Mass of the eighth century. Thus in the present-day ceremony on the commingling there is a survival of that ceremony in which the celebrating pope, just before his Communion, broke off a particle from his own Host and dropped it into the chalice.

But the Roman liturgy of that time also had a further twofold commingling of the species, which did not, however, form a part of every Mass. The first of these is surrounded be the deepest obscurity. It is mentioned only in the later version of the first Roman ordo, which contains the following direction even before the start of the fraction: cum dixerit: Pax Domini sit simper vobiscum, mittat in calicem de sancta. This sancta is commonly taken to mean a eucharistic particle from a previous Mass, the same that we noticed in the beginning of Mass at the entrance of the pope. In this way the continuous unity of the Eucharistic sacrifice was expressed- the same Mass yesterday and today. But the absence of a rite of this sort in the pertinent parallel documents compel us to suppose rather that the usage was merely a transient or tentative copy of another commingling which took place at the Pax Domini, probably with a particle from the oblation itself.

This second commingling was not proper to the papal or Episcopal Mass but to the Mass of priests in the outlying churches. By an acolyte, the bishop sent the priest of the vicinity a particle of the Eucharist as an expression of ecclesiastical unity, as a token that they belonged to his communion. This particle was called the fermentum. The priests dropped in into the chalice at this part of the Mass. The practice is indeed ancient. It answered to awareness, so keen in the ancient Church, that the Eucharist was the sacramentum unitatis, that this Sacrament held the Church together, and that all the people of God subject to a bishop should, if it were possible, be gathered around that bishop’s altar and receive the Sacrament from his table of sacrifice…"

If anyone is interested in moving beyond the superficial discussions of the liturgy that seem to plague Catholic message-boards (especially when Traditionalists are present) I would suggest two books: Jungmann’s “The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development” (make sure you get the 2 volume edition which was the first but the later editions had vast sections removed in order to fit it into one volume) and Theodor Klauser’s “Short History of the Western Liturgy”. Klauser’s book is short…200 pages including the appendices and cheap ($15) but Jungmann’s book cost me over $100 at a used bookstore.

Both were written pre-VII and the renewal of the liturgy so Traditionalists cannot complain…however, (especially Klauser’s book) anticipate the VII renewal of the liturgy and the return to a more ancient form of the Mass.

 

[Contarini]

Communion under one kind didn’t start with Trent–it started at some point in the High Middle Ages. It was pretty universal by the 15th century, I think, and the Hussite dissenters objected to it, followed by the Protestants. In what I think was a foolish (but all too common among all Christians) reaction, the Council of Trent not only reaffirmed the practice’s validity but also refused to allow any modification of it. The justification often given is that to modify the practice would open the door to the heresy that said that communion under one kind is valid. This seems downright silly to me. The Church should be above doing things just to prove that it can, like a brash ten-year-old walking on a high ledge. In both cases, disaster follows.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Reformed_Rob]

rarndt01:

So one of the councils, I believe the council of Trent made a change and decreed that the blood and body would now be accessible in one species. And it pretty much has remained that way ever since.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent has this to say:

Why the Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species

It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species.
(Spilling is given as the first reason)
(Next is that the Eucharist species of wine might turn acidy after a long time, as it is often held in readiness for the sick)
(Next is the fact that many cannot at all bear the taste or smell of wine, so that which is meant for spiritual health should not be required when it results in physical hurt)
(Next is that wine is extremely scarce or expensive in many countries, but bread is very common)
Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most widely introduced.

That’s p. 252 in my copy of the CCT.

See also, Summa Theologica 3A 80, 12
newadvent.org/summa/408012.htm
Whether it is lawful to receive the Body without the Blood?

and newadvent.org/summa/407602.htm
Is the entire Christ under each species of the Eucharist?

Obviously, he shouldn’t be taken to mean Consubstantiation when the word “under” is used!

Also note, Aquinas was about 300 years prior to the Council of Trent.

 

[rarndt01]

Reformed Bob

Good post. Which only proves that up until the council of Trent BOTH the bread and the wine were being still offered in the mass. You did the homework.

Ron from Ohio

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

Reformed Bob

Good post. Which only proves that up until the council of Trent BOTH the bread and the wine were being still offered in the mass. You did the homework.

Ron from Ohio

If I could prove that even before Trent the Church gives the bread only would you concede that you are WRONG?

And btw, reformed Bob does not say that before Trent, Catholics received under both species.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

beng:

If I could prove that even before Trent the Church gives the bread only would you concede that you are WRONG?

And btw, reformed Bob does not say that before Trent, Catholics received under both species.

Yeah, please read the questions from the Summa. The link is right there.

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01:

Reformed Bob

Good post. Which only proves that up until the council of Trent BOTH the bread and the wine were being still offered in the mass. You did the homework.

Ron from Ohio

As it is the case NOW! The bread and wine IS offered in the Mass. That never changed. “Eat this bread… drink this cup.” What is changed is whether communicants receive from one or both species (which the Council of Trent said it doesn;t matter doctrinally, but does practically).

Practicality is the main concern here… not the doctrine.

 

[rarndt01]

Is that what Jesus said to his disciples at the Passover? That “practicality” is what matters when I offer my flesh and blood? If practicality was all that mattered, then why did Jesus hold up TWO species? Why didn’t he just hold up the bread, bless it, and say “this is my flesh and blood”? It would have been much more practical, now wouldn’t it?
Ron from Ohio

 

[beng]

Reformed Rob:

Yeah, please read the questions from the Summa. The link is right there.

Does Summa said that before Trent the Church receives under BOTH species? Does Summa said that we have to received BOTH species?

I really didn’t see it. Do quote the exact sentences.

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

Is that what Jesus said to his disciples at the Passover? That “practicality” is what matters when I offer my flesh and blood? If practicality was all that mattered, then why did Jesus hold up TWO species? Why didn’t he just hold up the bread, bless it, and say “this is my flesh and blood”? It would have been much more practical, now wouldn’t it?

                                      Ron from Ohio

FOR SYMBOLISM!!!

Btw, wanna take my challange. Let’s hear you say that you’re wrong.