Receiving under both species.

[misterbee]

After reading the following thread (and not wanting to hi-jack it):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208305

I have a question about receiving the Eucharist under both species. (I give my reasoning about the question in the following paragraphs, with a summary at the end for those who are short on time)

As Catholics, we have sacramentals. Sacramentals were necessary because, when Christ instituted the Sacraments, He did so without giving the exact form and matter under which the sacraments would be given. I’ve always loved them and been taught that they are a physical manifestation of the spiritual.

That being said, on top of its other qualities, the Eucharist was the only Sacrament given wherein Christ was pretty explicit with His choice of sacramentals. Bread and wine. And He said, ‘do this in remembrance…’ - ‘this’ means, to me, the whole shebang, the whole enchilada, the whole meal.

I understand that He is fully present in either species, but from a ‘physical manifestation of the spiritual’ point of view, and a ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ point of view, we should receive under both species.

So, in short, in a Church that recognizes man’s need for something tangible attached to the spiritual, and in a time when wine is neither in short supply nor crippling-ly expensive, do we not receive under both species?

 

[stmaria]

It was infallibily declared at the Council of Trent that it is not necessary to receive under both kinds.

CHAPTER I session XXI
LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>, also said: ; and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,> also said: ; and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,said, nevertheless:

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

After reading the following thread (and not wanting to hi-jack it):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208305

I have a question about receiving the Eucharist under both species. (I give my reasoning about the question in the following paragraphs, with a summary at the end for those who are short on time)

As Catholics, we have sacramentals. Sacramentals were necessary because, when Christ instituted the Sacraments, He did so without giving the exact form and matter under which the sacraments would be given. I’ve always loved them and been taught that they are a physical manifestation of the spiritual.

That being said, on top of its other qualities, the Eucharist was the only Sacrament given wherein Christ was pretty explicit with His choice of sacramentals. Bread and wine. And He said, ‘do this in remembrance…’ - ‘this’ means, to me, the whole shebang, the whole enchilada, the whole meal.

I understand that He is fully present in either species, but from a ‘physical manifestation of the spiritual’ point of view, and a ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ point of view, we should receive under both species.

So, in short, in a Church that recognizes man’s need for something tangible attached to the spiritual, and in a time when wine is neither in short supply nor crippling-ly expensive, do we not receive under both species?

Nothing in the above quote denies that it is not necessary to receive under both forms. I do not understand the other poster’s need to quote Trent as if it does.

 

[misterbee]

Nothing in the above quote denies that it is not necessary to receive under both forms. I do not understand the other poster’s need to quote Trent as if it does.

Oy! Thanks for the support!

I’m not saying that one MUST receive under both species… just that I don’t understand why it’s not done at all in the EF.

 

[stmaria]

Nothing in the above quote denies that it is not necessary to receive under both forms. I do not understand the other poster’s need to quote Trent as if it does.

The poster said, "I understand that He is fully present in either species, but from a ‘physical manifestation of the spiritual’ point of view, and a ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ point of view, we should receive under both species.
So, in short, in a Church that recognizes man’s need for something tangible attached to the spiritual, and in a time when wine is neither in short supply nor crippling-ly expensive, do we not receive under both species?

I quoted from the Council of Trent to show that it has been infallibily declared that it is not necessary. It is an option in the Ordinary Form of the Mass but not necessary. To say that we should implies that something may be lacking in the Traditional Mass where the wine is not an option.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Oy! Thanks for the support!

I’m not saying that one MUST receive under both species… just that I don’t understand why it’s not done at all in the EF.

I think that it is mainly practical reasons, such as the risk of spilling the Precious Blood, or the risk of giving wine to alcoholics or young children, that keep people from receiving under both kinds at the TLM.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I think that it is mainly practical reasons, such as the risk of spilling the Precious Blood, or the risk of giving wine to alcoholics or young children, that keep people from receiving under both kinds at the TLM.

Distributing to young children is EASILY avoided.

Distributing to alcoholics cannot be controlled BUT an alcoholic priest still receives.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Intinction on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail solves many problems–it seems like a no brainer to me–what’s wrong with it?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Distributing to young children is EASILY avoided.

But pointlessly. The amount received is so small that even a baby could take it safely, and experience in the Eastern Churches, where they do give communion to infants, admistered with a spoon, shows that it doesn’t lead on to alcohol addiction through some sort of familiarisation mechanism.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The poster said, "I understand that He is fully present in either species, but from a ‘physical manifestation of the spiritual’ point of view, and a ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ point of view, we should receive under both species…

As I said in the other thread, this was an instruction given to the Apostles, the first priests (during the first mass). What Jesus said were instructions on how to offer the mass. Indeed priests have to recieve under both kinds during the Mass. Lay members of the Church don’t need to, they were not present at the Last Supper. All we must do is to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”, which is done by consuming the Host only.

 

[sphilomena]

The last post (Gandalf) is exactly correct. Maybe this issue comes up for those who grew up after VII. Those of us who are “older” never had the issue arise until recent years, very recently, in historical terms. It has been discussed often, but the main point is that we receive, in the HOST ALONE, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, ENTIRELY. (It appears to many that adding the “cup” of the Blood, was to mimic non-Catholic services.)

 

[adamsaj]

After reading the following thread (and not wanting to hi-jack it):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208305

I have a question about receiving the Eucharist under both species. (I give my reasoning about the question in the following paragraphs, with a summary at the end for those who are short on time)

As Catholics, we have sacramentals. Sacramentals were necessary because, when Christ instituted the Sacraments, He did so without giving the exact form and matter under which the sacraments would be given. I’ve always loved them and been taught that they are a physical manifestation of the spiritual.

That being said, on top of its other qualities, the Eucharist was the only Sacrament given wherein Christ was pretty explicit with His choice of sacramentals. Bread and wine. And He said, ‘do this in remembrance…’ - ‘this’ means, to me, the whole shebang, the whole enchilada, the whole meal.

I understand that He is fully present in either species, but from a ‘physical manifestation of the spiritual’ point of view, and a ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ point of view, we should receive under both species.

So, in short, in a Church that recognizes man’s need for something tangible attached to the spiritual, and in a time when wine is neither in short supply nor crippling-ly expensive, do we not receive under both species?

you are partially right in your “whole shebang” assertion in that you cannot celibrate Mass without the priest consecrating and consuming both species. however, as has been pointed out the Council of Trent infallibly defined that the faithful can fully recieve the sacrament under only one species, therefore Christ’s command cannot be applied in this way as it would conflict with the Holy Spirit speaking through the concil.

the primary reason not to distribute the precious blood is the very real possability of desecration. not only is it easier to spill the chalice when passing it back and forth, but there is also the problem of getting the precious blood on your lips and having it whiped off (remember, Christ is present in even the tiniest particle of host and drop of precious blood.) another concern is distribution. you need someone to distribute it. i dont really want to get into the EMHC debate here, so lets just leave it at most people who attend the TLM would be furious if EMHCs were brought in.

true, intinction solves these problems nicely as it has for the past 1000+ years in the eastern church, however there is really no demand for it from traditionalists who attend the TLM, and you would have to eliminate recieving in the hand from the NO in order to implement it there.

personally, aside from concerns over desecration, i feel that the proper attitude to recieving under both species is strictly neutral. on one hand, obviously you shouldent not want to recieve the precious blood as it is the blood of Christ (again stressing that desecration is not present in this hypothetical situation). on the other hand, i feel that if you let yourself actively want to recieve under both species, you could easily slip into a mindset that you somehow need to recieve under both species, and according to Trent this is heresy.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

the primary reason not to distribute the precious blood is the very real possability of desecration. not only is it easier to spill the chalice when passing it back and forth, but there is also the problem of getting the precious blood on your lips and having it whiped off (remember, Christ is present in even the tiniest particle of host and drop of precious blood.)

How do you see possible desecration as being a real possibility by those who take from the Chalice?

BTW - SPILLED Sacrament would be promptly cared for - so unless the priest or other minister is doing the desecrating I am not sure what you see happening there.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The last post (Gandalf) is exactly correct. Maybe this issue comes up for those who grew up after VII. Those of us who are “older” never had the issue arise until recent years, very recently, in historical terms. It has been discussed often, but the main point is that we receive, in the HOST ALONE, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, ENTIRELY. (It appears to many that adding the “cup” of the Blood, was to mimic non-Catholic services.)

---

Appearances are deceiving – it mimics to a small degree the reception under both forms in the EASTERN Rites (though method of receiving is different).***

 

[adamsaj]

---

Appearances are deceiving – it mimics to a small degree the reception under both forms in the EASTERN Rites (though method of receiving is different).***

no, i think there might be some truth to what sphilomena is saying. it is true that the reformers insisted that the Church was withholding somthing from the faithful that they had a right to.

anyway, just why do we need to mimic the eastern right anyway?

as per your answer to desecration, the bulk of this is being discussed on another thread, so im not going to duplicate it here, however i think thet it should be pointed out that even if a spill is properly cleaned up (youll have to forgive me if im not as optimistic as you are about the chances of that happening) it is still a tragedy that it was ever spilled in the first place.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

no, i think there might be some truth to what sphilomena is saying. it is true that the reformers insisted that the Church was withholding somthing from the faithful that they had a right to.

anyway, just why do we need to mimic the eastern right anyway?

as per your answer to desecration, the bulk of this is being discussed on another thread, so im not going to duplicate it here, however i think thet it should be pointed out that even if a spill is properly cleaned up (youll have to forgive me if im not as optimistic as you are about the chances of that happening) it is still a tragedy that it was ever spilled in the first place.

Not as optimistic that a priest would make sure it was cleaned properly???

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now if people in the U.S. (since the U.S. has an indult to allow this practice of reception under both species–an indult means that this is not the ‘usual’ practice but it is permissible BY the indult) wish to receive both species as a mark of reverence, obedience, and love, well and good. That is the way the Eucharist should be received.

If they think thereby they are doing ‘what God commanded’. . .provided that they do not fault OTHER people who are within their right to receive only ONE species. . .again, well and good. They are entitled to their opinion so long as it does not contradict Church teaching. . .and Church teaching is that reception of EITHER 'both" or “one” kind is acceptable, and one is not ‘better’ than the other.

BUT if they think they are ‘better’ for receiving both, if they are attempting to argue that they get ‘more’ Eucharist by having both, and those receiving one are wrong, lesser, inferior, don’t get ‘as much’. . .that is wrong.

 

[adamsaj]

Not as optimistic that a priest would make sure it was cleaned properly???

no, not at all! i have been at a Mass where an entire ceboria was dumped and no effort was made to purify the floor. and this was in a relatively orthodox parish!

 

[rwoehmke]

no, not at all! i have been at a Mass where an entire ceboria was dumped and no effort was made to purify the floor. and this was in a relatively orthodox parish!

Once the fluids evaporate it no longer has the accidents of wine and Jesus is gone just as he leaves when the host starts to deteriorate. Isn’t that what is taught?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

no, not at all! i have been at a Mass where an entire ceboria was dumped and no effort was made to purify the floor. and this was in a relatively orthodox parish!

What do you mean by purify?