Recieving the Eucharist under both species

Hi
What are the opinions of traditional Catholics on whether a church should give the faithful the option of receiving the Eucharist under both species; and whether, if it is available, we should receive under both species?
(By the way, I do know that we’re not required to receive under both species and nor are we banned from doing so - this question is not about absolutes, but about opinions / which is ‘better’).

I like it if only done by inctinction, from a Priest or Deacon or instituted acolyte.

God Bless

Although I am not entirely sure , my gut tells me and i after i do some more research i will return to this thread, i think that the original way the church offered Eucharist was via both species.

I think that it contributes to the fullness of your spiritual life if you receive both the body and the blood. After all, Jesus did offer both at the last supper:)

Since the Council of Trent has formally declared that the Eucharistic Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, I only receive under the species of bread. It is not necessary to receive under both species.

I think there are pro’s and con’s.

Pro’s:
for those who have wheat allergies or celiac’s disease, this lets them participate.

Con’s:
greater risk of profanation via spilling
backwash is gross
usually necessitates more EMHC’s
more vessels to purify
more traffic in the communion reception area

I, personally, don’t think it should be regularly offerred.

I think it should be the norm, and conducted as is done in the Eastern Churches, who have been doing it for centuries without a problem, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Me too, with those long, golden spoons and the huge satin napkin…

Not Necessary.

Using that logic, wouldn’t a 10-inch Host and a whole glass of Blood contribute to still a fuller spiritual life?

I feel better when I receive both species, although receiving just the bread is okay. I just feel better when I get both species since in the Bible Jesus had both bread and wine that He offered to His disciples.

A bottle. Or a stone ablutions jar full.


You mean —those who receive the Host alone or the Precious Blood alone—have less fullness in their spiritual life.

LOL. Gives a whole new meaning to the “less filling” ad. :smiley: :smiley:

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Interesting, I was coming on to post something similar.

In my opinion, if the Blood wasn’t important, Jesus wouldn’t have instructed us to consume it. Just because the Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, doesn’t make the Blood obsolete. If it were unnecessary, why were told by our Lord to take it? What was the point of ever having it? Why would he bother to hold up His chalice and tell us it was His blood and command us to consume it? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

It makes me sad to see so many people walk by it as if it’s not even there. It makes me sadder still to see people say that it’s not important.

The number one reason I hear for not taking it is “I don’t like wine.”

My husband and I always receive both.

I think it should be the norm, and conducted as is done in the Eastern Churches, who have been doing it for centuries without a problem, no need to reinvent the wheel.

I agree.


It makes sense in light of Catholic doctrine.

So how does the Church explain why Jesus bothered talking about His blood in the first place? (I’m asking sincerely, I’m a new Catholic, I really don’t know). If the Blood is so unimportant and unnecessary, I just really don’t understand why Jesus bothered to tell us to drink it.

No wonder I’ve heard of EMHC’s dumping the Blood on the ground. :frowning:


If anyone dumps our Lord’s Precious Blood on the gound —it is sacrilege.

The Council of Trent

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

Thank you. That still doesn’t really answer my question. I understand that we’re not bound by Church law to being required to take both, but I don’t understand the jump from that to “the Blood doesn’t matter.”

It’s also a little confusing. So we aren’t required to take both, but we also can’t say that either is all we need? Jesus may or may not have enjoined both species? Then why do the words of the Mass claim that He did? I don’t know about your priest, but mine doesn’t say “And then he maybe took the cup, but we’re not sure, and said…”

Granted I’ve only been getting around 5 hours of sleep the last few nights, so maybe I’m just not processing well today. :smiley:


What our doctrine says—we receive the Body and Blood of our risen Christ. His Body and Blood can no longer be separate. By receiving the Host alone—we receive our Lord Christ in His entirety—Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and full complete grace. The same is true by receiving the Precious Blood alone—He is there full and complete with all grace.

Re-read the section of the Council of Trent. It explains there —why we only need to receive one species.

That makes more sense. I was understanding it as though people were assuming the Blood didn’t also contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Why then the focus on the Host? If they both equally contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, why is the Body in the spotlight all the time? Why are some suggesting the Blood not be offered routinely? And why not go ahead and take both? I understand we don’t have to, I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t. I don’t mean that judgmentally, just that personally receiving both is such an overwhelming experience for me, I couldn’t decline one just because I didn’t “have” to take it. The fact that they’re both offered to me is humbling and amazing to me. I tend to do a lot of things I don’t “have” to do, though. :shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.