Recieving the Eucharist under both species

[jco2004]

---

As to why both are not offered ---- offering the Host alone is the tradition of the Church.

It is only the tradition of the western church, and that only since the 14th-15th centuries (it was formalized at the Council of Constance). Before that, receiving in both species was the tradition of the entire Church, and it is still the tradition of the Eastern church. Joe

 

[Walking_Home]

Then I guess I’ll never have a full spiritual life then. Darn.

---

More of the camp—that follows-- the Church is spiting Christ–it seems.

 

[Potato1]

In my understanding BOTH species must be consecrated in every mass so what would be a reason not to offer both? Since His Blood is there…

Also has anyone ever taken Our Lord to someone who is ill elderly or incapacitated in the form of Blood only? I would be interested in this circumstance.

 

[Walking_Home]

In my understanding BOTH species must be consecrated in every mass so what would be a reason not to offer both? Since His Blood is there…

Also has anyone ever taken Our Lord to someone who is ill elderly or incapacitated in the form of Blood only? I would be interested in this circumstance.

---

Yes—both species must be consecrated—but the priest is the only one with the obligation to receive both.

You know—for the incapacitated–who would have trouble swallowing the Host—it may be better for the Precious Blood to be given. All they would need is a drop. Maybe some sort of unbreakable container with a good seal—might work. I don’t know if this has ever been done.

 

[BobP123]

In my understanding BOTH species must be consecrated in every mass so what would be a reason not to offer both?

:banghead: :newidea:

 

[Walking_Home]

:banghead: :newidea:

---

Sometimes—it does become a headache.

 

[Jakub]

those who prefer the Novus Ordo don’t want changes, yet they want to change the Tridentine to fit their taste…

Please stay where you’re comfortable…

james

 

[Brendan]

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.

It was not unheard of to recieve by Intiction in the TLM.

When my mother was growing up in Ireland, she said it was customary for the Eucharist to be offered intincted on High Holy Days, such as Christmas and Easter, and on days with a special Eucharistic significance such as Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi.

That was Ireland in the 40’s…

 

[rlg94086]

---

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.

I agree. I don’t know if it would open any doors, but it is wholly unnecessary. Quite frankly, if it is a huge stumbling block for someone, they probably should consider the Eastern Rites. For me, it doesn’t have any added spiritual effect over receiving in one species.

 

[Walking_Home]

I agree. I don’t know if it would open any doors, but it is wholly unnecessary. Quite frankly, if it is a huge stumbling block for someone, they probably should consider the Eastern Rites. For me, it doesn’t have any added spiritual effect over receiving in one species.

---

I was basing myself on our own history. Once a change was allowed for the NO–change took a life of its own. One change–opened the door. Then it was another, then another, etc.

 

[CherryBomb]

Quite frankly, if it is a huge stumbling block for someone, they probably should consider the Eastern Rites.

Honestly, I do love the RCC, but if I lived in an area where there was an EO Church, I would have to do some serious praying on whether I should consider it.

 

[CherryBomb]

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

That could be. I know in the two Masses I attended out of state, the Host that the priest held up was ENORMOUS (like 5x the size of the one we use) and they weren’t as hard to swallow.

Is taking both species considered taking communion twice? I know we’re not supposed to take communion more than twice in one day.

 

[CherryBomb]

---

Sometimes—it does become a headache.

I don’t think there’s any reason to border on rudeness. The poster was just pointing out that if the Blood has to get consecrated anyway, there’s not much more effort involved in pouring some extra wine in so the faithful can choose what species they’d like to receive under.

 

[stmaria]

---

Yes—both species must be consecrated—but the priest is the only one with the obligation to receive both.

You know—for the incapacitated–who would have trouble swallowing the Host—it may be better for the Precious Blood to be given. All they would need is a drop. Maybe some sort of unbreakable container with a good seal—might work. I don’t know if this has ever been done.

I have never seen this done and I have to admit it doesn’t seem right to me but the church now allows the wine to be taken with a spoon or sucked through a tube.

103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the **Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] **As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think there’s any reason to border on rudeness. The poster was just pointing out that if the Blood has to get consecrated anyway, there’s not much more effort involved in pouring some extra wine in so the faithful can choose what species they’d like to receive under.

---

I am sorry—if it felt rude to you—but explanation is given—yet someone will always pop up with another --why. This is not the first time or thread concerning this topic. You wanted to understand—we did our best to explain it to you—but as you can see—someone will always try to find a way around the explanation.

Some time back—I explained to another poster —the Church has allowed the Chalice—but not entitlement to it.

 

[AJV]

I have never seen this done and I have to admit it doesn’t seem right to me but the church now allows the wine to be taken with a spoon or sucked through a tube.

This is because throughout history, these have been other ways of distributing the Precious Blood. The spoon is common in the East and the straw (fistula) was common at solemn Papal Masses and previously used to be common in monasteries. It originated in Rome but was most widely practiced outside of Rome in 7th century Gaul as a way to prevent spillage.

 

[AJV]

I have never seen this done and I have to admit it doesn’t seem right to me but the church now allows the wine to be taken with a spoon or sucked through a tube.

This is because throughout history, these have been other ways of distributing the Precious Blood. The spoon is common in the East and the straw (fistula) was common at solemn Papal Masses and previously used to be common in monasteries. Before when the chalice was extended to the laity it was commonly used, as a way to prevent spillage. It appears in the first Roman Ordo for communicating the people, where it is called a pugillaris (/em).

 

[Like]

That could be. I know in the two Masses I attended out of state, the Host that the priest held up was ENORMOUS (like 5x the size of the one we use) and they weren’t as hard to swallow.

Is taking both species considered taking communion twice? I know we’re not supposed to take communion more than twice in one day.

Nope. I’m sure there are many who do have trouble swallowing
the Host. Due to medications my wife & myself have to take its near impossible to swallow the host without at least a sip of the Blood. Since even a speck of the Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of our Lord, maybe we should approach the priest & request that.

 

[denver_faithful]

In response to me saying it contributes to your spiritual life, it does mine. Also, it could detract if someone viewed it as necessary and then was unable to receive at for example a daily mass. It is all up to personal preference and i prefer to take both because it feels more similar to what occurred at the last supper, but if only the host or only the blood was offered i would be perfectly content, because i am assured by my church and i believe so very much that Jesus’ body, blood, sould ,and divinity is in either species as much as it is in both.

NO harm NO foul!

peace everyone

 

[rlg94086]

NO harm NO foul!

Hi denver faithful,

As I have warned others, you should not capitalize the word no in this forum…it has a different meaning. That said, I’m sure there are plenty of Traditional Catholics who would agree with the assessment - NO harm NO foul!

Pax,
Robert