Communion under both kinds
#11
Caro cibus, sanguis potus:
Manet tamen Christus totus,
Sub utraque specie.

There's no need to receive both to receive the sacrament, and "because people aren't well catechised" isn't a reason to change the practice. It's a reason for priests to do a better job teaching the faith. Plus, as others have pointed out, the Latin tradition is receiving under the species of bread only, and there's no good reason to change that. And receiving the Blood requires additional ministers, and given the shortage of priests, and not every parish having deacons, distributing both requires the use of lay people.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#12
(07-21-2017, 05:12 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: What is the trad reasoning behind the idea that Holy Communion should be administered to the faithful only under the species of bread? I normally commune only under the species of bread, but I have communed under the species of wine before at ordinary form Masses as well. 

I know that the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the reception of the Precious Blood is done only by the priest for a couple reasons: it can be expensive and hard to come by in some places, and to prevent profaning and/or spilling the Precious Blood. Is it really that bad if a Catholic receives the Precious Blood reverently from a chalice? Taking care not to spill or receive more than necessary?

I have no problem with only the priest receiving the Precious Blood, in order to preserve Latin tradition, to prevent spilling, to prevent profanation, etc. I just want to know if there's any other reason for the common trad objection to Communion under both kinds.

We don't receive 'wine,' we receive the Blood of Christ.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Poche's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#13
(07-22-2017, 12:37 AM)Poche Wrote:
(07-21-2017, 05:12 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: What is the trad reasoning behind the idea that Holy Communion should be administered to the faithful only under the species of bread? I normally commune only under the species of bread, but I have communed under the species of wine before at ordinary form Masses as well. 

I know that the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the reception of the Precious Blood is done only by the priest for a couple reasons: it can be expensive and hard to come by in some places, and to prevent profaning and/or spilling the Precious Blood. Is it really that bad if a Catholic receives the Precious Blood reverently from a chalice? Taking care not to spill or receive more than necessary?

I have no problem with only the priest receiving the Precious Blood, in order to preserve Latin tradition, to prevent spilling, to prevent profanation, etc. I just want to know if there's any other reason for the common trad objection to Communion under both kinds.

We don't receive 'wine,' we receive the Blood of Christ.

He never called it wine. We do receive Communion, however, under the species of bread or wine.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • LaudeturIesus
Reply
#14
(07-21-2017, 08:26 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The trad reason is simply that: Tradition.

For millennia only the Host was offered to the laity and only on extraordinarily rare occasions has a layman ever received the magnanimous honour of receiving from the Sacred Chalice, think of le Roi de France .

Well the Eucharist hasn't existed for "millennia" though admittedly pretty close. In any case for many centuries in the west there were many regional variations in the administering of communion to the laity. Some received via intinction, others via the chalice, and some under only one species. It wasn't until the 13th century or so that it was standardized and reception from the chalice was limited to the priest.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#15
Dominicus Wrote:
(07-21-2017, 08:26 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The trad reason is simply that: Tradition.

For millennia only the Host was offered to the laity and only on extraordinarily rare occasions has a layman ever received the magnanimous honour of receiving from the Sacred Chalice, think of le Roi de France .

Well the Eucharist hasn't existed for "millennia" though admittedly pretty close. In any case for many centuries in the west there were many regional variations in the administering of communion to the laity. Some received via intinction, others via the chalice, and some under only one species. It wasn't until the 13th century or so that it was standardized and reception from the chalice was limited to the priest.
Many parishes in the early Church, offered only the host as wine was either too expense, or would spoil.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#16
To receive communion under either 'species' alone obtains the same result, since receiving in the 'form' of wine or the 'form' of bread, one receives in both or either, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is why the so-called 'issue' concerning gluten-sensitive individuals, for instance, is rather a moot one. If you have such a sensitivity (celiac disease or Crohn's disease, for instance), you actually have two options: You can ask for a very small fragment of the Host, since the size of the Host is immaterial to what is received, or one may partake of the Blood of Christ, which is also, The Body and Blood of Christ.

Poor example, but even The Merchant of Venice couldn't separate Body and Blood. Shakespeare was so Catholic sometimes. :)
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin
Reply
#17
I agree with the sentiment that it is a fuller expression to receive under both kinds.  I suspect it is also possible for people to slip into the error that it is a sin for the laity to receive the Eucharist under both kinds because they don't see anyone else doing it, if they're in a traditional Latin setting.  As FB likes to say, lex orandi, lex credendi.  I think that belief is as bad as believing Christ's body and blood is not fully received under one form alone.

When defending the traditional Latin practice, the defense is always some version of "This is the tradition; this is how it's always been done."  The way I look at it, Christ instituted the sacrament using both bread and wine.  While it may not be necessary for everyone to receive under both kinds for the sacrament to be valid, Christ didn't throw wine in for shits and giggles.  The Eucharist under the form of bread and wine together is important.  This is the tradition.  Anything that deviates from that, while there may be a practical purpose for a time, is a corruption.

So, reading the responses for the historical purposes of the Latin tradition, it makes sense that it was implemented at the time for the reasons that it was.  If wine was prohibitively expensive for everyone to receive it at a time, then it makes sense to only allow the priest to receive it to conserve costs.  It was a practice based on a temporal need.  Once that need was gone, to not revert back to the authentic practice is a corruption.  Likewise with the heresy of believing Christ wasn't fully present in either form alone.  Once that was no longer an issue, the Latin church should have reverted back to the Apostolic practice; to not do so is a corruption.

To use an analogy, this is like a person whose left blinker burns out in his car and he doesn't have the money to replace it.  So he drives around for years, never using the blinker if he makes a left turn - because he can't.  His children grow up never seeing a blinker for left turns, so when they have cars of their own, they only use the blinker for right turns, even though in their own cars, the left blinker works just fine.  Their children in turn grow up and never use their left blinker because that's how it was done as they were growing up, and so on and so forth until 1000 years later, they refuse to use their left blinker because it is their Holy Tradition.  It's what makes them unique as a family.

This practice, while not sinful or invalid, in not a tradition comparable to Gregorian chant or Latin in the liturgy.  Gregorian chant isn't inherently any better or worse than Old Roman chant; it's just different.  Latin or Greek in the liturgy isn't inherently any better or worse; it's just different.  But all other things being equal, reception of the Eucharist under both forms is better than receiving under one form alone, if for no other reason than because this is the tradition Christ established.  To continue the practice of only receiving under one form, when the temporal need for doing so no longer exists, is not a tradition; it is a corruption.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • LaudeturIesus
Reply
#18
(07-22-2017, 12:20 PM)Melkite Wrote: When defending the traditional Latin practice, the defense is always some version of "This is the tradition; this is how it's always been done."  The way I look at it, Christ instituted the sacrament using both bread and wine.  While it may not be necessary for everyone to receive under both kinds for the sacrament to be valid, Christ didn't throw wine in for shits and giggles.  The Eucharist under the form of bread and wine together is important.  This is the tradition.  Anything that deviates from that, while there may be a practical purpose for a time, is a corruption.

So, reading the responses for the historical purposes of the Latin tradition, it makes sense that it was implemented at the time for the reasons that it was.  If wine was prohibitively expensive for everyone to receive it at a time, then it makes sense to only allow the priest to receive it to conserve costs.  It was a practice based on a temporal need.  Once that need was gone, to not revert back to the authentic practice is a corruption.  Likewise with the heresy of believing Christ wasn't fully present in either form alone.  Once that was no longer an issue, the Latin church should have reverted back to the Apostolic practice; to not do so is a corruption.

To use an analogy, this is like a person whose left blinker burns out in his car and he doesn't have the money to replace it.  So he drives around for years, never using the blinker if he makes a left turn - because he can't.  His children grow up never seeing a blinker for left turns, so when they have cars of their own, they only use the blinker for right turns, even though in their own cars, the left blinker works just fine.  Their children in turn grow up and never use their left blinker because that's how it was done as they were growing up, and so on and so forth until 1000 years later, they refuse to use their left blinker because it is their Holy Tradition.  It's what makes them unique as a family.

This practice, while not sinful or invalid, in not a tradition comparable to Gregorian chant or Latin in the liturgy.  Gregorian chant isn't inherently any better or worse than Old Roman chant; it's just different.  Latin or Greek in the liturgy isn't inherently any better or worse; it's just different.  But all other things being equal, reception of the Eucharist under both forms is better than receiving under one form alone, if for no other reason than because this is the tradition Christ established.  To continue the practice of only receiving under one form, when the temporal need for doing so no longer exists, is not a tradition; it is a corruption.

While we can certainly argue that the conditions for which the communion under both species stopped are no longer present, reasons for not re-introducing the practice in the Latin Church are not merely the "always been done" argument.

If we are honest, we will see that stopping it was a prudential (not doctrinal) matter, and introducing it again will also be a matter of prudence. Additionally the reasons militating against it years ago may have ceased, but new reasons may have entered in. As with any human law (or custom) as St. Thomas says (ST I:II q.97 a.2) it must only change if a significantly better good results. It's not enough just to return to the old practice, because any change harms custom, so there has to be some greater good to compensate for this harm.

Firstly, we cannot say that the practice of communion under both species was truly as universal as often suggested. Communion of the sick, of children, private communion, the Mass of the Presanctified, and even Lenten practices all were very early examples of communion under one species, and this from the very first centuries of the Church. True, that in most Sunday liturgies communion was under both species but it was not as if every Mass had communion under both species. This is both the case in East and West.

In the West, the practice was not uniform either, and the practice moved toward intinction in many places. Oddly enough, the East did not know intinction until the 11th century. Certain places in the West were giving communion only under the species of bread by the 7th century. For instance, the Council of Braga (local council in Portugal) forbid intinction in the 695, suggesting the practice here was communion only under one species. Uniformity in the West came by the 12th century. Thus it is a long-standing custom in the West and does accord with early Church practices. To militate against it and return to the communion under both species we would need a significant benefit for the faithful to overcome 8-13 centuries of practice.

Even though, if the original reasons are no longer existing (which I would argue is not so clear), we have added reasons not to reintroduce the practice :
  • Communion under both species has been the rallying call of Protestants and rebellious "reformers" as early as the 13th century. Even if they had a good argument, there is the danger of appearing to countenance their cause by introducing the practice,
  • Certainly there is little regard and respect for the Eucharist and many do not accept the Real Presence. There is danger of causing more confusion and even promoting heretical notions by introducing the practice now.
  • Any change in the custom must be at least tacitly approved by the authority. Clearly today when everything is in flux and the most outrageous things are approved, it is not a good time to make any changes to the traditional customs.
  • The distribution of communion is under both kinds is of great practical difficulty and a uniform practice would be needed to maintain the correct respect for the Eucharist.
  • Such a change does not really seem to produce any real significant advantage, and is more likely to bias the faithful against communion under one species, just as communion in the hand has biased people against the traditional manner of receiving only on the tongue.
Given all of that, I cannot see how re-introducing the practice is enough of a good, and even if the arguments that this was the practice of Christ and the original reasons are gone are sound ones, the other difficulties that have arisen make it a bad idea at present. When the Church settles down and there is peace and general uniformity, then would be the time to consider such changes, if they do actually serve some great advantage.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Confiteor Deo, jovan66102, LaudeturIesus
Reply
#19
Very well said, MM!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#20
Indeed, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with Communion under both kinds, but the tradition within the Roman Rite had been under one kind for the laity for centuries, making it a definite move to appease Protestants on the part of the Vatican to change it. 

Each Rite ought to keep sacred its venerable traditions. I can't even say now that much associated with the new rite is even obliquely related to the  traditional Roman Rite; it's basically just the Pauline Rite,a hodgepodge of Protestantism and modernism with a handful of cut and paste remnants of traditional Catholic prayers arranged haphazardly on a blank canvas like the spatters of paint on a Jackson Pollack painting.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 1 user Likes formerbuddhist's post:
  • LaudeturIesus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)