FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Communion Under Both Kinds
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place.

When I was young and in CCD classes preparing for my First Holy Communion I was told by my instructor that if I didn't receive Holy Communion under both kinds, I was insulting God. I know this is not true, now, but I was wondering if anyone else here in the Tank would be able to point me in the direction of a book, articles, Encyclicals, etc that explain why we in the Roman Rite do not receive under both kinds.
It was probably something made up to discourage the want to receive under both species. 


It is very wrong to say something like that because when one receives the body of Christ the blood is received with it. When the blood is received the body is there too.
(05-27-2012, 05:51 PM)spunky76 Wrote: [ -> ]When I was young and in CCD classes preparing for my First Holy Communion I was told by my instructor that if I didn't receive Holy Communion under both kinds, I was insulting God.

I've never been opposed to Communion in both kinds as long as it's done licitly and in a sensible manner, but the above is completely absurd, as you already know.

It calls to mind a late medieval heresy of the Hussites called Utraquism. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm
(05-27-2012, 05:51 PM)spunky76 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place.

When I was young and in CCD classes preparing for my First Holy Communion I was told by my instructor that if I didn't receive Holy Communion under both kinds, I was insulting God. I know this is not true, now, but I was wondering if anyone else here in the Tank would be able to point me in the direction of a book, articles, Encyclicals, etc that explain why we in the Roman Rite do not receive under both kinds.

That was more than simply not true.  It is a condemned teaching.  There is so much bad catechesis in the the Church that it just makes me feel sick.

Here is an encyclopedia article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm  The section on "Totality of Presence" addresses your question, especially the second paragraph.
Should not the Sacred Host already represent  both the bloody and body of our Lord? Communion under both species is one of those novelties and liturgical abuses unleashed by Vatican II.
(05-27-2012, 06:11 PM)Christknight104 Wrote: [ -> ]Should not the Sacred Host already represent  both the bloody and body of our Lord? Communion under both species is one of those novelties and liturgical abuses unleashed by Vatican II.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Communion under both species.  The problem is that historically it is associated with heretical ideas, such as among the Protestant Reformers.  I wouldn't call it an abuse, in itself.  There are priests who do this in situations where they do not have permission to and I would call that an abuse.
(05-27-2012, 06:11 PM)Christknight104 Wrote: [ -> ]Should not the Sacred Host already represent  both the bloody and body of our Lord? Communion under both species is one of those novelties and liturgical abuses unleashed by Vatican II.

Since Communion in both kinds has been practiced for more than half of the Western Church's history, and has continued to the present day in the Eastern Church, calling it a novelty would itself be insulting to God.

It's not currently licit in the 1962 Mass's rubrics, but it's not wrong.
Forgive me, I was mostly referring to way that communion in both species was being applied in the Latin Church after the Second Vatican  Council. I could be wrong, ( and I accept correction  of course) but it  seems that  it was applied as some sort of Ecumenist gesture by the Modernists to make the Mass less offensive to protestants. There are exceptions of course.
(05-27-2012, 06:39 PM)Christknight104 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I was mostly referring to way that communion in both species was being applied in the Latin Church after the Second Vatican  Council. I could be wrong, ( and I accept correction  of course) but it  seems that  it was applied as some sort of Ecumenist gesture by the Modernists to make the Mass less offensive to protestants. There are exceptions of course.

Okay. That makes sense.

I wish Communion in both kinds were restored simply to make fuller use of the two symbols and to make deacons more useful. I don't care what Prots think one way or the other.
(05-27-2012, 06:39 PM)Christknight104 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I was mostly referring to way that communion in both species was being applied in the Latin Church after the Second Vatican  Council. I could be wrong, ( and I accept correction  of course) but it  seems that  it was applied as some sort of Ecumenist gesture by the Modernists to make the Mass less offensive to protestants. There are exceptions of course.

That is my impression too.
Pages: 1 2 3 4