Why do priest consume the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lanster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lanster

Guest
While communion under one kind is sufficient why does the priest take part in communion in both kind? On what grounds can, communion in both kind for priest be defended?
 
Lanster said:
While communion under one kind is sufficient why does the priest take part in communion in both kind? On what grounds can, communion in both kind for priest be defended?
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice . In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present .

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.” 225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

225 GIRM 240
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am assuming you ask this in the context of the current pandemic because, for many countries, reception under both kinds by the faithful is not permitted due to the particular risks from sharing the chalice.

There is no enhanced risk to the Priest from a chalice only he has ‘handled’.

Apologies if I got ‘the wrong end of the stick’.
 
The priest is required to receive in both forms in order for the Mass to be valid. And as Cecilia said, if the priest is drinking from a chalice that only he has handled and put his mouth on, there’s no risk of transmission.

The rest of the people in attendance are not required to receive at all, let alone required to receive in both forms.

There are many Catholic churches where communion is not offered to the congregation in both forms at all, or only very rarely, even when there’s not a pandemic or flu season going on.
 
The Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. The priest consuming both species is necessary for the offering of the sacrifice. When it comes to receiving the grace of sacrament, only receiving one species is necessary.
 
Lanster said:
While communion under one kind is sufficient why does the priest take part in communion in both kind? On what grounds can, communion in both kind for priest be defended?
Click to expand...
The sacrifice of the Eucharist requires that both elements – bread and wine – be consecrated. Are you suggesting that the priest consecrate only the bread? It wouldn’t be a valid sacrifice, in that case.
 
40.png
Why does the priest have to consume the host? Liturgy and Sacraments
As to the Tridentine Rite Msgr. George J. Moorman expounds in his book The Latin Mass Explained that the priest must consume the Sacrifice under both species as this was the command of Our Lord to the Apostles at the Last Supper. The priest who celebrates Mass receives both species (that is, he receives Communion under the form of bread and under the form of wine) because he must consume the Sacrifice, which was offered up under two species. At the Last Supper, when Christ commissioned His Apo…
Click to expand...
 
Oh, I understand @Lanster! Your question is: “why we all participate in the Eucharist and only consume the Body of Christ in the form of host, while priests take part in communion in both forms — consuming Body of Christ in form of both bread and wine?”

I think because it’s easier (but I’m waiting for someone smarter to confirm). In the most churches consuming Christ’s Body and Blood in both forms only happens during Easter time. During the rest of the year partaking in Holy Communion only in the form of bread is sufficient, because we know perfectly well that we receive the whole of Christ, who is truly present in the Eucharistic forms, both when Holy Communion is given to us in one form, and when we have the opportunity to consume the Body and Blood of the Lord.

It would not be good if we thought that communion under two forms is “better” or “more important” than under one. However, it is hard to deny that in Communion given in two forms, the sacramental sign finds a more complete expression.

Here’s a fragment from GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL [point 85]:
  1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated
Click to expand...
Hope that helped!
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The priest is required to receive in both forms in order for the Mass to be valid.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Once the Body and Blood have been consecrated, how can anything the priest does or doesn’t do afterwards, within the Mass, affect the validity of the Mass? It would be illicit, gravely so, for the priest not to receive one species or the other at the time of the priest’s communion, but how would it invalidate anything?

Or are you saying that the Mass is not truly a Mass until the priest’s communion has been completed? Validly consecrated species, yes, but not a complete Mass until this takes place?
 
Because priests need Jesus too. The Eucharist is medicine- the fountain of immortality. A priest is an icon of Christ.
 
Assuming the priest completed the Consecration properly, then the Eucharist is present. But if the priest doesn’t then communicate in both forms, the sacrifice of the Mass is not complete, and you haven’t had a Mass. You’ve had some incomplete portion of a Mass.

If you read the comments on this article all the way to the end, a priest answers this question.
https://jimmyakin.com/2006/06/a_reader_writes_1-3.html
 
Lanster said:
While communion under one kind is sufficient why does the priest take part in communion in both kind?
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are required to take Jesus literally when he said to his disciples, “Take and eat; take and drink…” That they are supposed to eat what became flesh literally and drink what became blood literally, not allowed to have an excuse for not doing it materially and literally.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Assuming the priest completed the Consecration properly, then the Eucharist is present. But if the priest doesn’t then communicate in both forms, the sacrifice of the Mass is not complete, and you haven’t had a Mass. You’ve had some incomplete portion of a Mass.
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Tis_Bearself said:
If you read the comments on this article all the way to the end, a priest answers this question.
Priest Not Taking Communion – Jimmy Akin
Click to expand...
Very informative. I always like Jimmy Akin’s columns. In the responses, various readers make reference to priests who, for one reason or another, cannot consume a normal amount of either (or possibly both) species. In that case, I would think that a small crumb or particle of the Body, let’s say the size of a Sen-Sen mint (if anyone remembers those) or even smaller, or a sip of the Precious Blood, just a few drops, would suffice for the priest to have completed the sacrifice by eating and drinking. At smaller daily Masses, it is very common for the priest to offer fragments of his Host to the lay communicants.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top