Why only one "kind" in the Eucharist

[Brendan]

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.

As the definition I provided showed, the purpose of a sign is to bring you towards knowledge.

When you aquire the knowledge, you no longer need the sign.

A great example is St. Thomas. He doubted, he was in need of a sign. Christ provided the sign of the Resurrection that Thomas needed. And thus Thomas aquired the knowledge, and certatude of the Resurrection that the sign pointed towards.

After that, what need did St. Thomas have to touch the Sacred Wounds? None. The sign was no longer needed. Later, when His physical appearence on Earth had served it’s purpose as a sign to all the Apostles, He Assended. Again, that sign was no longer needed. The spirituality of the Apostles had moved beyond it’s need.

You say that you the signs are still required for you. What exactly about the Eucharist do you doubt, that you must look for signs regarding it?

Would it not be a better course to follow as St. Thomas did, learn from the sign, accept the reality it signifies and then not ask again for the sign?

 

[Brendan]

To use the example you listed above, what to you think the Church (and God) desire, the sign itself, or for you (and all the faithful) to come to the clarity of vision described?

I certainly agree that both species has great sign value, especially when Inticted.

Such a sign points towards the Resurrection as the Body and Blood are united in a living Christ.

But if one has aquired that knowledge, and has little doubt, why should one continue to look for the sign, but rather use that knowledge to focus more clearly on the Reality it signifies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To use the example you listed above, what to you think the Church (and God) desire, the sign itself, or for you (and all the faithful) to come to the clarity of vision described?

I certainly agree that both species has great sign value, especially when Inticted.

Such a sign points towards the Resurrection as the Body and Blood are united in a living Christ.

But if one has aquired that knowledge, and has little doubt, why should one continue to look for the sign, but rather use that knowledge to focus more clearly on the Reality it signifies.

I’m not trying to separate the sign from the grace. To me they go hand in hand. Take this for example, we can go and worship God anywhere, but why do it in a Church? Why decorate a Church? Are we not far in the theological understanding at this point to realize that God is everywhere and we can gather anywhere and praise and worship Him? Just invite a priest over to your house.

We need the signs not because we fail to understand the meaning behind them, but it enriches us further in receiving the grace from God. From the Sacraments to the physical architecture of the Church, everything should have symbolism. As I immerse myself in Eastern Christianity, there is greater value for symbolism in the East than the West. Western Christians are more cerebral, as you have clearly displayed. In the East is more about symbolism. Most Eastern parishes, especially the well done, well funded ones, are filled with Holy Icons. Its a constant reminder to the person in the parish about Christ, His life, His mother, His saints, one is fully immersed in the senses during worship. Not because an Eastern Christian lags behind a Western one in knowledge or brain power, but because our senses are a part of us.

And this is not only applicable in worship. As humans its great if we make full use of all our senses to appreciate something. Did you watch MasterChef? One of the judges is Joe Bastianich. My wife commented on how he judges food. He first inspects it visually, turns the plate around and looks at it from all angles. Then he pokes it with his fork, then smells it with really deep sniffs, fully taking in the aroma of the food. Then he finally cuts a piece and puts it in his mouth. Who thought eating is so much complicated? But he better appreciated the food because he used 4 of his 5 senses to appreciate it.

So now we tie in East and West. Tie in the Eastern immersion of the senses with the Western understanding of the teachings, and you get a better understanding, better appreciation of what God has gifted you.

So no, I don’t agree with your point, sorry. And I don’t think the Church teaches that either. There is not effort to get away from the signs and concentrate solely on the grace. They always go hand in hand for the reasons I just mentioned.

 

[Brendan]

We need the signs not because we fail to understand the meaning behind them, but it enriches us further in receiving the grace from God.

But that is not what the Church teaches is the definition of a sign. It is to bring us to a aspect of knowledge on a matter of Faith.

It is an aspect that we can learn, as God or the Church ask the impossible.

Therefore, it is encombant upon us to learn the lession that Christ attempts to teach in the sign.

As far as Church ‘decorations’, you touch upon a related, but distinct element, that of Symbol.

The Church uses Symbols as well, but defines those as “tokens which stand in place of another”. A great example of Symbol is Iconography.

There is often an element of sign in Iconography, such as an Icon of St. Nicholas inspiring us to learn about his life. But when we pray before the icon, it is as a symbol of the great saint.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, in the Byzantine tradition, we have always had Communion under both Kinds, period.

The symbolism of Communion is very important in the East as well. We use communion bread that “has risen” and therefore signifies the Resurrection of Christ. In the New Testament Greek, the word for bread used is “artos” rather than “azymos.” I was just at a lecture by an RC theology professor who asserted that leavened bread was likewise used in the West for centuries, that the early Christian church only used leavened bread or artos etc. Don’t shoot the messenger.

The wine we use is always red in colour to signify blood. The coming together of the consecrated elements into the Chalice signifies, par excellence, the Resurrection of our Lord (the raising of the separate Species signifies His sacrificial Death).

So Communion under both Kinds has a critically important symbolic understanding in the East.

A “symbol” represents something. But, in Eastern thought, it can only do this if it participates in the reality of what it represents.

This is why the RC and Protestant disagreement over whether the Eucharist is “Real” or “Symbolic” sounded so nonsensical in Eastern ears - the Eucharist is both, it can only symbolize the Body and Blood of our Lord if it participates in the fact of its Reality.

As for the heresy of the need to have both Kinds distributed for Communion to be valid - IF by this is meant Hussitism, then it would be wrong to apply that heresy to that movement.

The Utraquists NEVER insisted on Communion in both Kinds - they only offered the Cup to those who wished to commune from it. They neither taught nor practiced the above heresy. In fact, they were already reacting to the pre-existing Latin practice of Communion in one Kind only.

Alex

 

[ProVobis]

The wine we use is always red in colour to signify blood. The coming together of the consecrated elements into the Chalice signifies, par excellence, the Resurrection of our Lord (the raising of the separate Species signifies His sacrificial Death).

So Communion under both Kinds has a critically important symbolic understanding in the East.

A “symbol” represents something. But, in Eastern thought, it can only do this if it participates in the reality of what it represents.

This is interesting. Good information.

Someone mentioned above that sometimes the Cup is offered in a Nuptial Mass. Yes, this used to occur even before Vatican II. There, I believe, it was (also) symbolic of the Wedding Feast of Cana where Christ turned water into wine.

 

[Brendan]

This is why the RC and Protestant disagreement over whether the Eucharist is “Real” or “Symbolic” sounded so nonsensical in Eastern ears - the Eucharist is both, it can only symbolize the Body and Blood of our Lord if it participates in the fact of its Reality.

That is the position of the Western Church as well, the disagreement with the Protestants was NOT that the Eucharist does not have Symbolic elements, but if it was more than Symbol, but Reality as well.

So it should not have sounded nonsensical to Eastern ears at all.

The entire Church, East and West acknowledges that the Eucharist is Sign, Symbol and Reality.

The point of my discussion was that Sign and Symbol are often confused, to the detriment of a complete Eucharistic Spirtuality.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But that is not what the Church teaches is the definition of a sign. It is to bring us to a aspect of knowledge on a matter of Faith.

It is an aspect that we can learn, as God or the Church ask the impossible.

Therefore, it is encombant upon us to learn the lession that Christ attempts to teach in the sign.

As far as Church ‘decorations’, you touch upon a related, but distinct element, that of Symbol.

The Church uses Symbols as well, but defines those as “tokens which stand in place of another”. A great example of Symbol is Iconography.

There is often an element of sign in Iconography, such as an Icon of St. Nicholas inspiring us to learn about his life. But when we pray before the icon, it is as a symbol of the great saint.

I believe that is what the Church is indeed pointing to. The sign should lead us to the understanding of the mystery and the grace that accompanies it. While the grace of Communion is complete in the littlest amount of one form, the sign is only completed when both are received.

Let me use your analogy. If street signs point us to get to a street, when we are on the street itself it doesn’t mean the street signs are useless. We still need the signs to remind us we’re on the right street. We also need the block numbers on the street signs to know specifically which block we are in on that street. I don’t know if this is true in your city, but here in Vancouver sometimes when you come to an intersection, if you go straight and past the intersection you are on a different street. You need to turn left or right to follow the same street. So not just because you are on the street the signs are useless. Not until we get to our destination (heaven) we need the signs always because we still can get lost.