Why Receive Communion Two Ways

[powerandglory]

I started going to mass recently and noticed that people receive Communion both as the host and wine. I hadn’t seen this as a kid (my parish was pretty old-school) and was wondering why? If Jesus is present (actually and not symbolically) in the Blessed Sacrament - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity why receive under both forms?

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I could ask the same for consecrating the wine at Mass. Why consecrate both if the body and blood are present in both species?

 

[powerandglory]

Well, I don’t actually know that either.

 

[Wesrock]

Because the laity gets to participate more closely in how Jesus celebrated it first.

 

[SMHW]

The usual reason given is similar to what Wesrock states:

The old Baltimore Catechism definition of a sacrament is that of “an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give Grace.” The current Catechism of the Catholic Church states that receiving communion under both species is a “more complete” sign.

 

[JulianN]

“Nevertheless, it is especially fitting to receive Christ in both forms during the celebration of the Eucharist. This allows the Eucharist to appear more perfectly as a banquet, a banquet that is a foretaste of the banquet that will be celebrated with Christ at the end of time when the Kingdom of God is established in its fullness ( Eucharisticum Mysterium , no. 32).”

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The priest must consecrate and consume both in order for a valid Mass to occur, but everyone else may receive one or the other (or both).

 

[Calliope]

Because Jesus said to eat my body and drink my blood, not eat my blood and drink my body? Keep it simple, do what he said?

 

[JohnLilburne]

Communion under both kinds is discussed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

14 Prompted by the same intention and pastoral zeal, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since nowadays the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of Eucharistic Communion received under the species of bread alone are not in any way called into question, the Council gave permission for the reception on occasion of Communion under both kinds, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity for understanding more deeply the mystery in which the faithful participate.21

Footnote 21: Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium , no. 55.

Communion under Both Kinds
281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.105

282 Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it, are made by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as lad down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.106

Furthermore, they should teach that the Church, in her administration of the Sacraments, has the power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.107 However, at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.

105 Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium , 25 May 1967,

no. 32: Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 59 (1967), p. 558.

106 Cf. Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXI, Doctrina de communione sub utraque specie et parvulorum , 16 July 1562, cap. 1-3: Denzinger-Schönmetzer nos. 1725-1729.

107 Cf. ibidem, cap. 2: Denzinger-Schönmetzer, no. 1728.

[Excerpts from the English translation of The Roman Missal (c) 2010, International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.]

 

[YourNameHere]

Both the bread and wine are offered at my parish. The problem that sometimes arises is that it takes a little longer for parishioners to receive the wine. There is a bit of a bottleneck. We need two ministers to administer the wine.

 

[PeterT]

I started going to mass recently and noticed that people receive Communion both as the host and wine. I hadn’t seen this as a kid (my parish was pretty old-school) and was wondering why? If Jesus is present (actually and not symbolically) in the Blessed Sacrament - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity why receive under both forms?

Because that’s how our Lord, Jesus, wanted it. Read what Jesus said at the last supper. He wanted his disciples to have Him in BOTH forms, though we know through the Church’s teaching that having Holy Communion in one form only is sufficient by itself.

 

[paperwight]

Both the bread and wine are offered at my parish. The problem that sometimes arises is that it takes a little longer for parishioners to receive the wine. There is a bit of a bottleneck. We need two ministers to administer the wine.

Actually, your parish is going against guidelines it if doesn’t have two to each station.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Communion under one kind was instituted to fight a heresy which said that you recieved a greater grace from recieving under both kinds. Consuming a host, or drinking the wine, would both result in your recieving Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The altar is not an operating table afterall, with parts of Christ in the wine, and some in the host. They’re both equally and full present under both forms.

We recieve both because it is more ritually complete, and fulfills the symbology in a deeper sense.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Because it is a privilege and a blessing to be able to receive both.

 

[Rob2]

Communion under one kind was instituted to fight a heresy

When was that ?

Who was the heretic at the time this practice was instituted @

 

[YourNameHere]

We lack Ministers

 

[Vico]

I started going to mass recently and noticed that people receive Communion both as the host and wine. I hadn’t seen this as a kid (my parish was pretty old-school) and was wondering why? …

There are established norms. Redemptionis sacramentum, 2004:

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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 remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] 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.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[leonhardprintz]

When was that ?

Who was the heretic at the time this practice was instituted @

It is called The Utraquist controversy, which comes from the latin sub utraque specie “under both species”, it was promulgated by the Calixtines and Hussites in 1414.

They tought that it was impossible to be saved unless, you received under both species. Some taught more softly that reception under both species merely conferred more grace.

Both of these ideas were condemned as heresy by the Council of Constance in 1418.

 

[Rob2]

Rob2:

When was that ?

Who was the heretic at the time this practice was instituted @

It is called The Utraquist controversy, which comes from the latin sub utraque specie “under both species”, it was promulgated by the Calixtines and Hussites in 1414.

They tought that it was impossible to be saved unless, you received under both species. Some taught more softly that reception under both species merely conferred more grace.

Both of these ideas were condemned as heresy by the Council of Constance in 1418.

But in 1414 when Jacobo da Mies began to preach in Prague that Communion under both species was indispensable to salvation it was because the Church’s practice of receiving Communion under one kind was already occurring .

They were objecting to a practice already in place .

 

[leonhardprintz]

But in 1414 when Jacobo da Mies began to preach in Prague that Communion under both species was indispensable to salvation it was because the Church’s practice of receiving Communion under one kind was already occurring .

They were objecting to a practice already in place .

Good point, I didn’t know that. It was my impression that it was after.