I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege. It's also indicated in Scripture. If you don't, I'm curious why.
I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.
I mentioned this in the other thread, but this is how my mother feels as well (additionally, she actually is very allergic to wine). My mother is an extremely devout Catholic (I don't think she's ever missed a Sunday mass or holy day of obligation in her entire life). I've never met anyone else who refrains from taking the wine for this reason (though a communal cup doesn't really bother me, I think it's a perfectly sound reason to abstain).
I don't take the wine and never have since I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I'm not comfortable with the sharing cup since I have a suppressed immune system, and normally the wine here is done by a helper, not the priest. I prefer to receive from a priest when at all possible.
Traditionally only the priest received the wine until Vatican II, and I think that if it was good enough for 1960 or so years, it should be good enough for now. I don't understand, even after study, why they switched to communion under both forms for all. But then again there is a lot of things they did in Vatican II I don't understand their reasons for.
I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege. It's also indicated in Scripture. If you don't, I'm curious why.
I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.
That is interesting. I never heard the bread and wine called "species". I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both. Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal. We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both. I did not know that some people just have one or the other. Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
I am Orthodox and we always take both. There is no option of just one. The only exception would be if you had a severe gluten intolerance (the kind where even the tiny amount received in communion would mess you up for days) then they would give you just the wine but it would still have been mixed with the bread. Honestly, everyone I know who has severe issues with gluten just takes communion once or twice a year and suffers through it.
We use real wine (its mixed with water and is quite sweet and good. My children were surprised at the taste of red wine :lol they expected it to taste like communion and were very disappointed ) and a very specific bread, mix the bread in the cup with the wine, and everyone who has been baptized and has properly prepared may receive. So children as young as 41 days may receive if they have been baptized. It is a communal cup but only the priests drink from it. Then the Eucharist is spoon fed to everyone from the same spoon. Since we believe in the real presence in the Eucharist there is no fear of germs. Also, between the alcohol and the silver cup and spoon (its not just fancy, it kills germs), you are pretty safe even from a scientific perspective.
I voted "sometimes." If I don't have a child in my arms (rare) then I receive under both species. That is, if I have two hands with which to hold the vessel, then I choose to receive. If I'm holding a toddler or a baby, then I abstain. It's the same reason that I receive the consecrated host on the tongue when I'm holding a baby/toddler, but in the hand when I have my hands free: I don't want to risk any dropping or spilling.
That is interesting. I never heard the bread and wine called "species". I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both. Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal. We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both. I did not know that some people just have one or the other. Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
Why would you think it's symbolic when Our Lord never said so? 
I can understand those that think it is gross. I used to feel that way when I was in a church which held to a purely memorial theology of communion. But at some point I just knew that there was more to it than that. And I love the way that the unity of Christ's Body (the Church) is communicated through the sharing of the chalice amoungst everyone.
So I marked "Yes, always..." though it is actually almost always. There have been a few occasions when I've avoided simply because I had a cough and didn't want to freak out those receiving next to me. I serve as a chalice bearer and am at the altar with the priest. So I end up helping out in consuming the left over wine at the end anyway. I haven't been more sick since I started serving nor am I or any server or priest I know more sick than anyone else. Between the germ killing properties of the silver (as was mentioned above) and the purificator which we use to wipe between people (I'm always careful to wipe the inside and outside of the chalice and to rotate the section of the cloth I'm using though I'm sure some are not so careful), the alcohol content in the wine, and the rotating of the chalice, the chances of passing germs via the chalice are small. Much smaller, I'd say, than during the passing of the peace. And at our church, people tend to intinct when something nasty is going around. But it seems a waste of time for me for those who are still shaking dirty hands.
I should mention that I am in the Episcopal Church. While we don't believe in transubstantiation like the Roman Catholics, we do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We also teach that Christ is present in both species so one may receive one or the other. Our churches are ok with using a gluten free host and I suspect that most priest would make it available if requested. Pieces of the host often get in the wine (sometimes intentionally and sometimes just because it is broken over it). I think most of our priest would be willing to accommodate someone celiac in this as well. Someone above mentioned that the wine is sweet. We use a tawny Port which is pretty sweet and the kids don't mind it at all.
Yes. I'm Orthodox, as Lilyka is, and as she said, there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You take it, period - no choice. The priest gives you Communion via a big ornate spoon from the chalice - you get the Blood of Christ with a small piece of His Body (leavened bread among the Orthodox).
I voted sometimes. I am a convert and I have to tell you that at first it really freaked me out to see everyone receiving from the same chalice! I really hate to drink after anyone, even my dh so it is hard for me to do it sometimes. I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up! 
I feel like Christ called us to do both so I struggle with skipping the precious blood but all the while accepting the Church's teaching that the body and blood of Christ is present in both species. So now I receive it when I feel led by the Holy Spirit to do so and I try to really focus on the fact that it is the blood of Christ and what a privlige that I am called to His table to receive Him.
I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up!
The only time I've thought twice about it in recent years was a couple years ago on Easter (church was packed) when I was chalice bearing and I saw one man dribble chewed up wafer mixed with saliva back into the chalice. I wiped off as much as I could before it slid down the side of the chalice and into the wine, but I'm sure I didn't get it all. And by the time we were done serving everyone there were literal chunky dregs at the bottom of the cup. It was my job at that point to drink it. I had to take a deep breath first, but I did it.
ick - I would not want to drink out of the same cup as other people. We have a little pitcher that is blessed and passed around and we all have little cups to pour our own into - much more sanitary.
As far as the symbolism - Jesus and His diciples were eating a meal the night before Passover or on Passover in which most of the foods are symbolic when He instituted the symbolic eating and drinking of the bread and wine in rememberance of Himself. At the Passover meal, we say things like - this salt water is the tears that our ancestors shed in Egypt and we call the food what it symbolises and it is eaten in rememberance of the Jewish people being freed from Egypt. You might want to look at a Passover Haggaddah to see how it is worded. So, for Jesus, who was a Jew, to be at a meal the night before Passover and say this wine is my blood and this bread is my body - eat this in rememberance of me - which He did say - is just like the symbolic foods of the Passover meal.
see 1 Cor. 11:23-26
Yes, I receive in both kinds. I attend an Anglican church, so we are offered a small host and the common cup. I don't worry about the germs; touching the door-nob or shaking hands is a much better way to pass them. (Our Bishop has banned intinction as being unsanitary.)
If I had some reason to I wouldn't have a problem with just one kind. Some days when dd2 is being really bad I have considered not taking the Blood, as I worry she will kick it out of the hands of the person distributing it.
I receive both whenever possible. Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both. Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
I receive both whenever possible. Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both. Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Goodness! People actually consider that controversial? I guess sherry hour is out for sure then!
I don't take the wine and never have since I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I'm not comfortable with the sharing cup since I have a suppressed immune system, and normally the wine here is done by a helper, not the priest. I prefer to receive from a priest when at all possible.
Traditionally only the priest received the wine until Vatican II, and I think that if it was good enough for 1960 or so years, it should be good enough for now. I don't understand, even after study, why they switched to communion under both forms for all. But then again there is a lot of things they did in Vatican II I don't understand their reasons for.
I just want to reiterate that - by the time it is received, we are no longer speaking of "wine". 
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are more than mere "helpers", in my personal opinion. It is a great honor and privilege to be called to that ministry, and Eucharist is no "less" of the full presence of Christ just because you don't receive it from a priest. Sorry but this is something that really irks me - I've seen people "jump the line" when they realized that they would be receiving a Host from an EM rather than a priest and I just makes me :splat:
Vatican II reforms were instituted to make the rituals and Sacraments more open & accessible to the Communicants/the Body of the Church (i.e., the congregation). Prior to that, Mass was more like a "priest's performance" and there wasn't a lot of active participation from the congregation ... the priest even celebrated Mass with his back to the community.
Jesus didn't celebrate the Last Supper above and beyond His disciples, turning His back to them. He literally surrounded Himself with them, washed their feet, and then fed them - spiritually as well as physically. He was their humble servant.
I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege. It's also indicated in Scripture. If you don't, I'm curious why.
I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.
That is interesting. I never heard the bread and wine called "species". I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both. Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal. We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both. I did not know that some people just have one or the other. Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received under the species of unleavened bread and wine so that they may be physically consumed. Although they retain the properties of grapes/wine and wheat/bread, we believe that, through consecration (which involves prayer and the faith of the gathered believers), they are physically changed to become the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
The symbolism vs. Real Presence question is a key Reformation issue, which endures to this day. Most Protestant denoms reject the idea of Real Presence in Communion.
I voted "sometimes." If I don't have a child in my arms (rare) then I receive under both species. That is, if I have two hands with which to hold the vessel, then I choose to receive. If I'm holding a toddler or a baby, then I abstain. It's the same reason that I receive the consecrated host on the tongue when I'm holding a baby/toddler, but in the hand when I have my hands free: I don't want to risk any dropping or spilling.
You reminded me of the time a woman (a visitor to the parish, I'd never seen her before) approached me when I was ministering the Precious Blood, and then stood in front of me with her mouth open, waiting for me to pour it in her mouth. 
We also have a little old woman in her nineties, who can barely hold the chalice herself and requires an extra pair of hands to help her out. I'm also super careful with the young kids who receive, just because they tend to be more distracted.
That is interesting. I never heard the bread and wine called "species". I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both. Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal. We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both. I did not know that some people just have one or the other. Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
Why would you think it's symbolic when Our Lord never said so?
Opinion on this subject - and interpretation of the Scripture - varies.
I can understand those that think it is gross. I used to feel that way when I was in a church which held to a purely memorial theology of communion. But at some point I just knew that there was more to it than that. And I love the way that the unity of Christ's Body (the Church) is communicated through the sharing of the chalice amoungst everyone.
Our churches are ok with using a gluten free host and I suspect that most priest would make it available if requested. Pieces of the host often get in the wine (sometimes intentionally and sometimes just because it is broken over it). I think most of our priest would be willing to accommodate someone celiac in this as well. Someone above mentioned that the wine is sweet. We use a tawny Port which is pretty sweet and the kids don't mind it at all.
The above bolded is precisely why I have no trouble sharing the chalice.
I wish the Catholic Church would get solidly on board with the gluten-free Host. Most smaller churches in our area don't incense anymore to accomodate those with allergies/asthma.
I voted sometimes. I am a convert and I have to tell you that at first it really freaked me out to see everyone receiving from the same chalice! I really hate to drink after anyone, even my dh so it is hard for me to do it sometimes. I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up!
I feel like Christ called us to do both so I struggle with skipping the precious blood but all the while accepting the Church's teaching that the body and blood of Christ is present in both species. So now I receive it when I feel led by the Holy Spirit to do so and I try to really focus on the fact that it is the blood of Christ and what a privlige that I am called to His table to receive Him.
The Roman Catholic church doesn't forbid intinction. I've done it, at a wedding Mass; and I know that there are other RC churches who do it regularly. I find it a quite beautiful way to receive, actually.
ick - I would not want to drink out of the same cup as other people. We have a little pitcher that is blessed and passed around and we all have little cups to pour our own into - much more sanitary.
As far as the symbolism - Jesus and His diciples were eating a meal the night before Passover or on Passover in which most of the foods are symbolic when He instituted the symbolic eating and drinking of the bread and wine in rememberance of Himself. At the Passover meal, we say things like - this salt water is the tears that our ancestors shed in Egypt and we call the food what it symbolises and it is eaten in rememberance of the Jewish people being freed from Egypt. You might want to look at a Passover Haggaddah to see how it is worded. So, for Jesus, who was a Jew, to be at a meal the night before Passover and say this wine is my blood and this bread is my body - eat this in rememberance of me - which He did say - is just like the symbolic foods of the Passover meal.
see 1 Cor. 11:23-26
Again, they call it "Communion" for a reason!
And again - the nuances of that Scripture are debated by different denominations. You can read it as symbolism, while others will read it differently. It's one of the conundrums of faith, but it's also one of the beauties/mysteries of faith. As long as it's real "faith", I think that's the important thing.
The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received under the species of unleavened bread and wine so that they may be physically consumed. Although they retain the properties of grapes/wine and wheat/bread, we believe that, through consecration (which involves prayer and the faith of the gathered believers), they are physically changed to become the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
And again - the nuances of that Scripture are debated by different denominations. You can read it as symbolism, while others will read it differently. It's one of the conundrums of faith, but it's also one of the beauties/mysteries of faith. As long as it's real "faith", I think that's the important thing.
I understand that some groups believe that the bread and wine are actually changed into Christ somehow and I realize that they are not likely to change their minds on that and that is ok. To me, people can believe either way about that and still all be brothers and sisters in Christ.
My understanding comes both from meeting with a group that believes it is symbolic and even more so from the fact that I grew up in a Jewish household and reading those verses in the Bible from a Jewish point of view (and again - Jesus and His disciples were Jewish) seems totally just like the symbolism in the Passover meal.
I receive both whenever possible. Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both. Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Goodness! People actually consider that controversial? I guess sherry hour is out for sure then!
Right?! Controversial? Wow ... I received my first Eucharist (at my Confirmation) when I was about five months pregnant.
I worked hard to assure an alcoholic friend (in recovery for over 20 years) that receiving the Precious Blood would not make him fall off the wagon.
at and still all be brothers and sisters in Christ.
My understanding comes both from meeting with a group that believes it is symbolic and even more so from the fact that I grew up in a Jewish household and reading those verses in the Bible from a Jewish point of view (and again - Jesus and His disciples were Jewish) seems totally just like the symbolism in the Passover meal.
Understandable - and yes, they were definitely Jews - but Jesus brought a "new twist", so to speak, to the Jewish traditions. He was always being called out by the Pharisees for "bending" the Jewish laws ....
I'm Catholic as well. I always receive communion under both species when available. I do belive that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is present in each species, but I feel like it is a richer, fuller spiritual experience to receive both.
Follow Mothering