Communion under both kinds
#1
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.
Corpus Christi, salva me.

Check out my new blog: A Young Popish American
Reply
#2
(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.
I know our NO parish prohibits it because of the risk of it being spilled, which has happened to myself when I've received the Precious Blood. Once that happened, I felt so guilty and even though it wasn't my fault (because it was served to me by a deacon) I felt it was a mark on my soul. Also, a body requires blood, doesn't it? If that's the case, then the host contains both body and blood in itself since it becomes literally the body and blood of our Saviour, our Redeeming Lover!
Reply
#3
(07-21-2017, 05:27 PM)LoyalVIews Wrote: Also, a body requires blood, doesn't it? If that's the case, then the host contains both body and blood in itself since it becomes literally the body and blood of our Saviour, our Redeeming Lover!


Yep, that's the reason why we don't need to receive Holy Communion under both kinds to make a valid Communion, because the whole and unseparated Christ is present in every bit of the consecrated species.
Corpus Christi, salva me.

Check out my new blog: A Young Popish American
Reply
#4
My objection, besides the Tradition of the Church, is that it was blatant pandering to the prots. Communion under both Species was a major demand of all the heresiarchs at the Protestant Deformation, and even before that, had been a major objective of the Hussite heretics. For instance, the 30th Article of Religion of the Anglican heretics:

Quote:XXX. Of both kinds

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
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'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#5
(07-21-2017, 05:51 PM)Ujovan66102 Wrote: My objection, besides the Tradition of the Church, is that it was blatant pandering to the prots. Communion under both Species was a major demand of all the heresiarchs at the Protestant Deformation, and even before that, had been a major objective of the Hussite heretics. For instance, the 30th Article of Religion of the Anglican heretics:

Quote:XXX. Of both kinds

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.


What about in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where the piece of the Body is dipped into the Precious Blood of the chalice?
Reply
#6
While we do receive Christ equally under the species of bread only, I do think that it is a fuller expression of the mystery of the Eucharist to have also the lay people partake of both the body and blood of our savior. However  I do think that in the western rite there is justification for the "traditional" (or at least post-Trent) practice, because the Latin rite simply does not have the tradition of using a spoon to administer both the body and blood, there is also the fact that lay people cannot touch the chalice. Although I do object to the haphazard way the Novus Ordo distributes the most precious blood, that practice should ideally be ended. 
I say that administering communion as is done in the eastern rites would probably be the best way to do it.
Reply
#7
(07-21-2017, 06:27 PM)Florus Wrote: While we do receive Christ equally under the species of bread only, I do think that it is a fuller expression of the mystery of the Eucharist to have also the lay people partake of both the body and blood of our savior. However  I do think that in the western rite there is justification for the "traditional" (or at least post-Trent) practice, because the Latin rite simply does not have the tradition of using a spoon to administer both the body and blood, there is also the fact that lay people cannot touch the chalice. Although I do object to the haphazard way the Novus Ordo distributes the most precious blood, that practice should ideally be ended. 
I say that administering communion as is done in the eastern rites would probably be the best way to do it.

I mostly agree with this. While I am aware that receiving under one species is entirely sufficient, it seems to me that receiving only the "bread" could potentially lead to a person thinking that somehow the precious blood is of less importance. I imagine that this is probably not an issue for those well catechized but the same could be said of the confusion of species. 

I think the main issue is the possibility of spilling the precious blood but many trads seem to think that receiving under both species is tantamount to sacrilege despite the fact that the eastern churches have been doing it via intinction for centuries.

I agree that the NO is handling the issue very wrongly but I think that trad folk shouldn't be entirely dismissive of the possibility in certain circumstances simply because its "the way its done". While I am very much for the TLM and I would much rather have the laity universally receive under one species than to risk desecration, I don't think receiving the precious blood should be entirely ruled out. 

I'm probably going to get grief about this but sometimes traditional practices should be open to revision though definitely not like how VII handled things.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#8
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 .
Reply
#9
Since the Church thought it was best to have the faithful receive only the Host and since she has retained this practice for so long, I don't think we should change it without a serious reason. After all, it's entirely unnecessary for the faithful to receive the Precious Blood. Receiving Communion under one species is one of the things that I really like about the Latin Mass so I would really prefer it to stay that way.
Reply
#10
(07-21-2017, 06:13 PM)Sequentia Wrote: What about in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where the piece of the Body is dipped into the Precious Blood of the chalice?
As an Easterner myself, I have absolutely no problem with the Tradition of the Eastern Churches being observed in the Eastern Churches. But, just as I oppose Latinisations being introduced into the Eastern Churches, I oppose the introduction of unwarranted Eastern Traditions into the Latin Church in an effort to pander to heretics.
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'


[-] The following 3 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • aquinas138, Confiteor Deo, formerbuddhist
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)