SPLIT: Jesus said to receive under both species--why don't we?

[Anna_Claire]

Exactly! There’s certain advantages to going to the same Mass regularly. One of them is knowing where to sit - besides Communion, it’s nice to know just where the AC vents are in the Summer!

There’s nothing wrong with preferring to receive Communion from an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion versus an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

And if you want to throw some legalistic stuff back at them, here’s one: Bold added by me.

That’s not some musty old pre-V2 text, either - that’s only a few years old. JPII put it out to try and put an end to liturgical improv.

Well we already know that and that’s not what we are talking about. Where I live lay ministers of communion are needed because of a shortage of priests and MANY communicants. Also, we have a RIGHT to communion under both species.(some will provide quotes saying this is not so…but I prefer Christ’s instructions) In order for this to be accomplished lay people are needed. Get over it.

 

[Brendan]

. **Also, we have a RIGHT to communion under both species.(**some will provide quotes saying this is not so…but I prefer Christ’s instructions) In order for this to be accomplished lay people are needed. Get over it.

Actually, that part IS a condemned heresy. It was called the Ultraquist heresy.

Trent countered that with

Council of Trent, Session 21:
This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness, 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, salva fide, 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: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever;” and He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,” also said: “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world;” and lastly, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him,” said, nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever.”

So that is the Catholic teaching.

The reception of both species is a fuller sign, but it is neither a right of the faithful, nor is the recpeption of a single species a violation of the commandment of Christ.

We can also see that in Redemptionis Sacramentum

RS 102. The chalice should not be administered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants1 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.2 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

If it was somehow a right of the faithful to recieve both species, the Church would be unable to disallow it, even in cases where the number of the faithful are large, or in cases where there are an inadequate number of ministers.

 

[Anna_Claire]

Don’t quote me Trent…we’ve moved on in case you haven’t heard.
And it’s not a heresy…please come up with a better word. Wow…your beliefs are waaaayyy out there.

 

[Richard320]

[edited] Also, we have a RIGHT to communion under both species.(some will provide quotes saying this is not so…but I prefer Christ’s instructions)

Then you have just set yourself up as your own Pope and Magisterium.

In order for this to be accomplished lay people are needed. [edited]

 

[Anna_Claire]

Not at all…wouldn’t want to be that or do that. I prefer Christ and the Gospel. Actually, that’s all I am…an adult Christian Catholic trying to live and promote the Gospel. Many on this forum prefer to live only by what Rome dictates. [edited] Be mature Catholic adults. You act and speak like I did when I was a child in the 1950s.

 

[Brendan]

Don’t quote me Trent…we’ve moved on in case you haven’t heard.

Actually, quite the opposite. Each and every one of the Eccumencial Councils are valid and central to our belifes.

Besides, I also quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum, which is a 2004 document

If you feel that Vatican II has somehow changed the quote I provided from Trent, do you have an proof?

I will agree that the Church holds that it is a fuller sign (but NOT a fuller reality) , but not that the Faithful have a right to recieve under both species.

And it’s not a heresy…please come up with a better word. Wow…your beliefs are waaaayyy out there.

Ultraquism, the belife that the faithful have a right to both species and that the reception of both species is a heresy that has been condemned by the Church.

What other word be used for something that the Church itself has condemned as a heresy.

 

[Brendan]

Here is some information on the Ultraquist Heresy

newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm

This heresy was condemned in the Councils of Constance, Basle, and Trent (Denzinger-Bannwart, 626, 930 sqq.).

Utraquism, briefly stated, means this: Man, in order to be saved, must receive Holy Communion when he wishes and where he wishes, under the forms of bread and wine (sub utraque specie). This, said the Hussite leader, is of Divine precept. For, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54). To receive only the Sacred Host is not “drinking” but “eating” the Blood of Christ…Add to this, that more grace is conferred by the reception of the Eucharist under both forms, and it is clear, so Jacob of Mies maintained, that communion sub uraque specie is obligatory. This conclusion the Council of Constance rejected (Denzinger-Bannwart, 626).

 

[Anna_Claire]

Hogwash Brendan…on many levels. Your quotes about medieval fears don’t speak to us today. You would do well to sit down and speak with theologians who have studied the development of doctrine.
Yes all Councils have some truth…but with each, truth and understanding were developed. Your theology leaves a lot to be desired. That God wants us to live by medieval codes with it’s limitations is just plain ridiculous. Why anyone would want or believe that to be good is beyond me.
Communion under both forms is presumed from the New Testament. It’s been tradition for Eastern Catholics since the times of the apostles. Traditional Catholics look for opportunities for grace…communion under both forms is one of those times and it’s a fuller sign. Why be minimalists? Minimalism has been the cause of many liturgical problems. Returning to old practices could be asking for trouble. History will repeat itself and the faithful will suffer once again.The mind of the Church should be the mind of Christ. Christ was generous, not a minimalist.

 

[Brendan]

OK Anna,

I’ll bite.

If the Church has established a right of the faithful to recieve both species., where exactly is that documented?

Did they establish this right and just not tell anyone, or has it been written down and promulgated?

In other words, you made a claim, now back it up.

I will agree the Eucharist itself is a source of Grace and that the reception of both species is a fuller sign (you can refer to my posts above for proof of that)

What I would like to see is what proof you have to offer that the statement from Trent that the reception of a single species fulfills the command of Christ to eat and drink.

One would presume that such a ‘doctrinial development’ was written down somewhere by a person (or persons) of equal authority to the Holy See or an Eccumencial Council.

So post a link to that change please

 

[Evan]

What I would like to see is what proof you have to offer that the statement from Trent that the reception of a single species fulfills the command of Christ to eat and drink.

The Catechism is a rather recent document, from the Vatican and it states:

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

I, personally, only receive the Body of Christ under the sign of bread except when I’m acting as EMHC. I know it’s a fuller sign, but I would like to encourage the abandonment of profligate use of EMHC’s. I can see past the visible sign to the truth it signifies. Receiving only the Bread to fulfill Christ’s command to eat and drink his body and blood.

BTW … I’m not sure who is arguing which side

 

[Brendan]

BTW … I’m not sure who is arguing which side

I’m the medieval side, Anna said so

 

[Cristiano]

I’m the medieval side, Anna said so

At least you are not the mid-evil side!

 

[Corki]

It is not acceptable that when there are set standards, people do not follow the set standards. A person’s gifts and a community’s needs should dictate respect given to any expression of service. This has nothing to do with preference. It’s about unity in the Body of Christ. Serving in this ministry, lay or ordained, honors the gifts of that person and reflects Christ’s ministry who came to serve and urges us to do the same.

Unacceptable to whom?

It’s not against Church teaching to receive from a priest - in fact there are some times when it is ONLY licit to receive from a priest such as for one’s First Communion.

As long as you are receiving Communion during Mass and at the prescribed time, there is no rupture in unity. In fact, unless you cause a commotion doing so, hardly anyone will notice what line you get into.

As long as a communicant is willing to wait his/her turn in whatever line he/she gets into, it shouldn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers.

Serving in this ministry, lay or ordained, honors the gifts of that person and reflects Christ’s ministry who came to serve and urges us to do the same.

Serving as an EMHC has **absolutely nothing **to do with the individual’s “gifts”. And there should not be any “honor” associated with the role - it is a role that a person fulfills **solely **to aid the Church in a time of need (shortage of ordinary ministers).

 

[Corki]

Hogwash Brendan…on many levels. Your quotes about medieval fears don’t speak to us today. You would do well to sit down and speak with theologians who have studied the development of doctrine.
Yes all Councils have some truth…but with each, truth and understanding were developed. Your theology leaves a lot to be desired. That God wants us to live by medieval codes with it’s limitations is just plain ridiculous. Why anyone would want or believe that to be good is beyond me.
Communion under both forms is presumed from the New Testament. It’s been tradition for Eastern Catholics since the times of the apostles. Traditional Catholics look for opportunities for grace…communion under both forms is one of those times and it’s a fuller sign. Why be minimalists? Minimalism has been the cause of many liturgical problems. Returning to old practices could be asking for trouble. History will repeat itself and the faithful will suffer once again.The mind of the Church should be the mind of Christ. Christ was generous, not a minimalist.

I think referring to this heresy as a “medieval fear” is not very accurate. Even among the posters on CAF, who are on average more informed on Church teaching, you frequently see the assertion that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood. Or you see Catholics claiming that a valid Communion MUST include both species. Or that receiving under both species is “better” or coveys more grace. These are all just modern restatements of the Ultraquist heresy. So while the heresy may have been defined and first condemned in medieval times, the heresy itself, and the need to guard against it, still exists today.

 

[Anna_Claire]

OK Anna,

I’ll bite.

If the Church has established a right of the faithful to recieve both species., where exactly is that documented?

Did they establish this right and just not tell anyone, or has it been written down and promulgated?

In other words, you made a claim, now back it up.

I will agree the Eucharist itself is a source of Grace and that the reception of both species is a fuller sign (you can refer to my posts above for proof of that)

What I would like to see is what proof you have to offer that the statement from Trent that the reception of a single species fulfills the command of Christ to eat and drink.

One would presume that such a ‘doctrinial development’ was written down somewhere by a person (or persons) of equal authority to the Holy See or an Eccumencial Council.

So post a link to that change please

The Gospels

 

[Brendan]

The Gospels

Are you honeslty trying to claim that the Gospels were written AFTER Trent?

If not, then you are not answering my question.

You disagreed with the Church teaching articulated in Trent, and implied that you had knowledge of a change in Church teaching since then.

Since we all know that the Gospels were written well before Trent. We also know that the Holy Spirt, opertaing at Trent (as at all Eccumenical Councils, since they are protected from teaching error on matters of Faith and Morals) was well aware of the Gospels.

Thus, for the teaching to change, such a teaching would have to come in the in a document released by the Holy See SINCE Trent.

Can you provide such a link?

Or are you simply referencing some other Gospel, one that the Holy Spirit was not aware of when He inspired the teachings of Trent, and all the other Eccumenical Councils.

 

[agnes_therese]

You tell others that their “theology leaves a lot to be desired,” yet you don’t accept the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this issue.

Interesting logic, there.

Hogwash Brendan…on many levels. Your quotes about medieval fears don’t speak to us today. You would do well to sit down and speak with theologians who have studied the development of doctrine.
Yes all Councils have some truth…but with each, truth and understanding were developed. Your theology leaves a lot to be desired. That God wants us to live by medieval codes with it’s limitations is just plain ridiculous. Why anyone would want or believe that to be good is beyond me.
Communion under both forms is presumed from the New Testament. It’s been tradition for Eastern Catholics since the times of the apostles. Traditional Catholics look for opportunities for grace…communion under both forms is one of those times and it’s a fuller sign. Why be minimalists? Minimalism has been the cause of many liturgical problems. Returning to old practices could be asking for trouble. History will repeat itself and the faithful will suffer once again.The mind of the Church should be the mind of Christ. Christ was generous, not a minimalist.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Hogwash Brendan…on many levels. Your quotes about medieval fears don’t speak to us today. You would do well to sit down and speak with theologians who have studied the development of doctrine.
Yes all Councils have some truth…but with each, truth and understanding were developed. Your theology leaves a lot to be desired. That God wants us to live by medieval codes with it’s limitations is just plain ridiculous. Why anyone would want or believe that to be good is beyond me.
Communion under both forms is presumed from the New Testament. It’s been tradition for Eastern Catholics since the times of the apostles. Traditional Catholics look for opportunities for grace…communion under both forms is one of those times and it’s a fuller sign. Why be minimalists? Minimalism has been the cause of many liturgical problems. Returning to old practices could be asking for trouble. History will repeat itself and the faithful will suffer once again.The mind of the Church should be the mind of Christ. Christ was generous, not a minimalist.

It’s not about being minimalists.

"Christ is entirely present under each species and under each particle of either species. Christ is entirely present—with His flesh and blood, His body and soul, His manhood and Godhead under each species. Christ gave His disciples the same body that He possessed, and on our altars bread is changed into the same body which is now glorified in heaven; for the words: This is My Body, would not be true, unless the bread were changed into the living body of Christ as it now exists. So, too, the wine is changed into the blood of the living Christ. But where the body of the living Christ is there is also His blood, and His soul, and divinity—the entire Christ.” “Christ is wholly present in each particle of either species so that he who receives one particle of the host receives the whole Christ” (Wilmer’s Handbook, p. 334).

cathcorn.org/hotbam/cc.html

There is absolutely no need to receive under both species. You get just as much grace. What you’re arguing would be the same thing as saying that because you had a host that was broken in half, that you get half of the grace. There is just no merit to the claim.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Jesness]

I am a little confused… At my local parish, we are offered both the body and the blood, and I partake of the second as often as I am able. Should I not be doing this? Or should the parish not be offering it to me? (A small note, we’re only offered the blood at Sunday Mass, during the week it’s only the body.)