Why only one "kind" in the Eucharist

[Jacob21]

I don’t think we should be too worriesome about it. The Host can as easily be dropped…

My answer: Communion on the tongue .

I’m glad you agree with that. I think having EMHCs dress appropriately would improve their image and the opinion of them. Yes, even as lay people if we are called to a special ministry, shouldn’t we have some sort of external to relfect the specialness of that ministry? I never had that sense of equality with them because in the Philippines they always have been displayed to be separate from the laity. They alway dress formally (they wear Barong Tagalog which is the formal costume of the culture) and the stole. Plus they always sit in a special place in the church, or usually have the front pew reserved just for them. Also as you can see in the picture, the ministry is kept for men only. Most of them would also double as altar servers and readers. They’re more like minor orders without actually being minor orders.

That is how it should be in my opinion. Here in my area of the US EMHC’s sit just about anywhere and walk up to the Sanctuary. I believe that how you descried the customs in the Philippine’s is how it should be if EMHC’s are to be used.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My answer: Communion on the tongue .

I can be dropped from the mouth as well, or from the hands of the priest while placing it on your tongue. There’s really no one perfect way to do it. Accidents can and will happen.

That is how it should be in my opinion. Here in my area of the US EMHC’s sit just about anywhere and walk up to the Sanctuary. I believe that how you descried the customs in the Philippine’s is how it should be if EMHC’s are to be used.

Right now I’m praying that they still do it that way and haven’t changed. In our (RC) parish we do have our EMHCs and readers sit separately from the rest of the laity, their on the right side of the altar, the choir is on the opposite side on the left. But they still don’t dress any special way. Although usually its older women and older men who do serve as EMHCs so they don’t dress inappropriately.

 

[Jacob21]

I can be dropped from the mouth as well, or from the hands of the priest while placing it on your tongue. There’s really no one perfect way to do it. Accidents can and will happen.

Yes, accidents do happen. However Communion under one kind and on the tongue reduces the risk of profanation and dropping/spilling/small particles being left behind on the hand of the recipient.

I pray they will maintain the reverence as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, accidents do happen. However Communion under one kind and on the tongue reduces the risk of profanation and dropping/spilling/small particles being left behind on the hand of the recipient.

I pray they will maintain the reverence as well.

Lets agree to disagree then. As you may have noticed, I describe myself as a Byzantinized Roman Catholic and have recently been attending Divine Liturgy more than the OF or EF. I have come to value receiving under both kinds. While I do not see that receiving under one Sacred Species as anything less, I just value the fullness of the sign of receiving both more.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, accidents do happen. However Communion under one kind and on the tongue reduces the risk of profanation and dropping/spilling/small particles being left behind on the hand of the recipient.

I pray they will maintain the reverence as well.

Somehow I have this picture in my mind of Jesus asking a priest newly arrived at the Pearly Gates why he didn’t give the flock his Precious Blood to drink. “Well, so that the slobs couldn’t spill it, m’Lord! It’s too important to risk it!”

Here’s my picture of Jesus’ reaction:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Facepalm.
.
.

 

[Jacob21]

Lets agree to disagree then.

Agreed. I’m glad we had a charitable discussion! Way too often these kind of discussions end up in arguments. May God Bless you

 

[Brendan]

Somehow I have this picture in my mind of Jesus asking a priest newly arrived at the Pearly Gates why he didn’t give the flock his Precious Blood to drink. “Well, so that the slobs couldn’t spill it, m’Lord! It’s too important to risk it!”]

Your is exactly the type of statement that lead the Church to offer the Eucharist under one species only; that there is a distinction between the species other than physical appearances only.

The priest in this case DID give his flock the Precious Blood to drink. He did so under the accidents of bread.

The species of bread is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It is living flesh filled with coursing blood. When we recieve the Eucharist under either form, we eat His Body and Drink His Blood. There is no substative difference at all.

And Christ would know this, and thus not even ask priests such silly questions

 

[ProVobis]

I just value the fullness of the sign of receiving both more.

I thought as small as one tiny particle of the Body or one drop of Blood was “full” enough, per Council of Trent. I hope so because a small particle is all my father could take on his deathbed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought as small as one tiny particle of the Body or one drop of Blood was “full” enough, per Council of Trent. I hope so because a small particle is all my father could take on his deathbed.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said, I know its kind of confusing.

I just value more the sign that receiving under both kinds give. I never gave any insinuation that tiny amounts is “less Jesus”. If you really want to compare, the Prosphora is cut into smaller pieces than the Hosts you would receive at Mass.

 

[runningdude]

As much as I appreciate the un-dividable nature of the Body and Blood of Christ, I do not believe that withholding the Cup to simply distinguish the laity from the clergy is a sufficiently grave reason to withhold it. The Church can and has limited this, of course, as needed to maintain the correct teachings and integrity of the sacrament, but simply to distinguish lay and clergy I don’t believe quite cuts it…

Remember, at the words institution "Christ took the Cup, gave it to His disciples, and said:

       Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
        this is the cup of my blood,
        the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
        It will be shed for you and for many
        so that sins may be forgiven.
        Do this in memory of me.

Note “All of you”! You could argue maybe that only clergy (i.e. the Apostles) were present (I’m not sure if His mother, or Mary Magdalen, or other were present or not), but in its simplest form, Christ does specifically tells us ALL to take the Cup.

Host while still contains the fullness of the Body and Blood, is simply not a Cup!

 

[ProVobis]

From the Council of Trent:

CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
— 13th Session, —

Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe I should rephrase what I said, I know its kind of confusing.

I just value more the sign that receiving under both kinds give. .

The purpose of a sign is to point towards a reality greater than itself. Once the greater reality has been obtained, the value of the sign is reduced, or eliminated.

For example. Signs can direct one to “Main Street”. The sign themselves are not streets, but rather direct one to Main St.

Once one has reached Main St. and is confident that one is ON Main St, there is no need to look at the Signs that point towards, or identify “Main St.”. One only needs to look if one has either not found Main St, or is unsure if one is actually on Main St.

If one has recieved the Eucharist, the Ultimate Reality, and if one is confident that one has recieved Christ Himself, then the value of the sign is dimished.

Thus the goal of a Eucharistic Spirtuality is literally to eliminate the value of sign in one’s reception of the Eucharist.

 

[Brendan]

Host while still contains the fullness of the Body and Blood, is simply not a Cup!

Actually, what He tells us to do is ‘Drink’, and that is accomplished fully and completely under either species.

For what we consume is Living, flowing Blood, just under different accidents. And the process of comsuming fluids is drinking. Our mouths and our throats drink, just as what are eyes are looking upon is a Divine Person.

What we percieve is different that the reality, but the reality is there.

 

[felsguy]

Just to throw my two cents in:

1. When consecrating all those Chalices for Mass and then distributing them to the laity, there is an exponential increase in the risk of spilling the Precious Blood. (I’ve witnessed this )
2. The fullness of Christ; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present in the Sacred Host. Therefore there is no need to receive from the Chalice.
3. I also agree with StTommyMore. distinctions between clergy and laity need to be reinforced in our age.

My main point is since the Consecrated Host contains the fullness of the Eucharist, **why should there be the need for the laity to receive from the Chalice? **Reception of the Chalice by the laity only increases the risk of spilling the most Precious Blood of our Lord. If one receives both the Host and the Chalice, they are not receiving anything more than someone who only receives the Consecrated Host.

If you’ll permit me to stand on my soapbox:

I believe that we should return to the practice of only Priests (those with consecrated hands) should be able to touch the consecrated vessels. Return to some resemblance of the sacred.

The purpose of a sign is to point towards a reality greater than itself. Once the greater reality has been obtained, the value of the sign is reduced, or eliminated.

For example. Signs can direct one to “Main Street”. The sign themselves are not streets, but rather direct one to Main St.

Once one has reached Main St. and is confident that one is ON Main St, there is no need to look at the Signs that point towards, or identify “Main St.”. One only needs to look if one has either not found Main St, or is unsure if one is actually on Main St.

**If one has recieved the Eucharist, the Ultimate Reality, and if one is confident that one has recieved Christ Himself, then the value of the sign is dimished.**Thus the goal of a Eucharistic Spirtuality is literally to eliminate the value of sign in one’s reception of the Eucharist.

Help me to understand then, please. Are we to infer then that there was a need (value) for the Apostles to receive from the cup at the Last Supper?

 

[ProVobis]

Help me to understand then, please. Are we to infer then that there was a need (value) for the Apostles to receive from the cup at the Last Supper?

I would imagine it would be the same need the priest has to drink from the Cup to validate and complete the Sacrifice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thus the goal of a Eucharistic Spirtuality is literally to eliminate the value of sign in one’s reception of the Eucharist.

Where does the Church teaches this? The value of the sign links us to Christ’s passion. Especially in the Eucharist where He made the bread His Body and the wine His Blood.

CCC 1130 The Church celebrates the mystery of her Lord “until he comes,” when God will be "everything to everyone."53 Since the apostolic age the liturgy has been drawn toward its goal by the Spirit’s groaning in the Church: Marana tha!54 The liturgy thus shares in Jesus’ desire: "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you . . . until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."55 In the sacraments of Christ the Church already receives the guarantee of her inheritance and even now shares in everlasting life, while "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus."56 The "Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come . . . Come, Lord Jesus!’"57

**St. Thomas sums up the various aspects of sacramental signs: "Therefore a sacrament is a sign that commemorates what precedes it - Christ's Passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ's Passion - grace; and prefigures what that Passion pledges to us - future glory."**58

 

[ConstantineTG]

Help me to understand then, please. Are we to infer then that there was a need (value) for the Apostles to receive from the cup at the Last Supper?

The signs were established that way because it points us to the passion of Christ and the symbolism of the grace we receive from Him. That is why you cannot baptize with anything other than water, you cannot consecrate anything other than wheat bread and grape wine. The signs has value as much as the grace. Otherwise we wouldn’t be so caught up in determining what is valid matter or not. Christ instituted them that way to remind us always of the grace we receive through the Sacraments.

 

[Brendan]

Where does the Church teaches this?

In the very definition of what the Church TEACHES what it is meant by being a “sign”.

Here is the definition from the Modern Catholic Dictionary

Sign: Something that leads to somethings else. It may be an arbitrary on conventional sign that has a connection with what is signified. Or it may be a pure sign that leads to knowledge of something with out it being first known

BTW, this Dictionary was created by Servant of God, John Harden, SJ

The value of the sign links us to Christ’s passion. Especially in the Eucharist where He made the bread His Body and the wine His Blood.

Correct, it points us TOWARDS an understanding that the Eucharist is linked to Christ’s Passion. But it is NOT the link itself, no more than a sign that says “Main St.” is not Main Street itself.

The sign only has value to the extent that it leads us towards the greater reality that it signifies.

But what value does a sign have if you are already on Main St. Do you need to keep looking for the street signs if you are already sure that you are on Main St. If one encountered Main St, and has a relationship with Main St, does one even need to look at the sign to know that.

Likewise, the sign value of the Eucharist does lead us towards an understanding that it is linked to Christ’s Passion. But if one already is confident that it is linked to Christ’s Passion, is the sign something we still need to seek out? Rather we are to know Christ.

Going back to the defintion that the Church provides, the sign is something that leads us to knowledge about a particular aspect of the Mystery.

But once we aquire the knowledge ( ie arrive at Main St.) the sign is really no longer a sign, since the knowledge has been obtained.

Another great example was Christ’s own use of signs. He performed signs and wonders to point people towards a greater reality, His Divinity. But what signs did the Apostles ask for once they recognized His Divinity? They did not look for signs, but were simply content to be in His Presence. The greatest exception was Thomas and the Resurrection. Christ provided the sign Thomas requested, but noted that the greater Faith was for those who did not recieved the sign, but simply believed.

So Christ Himself set the end goal, belief with no need for signs. He will provide them for those who cannot believe without them, but we are to move past them.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

As much as I appreciate the un-dividable nature of the Body and Blood of Christ, I do not believe that withholding the Cup to simply distinguish the laity from the clergy is a sufficiently grave reason to withhold it. The Church can and has limited this, of course, as needed to maintain the correct teachings and integrity of the sacrament, but simply to distinguish lay and clergy I don’t believe quite cuts it…

Remember, at the words institution "Christ took the Cup, gave it to His disciples, and said:

Note “All of you”! You could argue maybe that only clergy (i.e. the Apostles) were present (I’m not sure if His mother, or Mary Magdalen, or other were present or not), but in its simplest form, Christ does specifically tells us ALL to take the Cup.

Host while still contains the fullness of the Body and Blood, is simply not a Cup!

Well…actually the Latin says “pro vobis et pro multis”. Which translation is corrected in the re-translated Editio Typica Tertia Missale Romanum, for the English to say (as the Latin literally says) “for you and for many”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Brendan, I agree with what you said except for the part that the goal is to eliminate the signs of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or any other sign for that matter. The Church has been rich in symbolism from the beginning because it is from the physical that we transcend to the spiritual. We are both body and spirit, that is why the Sacraments both has a physical aspect, the sign, and a spiritual aspect, the grace. One cannot be detached from the other, so much so that our spirit cannot be detached from our body in this life. Doing so ends our earthly life. There is no other way grace is delivered in this life than the signs of the Sacrament. Granted that in the Eucharist by the nature that we receive the flesh and blood of Christ, one sign does deliver the entirety of Christ as He is undivided. But the signs is not only for our minds to interpret, but for our humanity to experience. The Church never teaches what you have claimed as the ultimate goal. In fact this is what the Church teaches:

CCC1390 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.