Our parish has just introduced communion under both kinds for all who wish to partake of it. Seeing that Our Lord is completely present under either species, is this not a duplication of receiving him?
no its not a duplication
i would like to be able to receive under both species regularly but the parish i attend only offers it during Easter Vigil and during weekday mass (maybe because there’s like 10 people)
To receive our Lord’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity under both species is an opportunity to receive him twice in a row.
Logically that is how it seems to me.
Personally I only ever receive the Host from a Priest, even though He is offered under both species in our Parish.
After offering his disciples the bread and the wine, Jesus said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’
It does seem unneccesarry, because in each is the total Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. If you just receive the Precious Body (at NO Mass of course) always give a bow or some reverence towards the Precious Blood when passing by!! People seem to forget
I hardly think Our Lord would do anything that was meaningless, and He, after all, consecrated and distributed both bread and wine at the Last Supper and so taught us that we may do the same).
Doesn’t mean it’s necessary, of course, but then neither is daily or weekly Communion as opposed to yearly, and there are certainly additional graces which can be obtained from receiving oftener.
i believe it is preferable, but not required
only the Celebrant is required to receive both species
very nice post.
i ahve accepted you post informations.
That’s a good point! My personal preference is still just receiving the Precious Body, then returning to my pew to pray. I wonder for what reason the tradition is to just receive the Body in the Latin Rite… that’s mainly the reason for me.
If lay people who receive under both species are “receiving twice” or having a “duplication”, then so is the celebrant and all concelebrants (and even deacons). Why not make a fuss over them?
Is one God in three Persons a kind of triplication? Does that mean there are three gods? No, there is one God.
Communion is a sacrament under the appearances of bread and wine. Whether you receive the sacrament under the form of bread, under the form of wine, or under the form of bread and wine, you are still receiving a single sacrament a single time.
There are dogmatic and pastoral reasons concerning the reception of Holy Communion under the form of bread alone for the laity.
Several centuries ago, there was a heresy concerning the Eucharist that ONLY the consecrated bread was the Body of Christ, and ONLY the consecrated wine was the Blood of Christ; therefore, to receive the Body and Blood, a person had to receive under both forms. The Church disagreed, that the whole Jesus Christ is present under both forms, and in order to impress the seriousness of this doctrine (called concomitance), the Church forbid for a time the offering of the chalice to the laity. (Constance (1415) on Communion under both kinds (search for “SESSION 13”))
150 years later, at the Council of Trent, the issue of Communion under both kinds was considered again, but no change was made. (Trent (1562) session 21 on Communion under both kinds; Trent (1562) session 22 on the possibility of conceding the chalice to the laity)
400 years later, at the Council of Vatican II, the issue was brought up once more, and the possibility of offering the chalice was permitted. (Vatican II (1963) on the possibility of Communion under both kinds)
Since it is occurring at one mass, it is just a fuller sign of the reception of Christ.
You can also receive many hosts at one mass and it is considered one reception. This often occurs when there was no place to store the consecrated hosts after mass (eg when a mass is said in the retirement home). All the hosts will be consumed at the mass, and, as the last of the communicants come forward, they may be given 2 or 3 hosts. One communion, one reception, multiple hosts.
Similarly when I receive a part of the large host that has been broken by the priest, a small particle may fall off. This particle of consecrated bread is the entire body and blood of Christ and could be given to someone for the reception of communion, however, I simply consume the particle in my hand.
We all are receiving the same body of Christ, one bread, one cup, one body and blood.
Remember that the Church considers that command to be a command to the priesthood to perform this Sacrifice.
Therefore, it would be a stretch to say that this applies to all the faithful, as we cannot offer that particular sacrifice.
In addition, remember that the Last Supper was also the institution of Holy Orders; the Apostles were bishops and bishops (along with their servants the priests) have ALWAYS recieved both species.
I’ll have to keep that in mind.
I’m always very careful to genuflect towards the Tabernacle when Jesus is present there. But having Him already in my mouth, etc, I must say that I never think very hard about how to revere Him as I pass the Chalice.
(Don’t make me think too much!)
True. However, St Paul also makes reference to both eating the bread AND drinking the cup, and it’s not at all clear that he was referring to only priests doing the latter. :shrug:
As I said earlier, it’s permissible and may well even be beneficial to receive under both forms. Personally I don’t do so - but that’s because of a lingering germophobia rather than any deepseated philosophical or theological objections.
The biggest thing I liked about Orthodox services was that communion is served with the host mixed with the wine in one chalice and then served on a spoon to communicants.
However, the Body and the Blood, while they are two separate entities, they are still that of the same Christ and not duplicates. Think of it this way - there are some things that we cannot comprehend, such as the nature of Christ, the trinity being one, the transformation of communion into the true body and the true blood, etc. Our minds are human, and only God can comprehend them because He is God, and our purpose is to accept them as gifts from God with the little knowledge we have of them and believe that they are what they are. That is the largest aspect of having faith
From the Catechism:
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.
e.g. the GIRM for the U.S. approved by the Vatican:
- Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear 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 relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
No, the heresy was that it was required to receive BOTH forms/species. Trent taught against that heresy.
I think that’s what I said… although looking up Utraquism, I see I was combining it and Nestorianism.
The Utraquist heresy, as the OCE describes it, was basically that “Man, in order to be saved, must receive Holy Communion … under the forms of bread and wine.” The Nestorian heresy, as the OCE describes it, was basically that “the bread … contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood.”
Suffice to say, those Utraquists who were reconciled with the Church at the Council of Basle in 1431 had to “confess that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ were contained whole and entire both under the form of bread and under that of wine” and “retract the statement that Communion under both forms is necessary for salvation.” In other words, the Utraquists had to confess belief in concomitance, which was the root of the Nestorian heresy.
My sentence “The Church disagreed, that the whole Jesus Christ is present under both forms…” is potentially confusing. I should have said: “The Church disagreed, and taught rather that the whole Jesus Christ is present under both forms…”