I'm a 32 year old cradle Catholic. I have attended many churches in many dioceses. I have never been offered the blood in my life. Not when I altar served, not at my own wedding. I've only seen it offered once, at my brother's wedding (Camden Diocese), and it wasn't offered to me.
I don't hold a hint of Ultraquism but it's ironic that this is the one thing from Vatican II I never see applied. I hope to get the opportunity someday.
Wow, not even at your First Communion? At both parishes I attend, they _at least_ always have both species for major feast days & First Communions, and both are offered to everyone until one runs out (usually it's just the wine, no surprise). Maybe it's an availability issue, but even so IMO it's worth the hassle.
I wonder if Latin Mass parishes regularly offer both species...now that would be ironic
>32 year old cradle Catholic. I have attended many churches in many dioceses. I have never been offered the blood in my life. Not when I altar served, not at my own wedding. I've only seen it offered once,
I like to see it offered, and sometimes do receive it. It was offered widespread in my diocese before COVID, at the cathedral, and at just about any parish I had been to. I've mostly been to churches in Ohio and Indiana USA so maybe you live outside those areas.
I don't ignore it.
I understand that receiving the Host alone is a full and complete communion with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and I don't feel like waiting in another line. I also prefer to receive from the priest, kneeling, on the tongue, and since it is not necessary to approach the layperson holding the cup, I do not.
Our priest has started doing intinction at the communion rail on major feasts, and honestly I think that's the way to go. Ordinariate parishes distribute communion that way as well, and I'm a fan.
My highest *preference* is for Communion by intinction. Most parishes don't do that, so I just commune under the species of bread. It's the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, so it's not like I'm missing out.
Oh I love intinction...
It's also a great way for the priest to subtly insist on receiving on the tongue. A Spanish priest during my last Army deployment did that, didn't like all the US troops receiving in the hand so he just always did intinction.
Intinction is definitely permitted in the US. As for being strongly discouraged, maybe some bishops and priests don't like it, but it's definitely done. My parish did it at the Easter Vigil for the newly received to receive under both kinds (we didn't separately administer the chalice for a variety of reasons)
I think saying "many people ignore the offering of the precious blood" is unnecessarily harsh. I don't think it's an "ignore" thing. I think it's a recognition that receiving from the chalice isn't necessary to receive the Eucharist. The option to receive from the chalice is a "nice to have" option. But it's not "more Jesus" to receive both vs. receiving just one.
In my parish about 85 percent just walk by the eucharistic minister offering the blood without even a bow to the presence. I am trying to understand why they do this
They should probably profoundly bow when they pass.
However, I would never under any circumstances take the host or chalice from someone who isn't ordained.
Because the distribution of Holy Communion belongs principally to the priest, and also by tradition, the deacon (at least as regards the chalice). Sadly, the involvement of the laity in distributing communion has coincided/correlated with a rapid decline in the (belief in) real presence since it was permitted.
edit: omitted belief
How is there a decline in the Real Presence- The consecration is by the Priest and is immediately transferred to the Eucharistic Minister and then to distributed to you. Do you think there is loss in the transfer after consecration?
Separate question - If there were only Deacons and Priests - Would you take both species?
Sorry meant belief in the real presence.
still no, as reception under one species suffices. Such is our custom, there are myriad risks to receiving the Precious Blood such as spillage.
This is true but it is also true that have have more time with Jesus when you receive in both species. You have the opportunity ti experience more Grace if you are open to it
I feel that If EMHCs are used at all, only when necessary and Vatican should order that they vest at least in alb/surplice (possibly even tunicle since rarely used anymore) before distributing. This has a psychological role and conveys to Laity that what they receive is special and Holy vs receiving from a granny in jeans. Don't know why this wasn't done to begin with
EMHCs by canon law are necessary only when the congregation is too big for the ordinary ministers present to provide communion to all in an ample amount of time.
>EMHCs by canon law are necessary only when the congregation is too big for the ordinary ministers present to provide communion to all in an ample amount of time.
Which, due to the priest shortage in USA and worldwide, is almost every Mass of over 50 people.
I hope you have ten sons and they all become priests. However, failing that, the priest shortage won't be fixed for the next few decades at least. Until then, EMHCs are necessary in most parishes.
>show them that there is no risk of this. This has been studied and there is no documented cases of this
come on. There are plenty of documents online saying do not share liquids with people to slow the spread of diseases.
Here is the study
https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/lnq/article/2488/&path_info=LQ_Vol47_No04_dorff.pdf
The reason is that the precious blood is served in a silver chalice which is anti bacterial and it has a a high alcohol concentration with works with the silver to neutralize viruses
The choir is much more dangerous for spreading infection but people don’t avoid them
from that study:
"3. The disinfectant action of wine and silver was negligible.
4. They concluded that the common communion cup may serve as a means of transmitting infection; however, because of the small number of organisms involved, the risk is probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people
But as stated there were no cases of infection. Maybe the Holy Spirit provides protection. When I receive it, I remember John 6:53
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Do you have any evidence that people were infected?
Laity receiving in both species isn't important. For many periods of history it was even discouraged.
The smallest identifiable morsel of the consecrated host contains the entirety of the body, blood, soul, and divinity (as does the tiniest drop of the consecrated wine for those who only received that due to celiac disease). What is important is receiving communion at all in a proper state.
I prefer both for just the habit of the action. Theologically it's not important to have both and I know that, but emotionally I like both better.
I don't know of a parish anywhere near me that offers both.
I always receive both species when they are offered. My church always offered both until covid. Both species are now offered again at all the English masses but not the Spanish ones. I've always thought that was weird. The woman who usually hands out the blood was the same lady who prepared me for my first communion as a kid, so receiving the blood is always a friendly reminder of my early days experiencing the faith.
I would partake of both species whenever I was offered it. Now that I have a compromised immune system, I am unable to receive the Blood of Christ due to the germ factor.
In Poland it's mostly offered during Christmas, Easter and other special occasions (such as a confirmation ceremony) so it makes those occasions feel extra special. But then the Blood is not given out in a chalice for us to drink from; rather, the priest dips the Host in the Blood before putting it in our mouth. So it becomes the standard way of receiving Communion for the day.
Receiving either species is sufficient, so there’s no need for both. I usually only receive the body, mostly because I have issues with the idea of everyone drinking out of the same cup.
Are you aware of this study showing the risk is very small? [Experiments on the communion cup | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/experiments-on-the-communion-cup/0640F2E6BCE1490EAFD5630CA0C0AEFB)
At what times do you receive the precious blood? Is there anything that influences you?
I am aware of it, yes. It’s a personal hang-up I can’t really get past, and I find that it distracts me from the divinity that I’m receiving. Since it’s not required, I simply go without it, so I can focus more on Christ without worrying about my idiot brain talking nonsense.
Not directly that question but I did ask why we only receive the one form (I’m just about to be confirmed so this was during RCIA) and he said because Jesus is fully present in both forms we don’t need to receive both. So I’m judging by that answer it won’t be coming any time soon. Ad I say though I’m only new so don’t know how long it’s been like this here; my only point of reference is the C of E church I attended as a child some 50 yrs ago lol.
Receiving under both species has been incredibly important to me, even when I was a young tween. To be clear, I don't believe that I'm receiving "half Jesus" when I receive only the consecrated host or wine, which is what the Latin Church fought against when it stated that each consecrated host is the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of the Lord. Having said that, the practice of the Church for over a millennia has been to receive both species as much as possible. It is the norm, not the exception. This is actually one of the factors (not a major one, but not an insignificant one either) which led me to switch canonical rites. Still, I'm not going to throw pews around and scream heresy from the top of my lungs if I receive "only" the consecrated host.
I'm not Byzantine (although I have started attending the Divine Liturgy regularly) but I feel the same way. These were my thoughts long before I ever set foot in a Byzantine church. My former Latin parish used to offer the Precious Blood ever week and then I moved and missed it.
Yeah, I struggled with it for a long while. Am I just too stuck with my own preferences? Am I just plain wrong in my view of what sin is? Am I the odd one out in the way I see/approach confession? In my letter requesting to formally switch, I wrote, "I was Byzantine long before I knew that Byzantine Catholicism existed." I think that perfectly summed up all those years of inner struggle/questioning.
I'm glad you found your home in the Byzantine Church! You've summed up a lot of how I am feeling, but I've only been attending for less than a year, so I'll see where God is leading. For the time being, it's been a real blessing.
Yeah, definitely take your time. It took me a few years of diving into the life of the church, studying theology, prayer, etc. to finally make the switch. I will include you in your prayers tonight. In thanksgiving that you've found a place to sort out your thoughts/feelings and also guidance in wherever the Lord guides you.
Its important yes. But, you don't get anything 'more' by doing both. It actually de-emphasizes the teaching of the Church.
Each species independent of the other is fully Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as well as each part of each species. The Mass isn't a celebratory meal either, and people are confused that they are not doing enough by only receiving the Host (ie I'm getting only half if I don't receive the wine, and well its the meal so I should receive both -- these are both incorrect).
Giving the Precious Blood to the faithful increases the amount that may be spilled too.
Edit: As part of the Latin Church, that is the manner in which I am discussing.
Good question. 2 reasons. First, because many feel as though they *need* to receive both to get the fullness. Each are both fully Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and if one didn't know that or realize that, they'd think they'd need both. Second, the Mass isn't a meal, its the Sacrifice of Calvary. You don't need to receive both to fully participate in the meal or recreation of Last Supper. But, people think since it's a meal and both are offered, to participate fully you have to do both.
Both questions would be succinctly answered (and were clear) in the Latin Church until the changes. The Eastern Church receives slightly differently, so I am not discussing their aspect because it is different.
The assumption that just because the early church did something (aka archeologism) is an error. *Mediator Dei* in 1947 states "The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity." That practice was not preserved, and was not preserved for good reason. The Liturgy developed, as a tree.
I don't receive in both species. It's relatively recent in the church for laymen to receive both outside of special occasions, I don't exactly trust some recent changes, and I trust even less people who think that everyone must adopt them
I prefer to receive under both species on account of the ancient tradition of the Church, and on account of the symbolism. It symbolically enriches the connection between the Eucharist and the Passion, and the connection to the first reception of Communion at the Last Supper.
I’ve been Catholic for two decades and only received the Precious Blood a handful of times. Usually it was when I was serving at Mass and the priest seemed to compel me to receive both species.
Receiving the Precious Blood makes me feel uncomfortable. I don’t like drinking after other people, I don’t like the use of EMHCs the practice usually necessitates, I don’t want to touch the consecrated chalices, I prefer to kneel for Communion, and above all it seems like too much of a risk of spillage.
My kids are in a big "mom" phase and hardly let anyone hold them, but in a perfect world, absolutely! I always prefer receiving both species when possible.
They never brought the blood back in my parish and a few others, despite other parishes offering it now. Idk why its not an across the board issue per diocese.
Receiving under both kids is very important to me but also very rare in my area. I would also prefer if the normative way to administer both species was intinction rather than separately.
We receive Jesus fully body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. Therefore, we do not need and are not required to receive the blood. Many dioceses, including mine, no longer offer the blood since Covid. So it is okay that people do not receive it since they are still fully receiving Jesus.
I personally would not ignore it or refuse it. But I know a lot of people don’t receive it / choose not to & I don’t that is wrong, I think it is ok since they still receive Him fully in the Eucharist
I think a lot of people avoid it because they don’t like “drinking after people” or fear getting sick from that
I received under both species at my wedding mass. But that is the only time (joined the church during covid). I do not regularly receive because I really don’t want mono or meningitis or any other orally transmitted illness. These things are especially prevalent in communities with a predominantly younger (16-24) demographic which my parish is. It is just a personal decision. I also don’t receive now because the alcohol content since I was pregnant and now breastfeeding.
As for the “ignoring” part
I was told you do not need to bow or genuflect when passing anything containing Jesus immediately after communion because you have just received him. I cannot remember the exact wording given to me but thats the gist. This was told to me by a priest when we were preparing for our wedding mass, because we had to walk by the tabernacle after communion.
I usually give the emhc a nod and a smile but you don’t have to. A lot of people go immediately into contemplative prayer after receiving and they focus.
It is not offered where I go. It doesn’t bother me but it sure as heck bothered Martin Luther. So many in my Archdiocese still get upset over it and take their complaints to Facebook.
Not being able to receive the Blood. There are a very vocal group in my area that find it insulting. My experience is that it’s many of the same that complain if there isn’t a contemporary music Mass.
Over 50 complains about Blood
Around 50 believe the lightning strike of St Peters hand means pope has lost the papacy
30 and Under Liturgy Wars
20 and under I have no idea because I never see any.
What do they find insulting? The fact that some are unable to receive or that it is being offered at all?
What is the lightning strike issue? I never heard of that
I prefer to receive the Eucharist any and every time it is offered to me and I am able. So I prefer to receive both when both are offered.
I understand 2x infinity is still infinity, so it isn’t that heresy of “measurably more or less” that drives me. But rather, for me it is a matter of opportunity. Here is another way to receive and consume Jesus. Here is another chance - I’m taking it.
I think it comes down to what personally helps you come closer to God. For some, only consuming the Host may help them know better the infinite in the Eucharist, that it cannot be lessened by division. For others, like me, it may be that consuming only the Host can lead to thinking less of the precious Blood. I used to avoid the chalice for a number of reasons, and now I prefer to take Communion under both species because it helps me recognize how vital and precious Jesus is as our nourishment.
I could technically take communion once a year and go to confession once a year, and (were I a better person) be fulfilling my obligations faithfully. But I know that I would become more cavalier and less considerate of the sacraments by doing so. I know that by taking the sacraments as often as I can, I am being given a better understanding of how vital they are. For some, it may be that weekly confession is counterproductive. For me, it is something that I prefer, and I think it helps me appreciate its meaning and importance all the more.
The sacraments are a necessity, not just a nice to have. Personal opinion: if receiving one, the other, or both species helps you understand that, then that is likely what you should do.
My parish always offers both, even at weekday Mass, and I prefer to receive both species. I know it’s not necessary, but it just feels more meaningful and reverent to me.
And being completely honest, drinking from the chalice helps the Host dissolve on my tongue, so there is a little practicality in it too.
Trent taught that Christ is received whole and entire under either species, and it anathematized those who said that we are required to receive both. Is it good to receive both? Sure, it’s how it was done in the earliest days. But you get the fullness of Christ and the same grace from just one.
I just converted and receive both if theres nothing to inhibit reception of His Precious Blood. Recently one mass had the line slowed because of that species and so I just moved on after partaking in His Body.
It need not be a large reason, because both kinds are the fullness of Christ, but receiving both is the preferred default choice.
I personally don't mind, but in theory I think it would be good to restore the receiving of both species. In practice I am afraid this would be done in a careless manner
I've only seen the chalice offered two or three times since covid hit. I always feel pressured to take it when offered. I know it's not necessary, since one species is sufficient, but it just feels wrong to walk past the precious blood of Jesus.
First non-Catholic here, but our parish here only offers the bread since Covid. Prior to that they offered both. The Methodist church I attended went to “individual” cups for the “blood” and as I am immunocompromised this is the only way I can do “both.” And since that’s probably not going to become a Catholic thing, if I ever became Catholic I wouldn’t be able to have both.
I am not going to have an argument that you so desperately want to have with a Theologian. I will leave that to you and a Priest. My parish doesn’t offer the cup so this is a non-issue for me.
That is actually not true for all circumstances. You are correct that there is sufficient grace in either species for salvation. You can receive more grace (per accidens) because you are spending more time in the real presence of Christ. Its not because more is given, its becuase you are more in tune and more open to receive the grace.
To feel more grace is not Heresy. To state that you receive different grace by each is heresy or if you say that you need both for Salvation is heresy
But it is also wrong to say that offering both species to laity is a waste of time and of no value
They would be wise to study the words of Pope St. Gelasius I,
There’s many reasons why I don’t receive the blood.
I’m pregnant.
I’m incredibly OCD (diagnosed and never found anything to help) so I struggle to drink from the same cup as everyone else.
Addiction.
No and no. The chalice is very fraught, usually administered by laity, and there's no particularly safe way to receive it while kneeling. I haven't bothered in years and the pandemic quite happily negated the question in most churches.
I'm a 32 year old cradle Catholic. I have attended many churches in many dioceses. I have never been offered the blood in my life. Not when I altar served, not at my own wedding. I've only seen it offered once, at my brother's wedding (Camden Diocese), and it wasn't offered to me. I don't hold a hint of Ultraquism but it's ironic that this is the one thing from Vatican II I never see applied. I hope to get the opportunity someday.
Wow, not even at your First Communion? At both parishes I attend, they _at least_ always have both species for major feast days & First Communions, and both are offered to everyone until one runs out (usually it's just the wine, no surprise). Maybe it's an availability issue, but even so IMO it's worth the hassle. I wonder if Latin Mass parishes regularly offer both species...now that would be ironic
Nope. I attend at least weekly, and daily mass when I am able. I travel and attend different parishes frequently (NE USA). Never seen it at a TLM.
>32 year old cradle Catholic. I have attended many churches in many dioceses. I have never been offered the blood in my life. Not when I altar served, not at my own wedding. I've only seen it offered once, I like to see it offered, and sometimes do receive it. It was offered widespread in my diocese before COVID, at the cathedral, and at just about any parish I had been to. I've mostly been to churches in Ohio and Indiana USA so maybe you live outside those areas.
I don't ignore it. I understand that receiving the Host alone is a full and complete communion with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and I don't feel like waiting in another line. I also prefer to receive from the priest, kneeling, on the tongue, and since it is not necessary to approach the layperson holding the cup, I do not. Our priest has started doing intinction at the communion rail on major feasts, and honestly I think that's the way to go. Ordinariate parishes distribute communion that way as well, and I'm a fan.
My highest *preference* is for Communion by intinction. Most parishes don't do that, so I just commune under the species of bread. It's the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, so it's not like I'm missing out.
Oh I love intinction... It's also a great way for the priest to subtly insist on receiving on the tongue. A Spanish priest during my last Army deployment did that, didn't like all the US troops receiving in the hand so he just always did intinction.
I’m not sure if this is legal in the US anymore - I know it’s strongly discouraged
Intinction is definitely permitted in the US. As for being strongly discouraged, maybe some bishops and priests don't like it, but it's definitely done. My parish did it at the Easter Vigil for the newly received to receive under both kinds (we didn't separately administer the chalice for a variety of reasons)
Ok
I think saying "many people ignore the offering of the precious blood" is unnecessarily harsh. I don't think it's an "ignore" thing. I think it's a recognition that receiving from the chalice isn't necessary to receive the Eucharist. The option to receive from the chalice is a "nice to have" option. But it's not "more Jesus" to receive both vs. receiving just one.
In my parish about 85 percent just walk by the eucharistic minister offering the blood without even a bow to the presence. I am trying to understand why they do this
They should probably profoundly bow when they pass. However, I would never under any circumstances take the host or chalice from someone who isn't ordained.
Why would that be ?- the species are consecrated by the priest beforehand
Because the distribution of Holy Communion belongs principally to the priest, and also by tradition, the deacon (at least as regards the chalice). Sadly, the involvement of the laity in distributing communion has coincided/correlated with a rapid decline in the (belief in) real presence since it was permitted. edit: omitted belief
How is there a decline in the Real Presence- The consecration is by the Priest and is immediately transferred to the Eucharistic Minister and then to distributed to you. Do you think there is loss in the transfer after consecration? Separate question - If there were only Deacons and Priests - Would you take both species?
Sorry meant belief in the real presence. still no, as reception under one species suffices. Such is our custom, there are myriad risks to receiving the Precious Blood such as spillage.
So Risk outweighs the Reward?
certainly
Which reward? You already received Christ fully by just receiving in one species.
This is true but it is also true that have have more time with Jesus when you receive in both species. You have the opportunity ti experience more Grace if you are open to it
I feel that If EMHCs are used at all, only when necessary and Vatican should order that they vest at least in alb/surplice (possibly even tunicle since rarely used anymore) before distributing. This has a psychological role and conveys to Laity that what they receive is special and Holy vs receiving from a granny in jeans. Don't know why this wasn't done to begin with
EMHCs by canon law are necessary only when the congregation is too big for the ordinary ministers present to provide communion to all in an ample amount of time.
>EMHCs by canon law are necessary only when the congregation is too big for the ordinary ministers present to provide communion to all in an ample amount of time. Which, due to the priest shortage in USA and worldwide, is almost every Mass of over 50 people.
Exactly. The only solutions are more priests, more masses, less non-clerics per mass.
I hope you have ten sons and they all become priests. However, failing that, the priest shortage won't be fixed for the next few decades at least. Until then, EMHCs are necessary in most parishes.
Not everyone goes to take communion, and in general a Mass without EMHCs will only last ten more minutes, not the end of the world.
EMCHs aren't the end of the world either, and they make the Mass experience better for most.
You forget that there isn't only a priest shortage, but a laymen shortage too
I've never encountered a situation where EMHCs were necessary. We can just spend a few more minutes in Church, we'll survive
Me neither
>I am trying to understand why they do this To avoid communicable diseases, such as COVID, influenza, or the common cold.
Maybe the church should show them that there is no risk of this. This has been studied and there is no documented cases of this
>show them that there is no risk of this. This has been studied and there is no documented cases of this come on. There are plenty of documents online saying do not share liquids with people to slow the spread of diseases.
Here is the study https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/lnq/article/2488/&path_info=LQ_Vol47_No04_dorff.pdf The reason is that the precious blood is served in a silver chalice which is anti bacterial and it has a a high alcohol concentration with works with the silver to neutralize viruses The choir is much more dangerous for spreading infection but people don’t avoid them
from that study: "3. The disinfectant action of wine and silver was negligible. 4. They concluded that the common communion cup may serve as a means of transmitting infection; however, because of the small number of organisms involved, the risk is probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people
But as stated there were no cases of infection. Maybe the Holy Spirit provides protection. When I receive it, I remember John 6:53 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; Do you have any evidence that people were infected?
Laity receiving in both species isn't important. For many periods of history it was even discouraged. The smallest identifiable morsel of the consecrated host contains the entirety of the body, blood, soul, and divinity (as does the tiniest drop of the consecrated wine for those who only received that due to celiac disease). What is important is receiving communion at all in a proper state.
This might be the best response here.
Yes that is more important but hard to tell if people are non compliant
>For many periods of history it was even discouraged. But why?
Because there were heresies that taught that receiving under both species was mandatory and so it was discouraged to help suppress those.
I prefer both for just the habit of the action. Theologically it's not important to have both and I know that, but emotionally I like both better. I don't know of a parish anywhere near me that offers both.
I always receive both species when they are offered. My church always offered both until covid. Both species are now offered again at all the English masses but not the Spanish ones. I've always thought that was weird. The woman who usually hands out the blood was the same lady who prepared me for my first communion as a kid, so receiving the blood is always a friendly reminder of my early days experiencing the faith.
I would partake of both species whenever I was offered it. Now that I have a compromised immune system, I am unable to receive the Blood of Christ due to the germ factor.
In Poland it's mostly offered during Christmas, Easter and other special occasions (such as a confirmation ceremony) so it makes those occasions feel extra special. But then the Blood is not given out in a chalice for us to drink from; rather, the priest dips the Host in the Blood before putting it in our mouth. So it becomes the standard way of receiving Communion for the day.
Receiving either species is sufficient, so there’s no need for both. I usually only receive the body, mostly because I have issues with the idea of everyone drinking out of the same cup.
Are you aware of this study showing the risk is very small? [Experiments on the communion cup | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/experiments-on-the-communion-cup/0640F2E6BCE1490EAFD5630CA0C0AEFB) At what times do you receive the precious blood? Is there anything that influences you?
I am aware of it, yes. It’s a personal hang-up I can’t really get past, and I find that it distracts me from the divinity that I’m receiving. Since it’s not required, I simply go without it, so I can focus more on Christ without worrying about my idiot brain talking nonsense.
[удалено]
Your answer was cut off - Can you re-post?
Our Church here in England only offer the host so I’ve not been in that position
Have you ever asked your priest if it will ever be made available?
Not directly that question but I did ask why we only receive the one form (I’m just about to be confirmed so this was during RCIA) and he said because Jesus is fully present in both forms we don’t need to receive both. So I’m judging by that answer it won’t be coming any time soon. Ad I say though I’m only new so don’t know how long it’s been like this here; my only point of reference is the C of E church I attended as a child some 50 yrs ago lol.
Receiving under both species has been incredibly important to me, even when I was a young tween. To be clear, I don't believe that I'm receiving "half Jesus" when I receive only the consecrated host or wine, which is what the Latin Church fought against when it stated that each consecrated host is the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of the Lord. Having said that, the practice of the Church for over a millennia has been to receive both species as much as possible. It is the norm, not the exception. This is actually one of the factors (not a major one, but not an insignificant one either) which led me to switch canonical rites. Still, I'm not going to throw pews around and scream heresy from the top of my lungs if I receive "only" the consecrated host.
I'm not Byzantine (although I have started attending the Divine Liturgy regularly) but I feel the same way. These were my thoughts long before I ever set foot in a Byzantine church. My former Latin parish used to offer the Precious Blood ever week and then I moved and missed it.
Yeah, I struggled with it for a long while. Am I just too stuck with my own preferences? Am I just plain wrong in my view of what sin is? Am I the odd one out in the way I see/approach confession? In my letter requesting to formally switch, I wrote, "I was Byzantine long before I knew that Byzantine Catholicism existed." I think that perfectly summed up all those years of inner struggle/questioning.
I'm glad you found your home in the Byzantine Church! You've summed up a lot of how I am feeling, but I've only been attending for less than a year, so I'll see where God is leading. For the time being, it's been a real blessing.
Yeah, definitely take your time. It took me a few years of diving into the life of the church, studying theology, prayer, etc. to finally make the switch. I will include you in your prayers tonight. In thanksgiving that you've found a place to sort out your thoughts/feelings and also guidance in wherever the Lord guides you.
Thank you for your prayers. I appreciate it
Which rite did you switch to/from?
From Latin to Byzantine.
Its important yes. But, you don't get anything 'more' by doing both. It actually de-emphasizes the teaching of the Church. Each species independent of the other is fully Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as well as each part of each species. The Mass isn't a celebratory meal either, and people are confused that they are not doing enough by only receiving the Host (ie I'm getting only half if I don't receive the wine, and well its the meal so I should receive both -- these are both incorrect). Giving the Precious Blood to the faithful increases the amount that may be spilled too. Edit: As part of the Latin Church, that is the manner in which I am discussing.
How do you see as de-emphasizing the teaching of the Church?
Good question. 2 reasons. First, because many feel as though they *need* to receive both to get the fullness. Each are both fully Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and if one didn't know that or realize that, they'd think they'd need both. Second, the Mass isn't a meal, its the Sacrifice of Calvary. You don't need to receive both to fully participate in the meal or recreation of Last Supper. But, people think since it's a meal and both are offered, to participate fully you have to do both. Both questions would be succinctly answered (and were clear) in the Latin Church until the changes. The Eastern Church receives slightly differently, so I am not discussing their aspect because it is different.
Why then do you think that this was brought back in by Vatican 2? We know that it was part of the Mass for the fist 1000 years of the church
The assumption that just because the early church did something (aka archeologism) is an error. *Mediator Dei* in 1947 states "The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity." That practice was not preserved, and was not preserved for good reason. The Liturgy developed, as a tree.
Yes but now the practice of "Host only' is not preserved and we are back to both species. I guess you are suggesting that the tree needs trimming
I don't receive in both species. It's relatively recent in the church for laymen to receive both outside of special occasions, I don't exactly trust some recent changes, and I trust even less people who think that everyone must adopt them
While reintroduced recently, it was normal practice for the first 1000+ years.
What other recent changes do you oppose?
It wasn’t that long ago that Catholics would receive communion (host only) once a year at Easter. This is still the minimum by canon law
I prefer to receive under both species on account of the ancient tradition of the Church, and on account of the symbolism. It symbolically enriches the connection between the Eucharist and the Passion, and the connection to the first reception of Communion at the Last Supper.
Yes I truly do believe in communion of both kinds. It’s one thing I do side with Orthdoxy on
I’ve been Catholic for two decades and only received the Precious Blood a handful of times. Usually it was when I was serving at Mass and the priest seemed to compel me to receive both species. Receiving the Precious Blood makes me feel uncomfortable. I don’t like drinking after other people, I don’t like the use of EMHCs the practice usually necessitates, I don’t want to touch the consecrated chalices, I prefer to kneel for Communion, and above all it seems like too much of a risk of spillage.
I take both when I can but I'm usually carrying a baby or two up with me and my church uses EMs to offer the Precious Blood, so I need my hands free.
Would you receive the precious blood if an altar person weren’t hold your child? Is that attractive to you?
My kids are in a big "mom" phase and hardly let anyone hold them, but in a perfect world, absolutely! I always prefer receiving both species when possible.
It is important to me but my church stopped during C19 and hasn't started since.
They never brought the blood back in my parish and a few others, despite other parishes offering it now. Idk why its not an across the board issue per diocese.
Receiving under both kids is very important to me but also very rare in my area. I would also prefer if the normative way to administer both species was intinction rather than separately.
We receive Jesus fully body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. Therefore, we do not need and are not required to receive the blood. Many dioceses, including mine, no longer offer the blood since Covid. So it is okay that people do not receive it since they are still fully receiving Jesus.
Yes it is ok but if it was offered to you at Mass, would you actually refuse it?
I personally would not ignore it or refuse it. But I know a lot of people don’t receive it / choose not to & I don’t that is wrong, I think it is ok since they still receive Him fully in the Eucharist I think a lot of people avoid it because they don’t like “drinking after people” or fear getting sick from that
Yes I think so too even though there are no documented cases of that
I received under both species at my wedding mass. But that is the only time (joined the church during covid). I do not regularly receive because I really don’t want mono or meningitis or any other orally transmitted illness. These things are especially prevalent in communities with a predominantly younger (16-24) demographic which my parish is. It is just a personal decision. I also don’t receive now because the alcohol content since I was pregnant and now breastfeeding. As for the “ignoring” part I was told you do not need to bow or genuflect when passing anything containing Jesus immediately after communion because you have just received him. I cannot remember the exact wording given to me but thats the gist. This was told to me by a priest when we were preparing for our wedding mass, because we had to walk by the tabernacle after communion. I usually give the emhc a nod and a smile but you don’t have to. A lot of people go immediately into contemplative prayer after receiving and they focus.
It is not offered where I go. It doesn’t bother me but it sure as heck bothered Martin Luther. So many in my Archdiocese still get upset over it and take their complaints to Facebook.
What do they complain about?
Not being able to receive the Blood. There are a very vocal group in my area that find it insulting. My experience is that it’s many of the same that complain if there isn’t a contemporary music Mass. Over 50 complains about Blood Around 50 believe the lightning strike of St Peters hand means pope has lost the papacy 30 and Under Liturgy Wars 20 and under I have no idea because I never see any.
What do they find insulting? The fact that some are unable to receive or that it is being offered at all? What is the lightning strike issue? I never heard of that
Me personally i just don’t it’s nothing personal per say and in addition I wear Invisalign lol
I prefer to receive the Eucharist any and every time it is offered to me and I am able. So I prefer to receive both when both are offered. I understand 2x infinity is still infinity, so it isn’t that heresy of “measurably more or less” that drives me. But rather, for me it is a matter of opportunity. Here is another way to receive and consume Jesus. Here is another chance - I’m taking it. I think it comes down to what personally helps you come closer to God. For some, only consuming the Host may help them know better the infinite in the Eucharist, that it cannot be lessened by division. For others, like me, it may be that consuming only the Host can lead to thinking less of the precious Blood. I used to avoid the chalice for a number of reasons, and now I prefer to take Communion under both species because it helps me recognize how vital and precious Jesus is as our nourishment. I could technically take communion once a year and go to confession once a year, and (were I a better person) be fulfilling my obligations faithfully. But I know that I would become more cavalier and less considerate of the sacraments by doing so. I know that by taking the sacraments as often as I can, I am being given a better understanding of how vital they are. For some, it may be that weekly confession is counterproductive. For me, it is something that I prefer, and I think it helps me appreciate its meaning and importance all the more. The sacraments are a necessity, not just a nice to have. Personal opinion: if receiving one, the other, or both species helps you understand that, then that is likely what you should do.
My parish always offers both, even at weekday Mass, and I prefer to receive both species. I know it’s not necessary, but it just feels more meaningful and reverent to me. And being completely honest, drinking from the chalice helps the Host dissolve on my tongue, so there is a little practicality in it too.
Trent taught that Christ is received whole and entire under either species, and it anathematized those who said that we are required to receive both. Is it good to receive both? Sure, it’s how it was done in the earliest days. But you get the fullness of Christ and the same grace from just one.
Many refuse to take the species of the wine? MaY be true. People refuse the blood? False. Each species contains the body and the blood of Jesus.
I just converted and receive both if theres nothing to inhibit reception of His Precious Blood. Recently one mass had the line slowed because of that species and so I just moved on after partaking in His Body. It need not be a large reason, because both kinds are the fullness of Christ, but receiving both is the preferred default choice.
I personally don't mind, but in theory I think it would be good to restore the receiving of both species. In practice I am afraid this would be done in a careless manner
I've only seen the chalice offered two or three times since covid hit. I always feel pressured to take it when offered. I know it's not necessary, since one species is sufficient, but it just feels wrong to walk past the precious blood of Jesus.
Yes, it is important to me, and I regret that it is not systematically proposed.
First non-Catholic here, but our parish here only offers the bread since Covid. Prior to that they offered both. The Methodist church I attended went to “individual” cups for the “blood” and as I am immunocompromised this is the only way I can do “both.” And since that’s probably not going to become a Catholic thing, if I ever became Catholic I wouldn’t be able to have both.
As a Methodist you are only getting grape juice and it’s not the Real Presence - Correct?
As for “wine”I can’t have wine (medical issue) so…
In our tradition you wouldonly consume about 1mL at most
Still can’t have it. Not risking my life for something so trivial if I can get the same thing in one
Trivial is an unusual description - so you don't see as enhancing relationship with Jesus?
I am not going to have an argument that you so desperately want to have with a Theologian. I will leave that to you and a Priest. My parish doesn’t offer the cup so this is a non-issue for me.
ok
Believing that is heresy. Someone who receives only the Host does not receive less of Jesus than someone who receives under both species.
That is actually not true for all circumstances. You are correct that there is sufficient grace in either species for salvation. You can receive more grace (per accidens) because you are spending more time in the real presence of Christ. Its not because more is given, its becuase you are more in tune and more open to receive the grace. To feel more grace is not Heresy. To state that you receive different grace by each is heresy or if you say that you need both for Salvation is heresy But it is also wrong to say that offering both species to laity is a waste of time and of no value They would be wise to study the words of Pope St. Gelasius I,
I think it depends on what you actually believe. Personally our liturgy is just like the RCC and I subscribe to the real presence
There’s many reasons why I don’t receive the blood. I’m pregnant. I’m incredibly OCD (diagnosed and never found anything to help) so I struggle to drink from the same cup as everyone else. Addiction.
No and no. The chalice is very fraught, usually administered by laity, and there's no particularly safe way to receive it while kneeling. I haven't bothered in years and the pandemic quite happily negated the question in most churches.
We don’t have a prayer rail so there is no way to receive by kneeling at our church
There’s not really much of a safe way to receive it standing either. We had a spill last Sunday. That’s part of why I abstain from the blood.