Recieving the Eucharist under both species

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CherryBomb said:
If the Blood is so unimportant and unnecessary, I just really don’t understand why Jesus bothered to tell us to drink it.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think you’ve made your point already but have gone too far. Trent did NOT say the Blood was unimportant or unnecessary. Trent taught that the FULL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ were present in EITHER species. You may receive the Blood only and fulfill the requirements of (1) making your Easter duty; (2) abiding by Christ’s promise of gaining eternal life. No need to tell everyone in Church they must receive both, if that’s what you’re trying to do. That undermines their Faith bigtime and perhaps is heresy.
 
CherryBomb said:
That makes more sense. I was understanding it as though people were assuming the Blood didn’t also contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Why then the focus on the Host? If they both equally contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, why is the Body in the spotlight all the time? Why are some suggesting the Blood not be offered routinely? And why not go ahead and take both? I understand we don’t have to, I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t. I don’t mean that judgmentally, just that personally receiving both is such an overwhelming experience for me, I couldn’t decline one just because I didn’t “have” to take it. The fact that they’re both offered to me is humbling and amazing to me. I tend to do a lot of things I don’t “have” to do, though. 🤷
Click to expand...
Receiving the Host alone is as much an overwhelming experience for me—because I know He is there full and complete. Actually —by receiving the Host alone —we are re-enforcing the Catholic Church’s doctrine ---- that all grace is receive via one species.
 
Walking_Home said:
You mean —those who receive the Host alone or the Precious Blood alone—have less fullness in their spiritual life.
Click to expand...
You misread the person’s quote. They said “contributes” to the fullness of spiritual life. Many things contribute to the fullness of spiritual life: praying the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy, etc. If someone said that any of those “contribute to the fullness of spiritual life,” I wouldn’t attribute the intent of insinuating that those who don’t do those devotions “have less fullness.”

There is no reason to begrudge someone else’s personal choices. Similarly though, I think the posters who question those who don’t receive under both species need to take the same approach. If they feel it adds to their “fullness,” that’s fine, but they shouldn’t wag their fingers at others for not receiving under both species.

Just my :twocents:
 
BobP123 said:
Ok, I think you’ve made your point already but have gone too far. Trent did NOT say the Blood was unimportant or unnecessary. Trent taught that the FULL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ were present in EITHER species. You may receive the Blood only and fulfill the requirements of (1) making your Easter duty; (2) abiding by Christ’s promise of gaining eternal life. No need to tell everyone in Church they must receive both, if that’s what you’re trying to do. That undermines their Faith bigtime and perhaps is heresy.
Click to expand...
I understand what the council of Trent said. I also understand saying the Blood is unnecessary in the context of not being required because you’ve already taken the Body. What I don’t understand is saying that it’s unnecessary in general to the point of saying it shouldn’t even be offered regularly in the Mass. I also didn’t say anyone should have to take both so I don’t really understand your last two sentences? 🤷
Actually —by receiving the Host alone —we are re-enforcing the Catholic Church’s doctrine ---- that all grace is receive via one species.
Click to expand...
So then it’s better to only receive the Host? I don’t think that taking both or only taking the Blood means someone is rejecting Church doctrine. I don’t think that taking both is better in general, I just prefer it myself. Certainly receiving only the Body or only the Blood is humbling and overwhelming to me too, I just see no reason not to take both if I’m not prohibited from doing so. I understand it’s not necessary. Saying a rosary every day isn’t necessary, either, but I try to do it anyway.
 
rlg94086 said:
You misread the person’s quote. They said “contributes” to the fullness of spiritual life. Many things contribute to the fullness of spiritual life: praying the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy, etc. If someone said that any of those “contribute to the fullness of spiritual life,” I wouldn’t attribute the intent of insinuating that those who don’t do those devotions “have less fullness.”

There is no reason to begrudge someone else’s personal choices. Similarly though, I think the posters who question those who don’t receive under both species need to take the same approach. If they feel it adds to their “fullness,” that’s fine, but they shouldn’t wag their fingers at others for not receiving under both species.

Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
He/she said it contributes to your fullness of spiritual life. I just asked if he felt —someone who does not partake of both–wasn’t experiencing the fullness of spiritual life.

Quote=denver_faithful
I think that it contributes to the fullness of your spiritual life if you receive both the body and the blood. After all, Jesus did offer both at the last supper:
 
rlg94086 said:
There is no reason to begrudge someone else’s personal choices. Similarly though, I think the posters who question those who don’t receive under both species need to take the same approach. If they feel it adds to their “fullness,” that’s fine, but they shouldn’t wag their fingers at others for not receiving under both species.

Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
I don’t think that saying you don’t understand why someone does (or does not) do something is the same as begrudging them. It’s simply honest. You don’t understand everyone’s reasoning for doing everything (or not doing something), do you? My questioning isn’t an attempt to judge anyone, simply an attempt to understand. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, I’d rather hear what the people themselves have to say than make assumptions.
 
Right. As I said, lots of things contribute to the fullness of spiritual life - that doesn’t mean you have to do all of them. Now, if the poster said, you can’t have a full spiritual life without receiving under both species, that would be different.
Walking_Home said:
He/she said it contributes to your fullness of spiritual life. I just asked if he felt —someone who does not partake of both–wasn’t experiencing the fullness of spiritual life.

Quote=denver_faithful
I think that it contributes to the fullness of your spiritual life if you receive both the body and the blood. After all, Jesus did offer both at the last supper:
Click to expand...
 
CherryBomb said:
I understand what the council of Trent said. I also understand saying the Blood is unnecessary in the context of not being required because you’ve already taken the Body. What I don’t understand is saying that it’s unnecessary in general to the point of saying it shouldn’t even be offered regularly in the Mass. I also didn’t say anyone should have to take both so I don’t really understand your last two sentences? 🤷

So then it’s better to only receive the Host? I don’t think that taking both or only taking the Blood means someone is rejecting Church doctrine. I don’t think that taking both is better in general, I just prefer it myself. Certainly receiving only the Body or only the Blood is humbling and overwhelming to me too, I just see no reason not to take both if I’m not prohibited from doing so. I understand it’s not necessary. Saying a rosary every day isn’t necessary, either, but I try to do it anyway.
Click to expand...
Just as your can see no reason not to partake of both–others see no reason to partake of both. The Church does not mandate or require that the Chalice be offered in each and every church. Just as She does not mandate that everyone partake of the Chalice.
 
CherryBomb said:
I don’t think that saying you don’t understand why someone does (or does not) do something is the same as begrudging them. It’s simply honest. You don’t understand everyone’s reasoning for doing everything (or not doing something), do you? My questioning isn’t an attempt to judge anyone, simply an attempt to understand. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, I’d rather hear what the people themselves have to say than make assumptions.
Click to expand...
If you aren’t begrudging or wagging your finger at anyone, then I guess my post didn’t apply to you. 🙂

My point was that someone questioning other’s reasons *shouldn’t *begrudge or wag their finger…I wasn’t accusing you.
 
Walking_Home said:
The Church does not mandate or require that the Chalice be offered in each and every church.
Click to expand...
Sorry, one more question. What’s the reasoning for that? If they’re both equal, why not offer both so we can decide? If I was made to choose only one, I’d take the Blood. I can barely get the Host down without the Blood, and I don’t really like gnawing on it. (Maybe my mouth is really dry but the Host always sticks to the roof of my mouth and just doesn’t go down easy for me). Plus some people can’t take the Host because of allergies, it seems unfair for them not to be able to partake in Communion if the Blood wasn’t offered.
 
rlg94086 said:
If you aren’t begrudging or wagging your finger at anyone, then I guess my post didn’t apply to you. 🙂

My point was that someone questioning other’s reasons *shouldn’t *begrudge or wag their finger…I wasn’t accusing you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I’ve been told I can come across as blunt and harsh online so people often think I mean things I don’t. :o I just don’t often have time to re-read and consider how things might sound 😉
 
CherryBomb said:
Sorry, one more question. What’s the reasoning for that? If they’re both equal, why not offer both so we can decide? If I was made to choose only one, I’d take the Blood. I can barely get the Host down without the Blood, and I don’t really like gnawing on it. (Maybe my mouth is really dry but the Host always sticks to the roof of my mouth and just doesn’t go down easy for me). Plus some people can’t take the Host because of allergies, it seems unfair for them not to be able to partake in Communion if the Blood wasn’t offered.
Click to expand...
No one says those with wheat allergies cannot receive communion. If the priest is aware—he can have the Chalice available to the person.

I have no problem swallowing the Host. I think it depends on who makes them.

As to why both are not offered ---- offering the Host alone is the tradition of the Church. The offering of both is by indult (an exception to the norm of offering via the Host alone).
 
Say we allow the choice of Eucharist under the species of Blood in the TLM setting, how would we implement that exactly? Have separate communion rails? Anyone?
 
BobP123 said:
Say we allow the choice of Eucharist under the species of Blood in the TLM setting, how would we implement that exactly? Have separate communion rails? Anyone?
Click to expand...
When my mother was growing up, the Host was intincted by the priest on special occasions, such as Holy Thursday, and the Feast of Corpus Christi.

That is how the species of Blood may be offered.
 
BobP123 said:
Say we allow the choice of Eucharist under the species of Blood in the TLM setting, how would we implement that exactly? Have separate communion rails? Anyone?
Click to expand...
The way I can see—is offering via intinction using the communion rail. But wouldn’t this be a change to the TLM. I would be afraid of opening the door—next may be girls as altar servers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denver faithful
I think that it contributes to the fullness of your spiritual life if you receive both the body and the blood.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Using that logic, wouldn’t a 10-inch Host and a whole glass of Blood contribute to still a fuller spiritual life?
Click to expand...
Uh, no. 😦 Do you not understand the difference between the importance of receiving both species that Christ used, and the amount of consecrated bread and wine received, which makes no difference? Joe
 
Walking_Home said:
The way I can see—is offering via intinction using the communion rail. But wouldn’t this be a change to the TLM.
Click to expand...
Not only a change but a distraction for many of those who attend the TLM. But then changes and distractions seem to be quite acceptable to a modernist.
 
BobP123 said:
Not only a change but a distraction for many of those who attend the TLM. But then changes and distractions seem to be quite acceptable to a modernist.
Click to expand...
Highly encourage by some. Did you see the post before yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top