Those in a church that consecrates both species of Communion, Do you receive the Precious Blood? - Page 2

[kgreen]

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

Without opening a can of worms...unless I just did =) ... I must respectfully correct Trigger in her statement:

 

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 am not too good with words or apologetics. But, I know what is true. Please read this brief info about the WHYs of our faith. The more you can know about the Catholic faith and its origins, the richer your faith life will be. I have pasted this info below but, also, here is the link: http://frcoulter.com/presentations/ad-orientem.html

---

Besides the change in the Mass after the Second Vatican Council, we have learned that Latin is still used by the Church and has a proper place in our worship. Therefore I want to discuss a second change made after 1965, the direction which the priest faces during Mass. We will examine three points: one, what is the teaching of the Church about the orientation of the priest at Mass; two, what is some of the history and tradition of the priest facing toward the East; three, what can the priest's position teach us about the Mass and our participation in it.

What does the Church teach about the priest's orientation at Mass? After the Second Vatican Council, one most evident change was the construction of freestanding altars. The celebration versus populum (towards the people) was adopted throughout the Latin Church, and it became the prevailing practice during Mass for the celebrant to stand behind the altar facing the congregation. This has led to a widespread misunderstanding that the priest's "turning his back on the people" is characteristic of the Tridentine rite, the old Latin Mass of Pope Saint Pius V; whereas the priest's "turning towards the people" belongs to the New Mass of Pope Paul VI. It is also widely thought that the celebration of Mass "facing the people" was required, even imposed, by the liturgical reform of Vatican II.

In reality, the Council did not even mention the issue, only an instruction afterwards said it was desirable to set up a main altar separate from the back wall, so that the priest can walk around it and a celebration facing the people is possible. Contrary to what often took place, the Church never instructed that the old high altars should be torn down, rather that a freestanding altar should be present in the sanctuary - perhaps in addition to the high altar.

The Sacramentary we use, the Missal of the renewed Mass, it gives the instruction at several points during Mass that the priest should turn towards the people.* In order for the priest to turn towards the people, this implies that beforehand the priest and people were facing a common direction, that is, towards the altar for the core of the Eucharistic liturgy.

So why did the priest used to always celebrate Mass facing the other direction? What is the reason for this orientation?

The first thing to remember is that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, just as all Christian prayer is an act of worshipping God. So how this can be communicated most fittingly in liturgical gesture? When we speak to someone, we obviously face that person. Accordingly, if whole liturgical assembly, priest and people, face the same way, they turn towards God to whom prayers and offerings are addressed in this common act of worship. It is a mistaken idea that in this case the celebrating priest is facing "towards the altar", "towards the tabernacle", or even "towards the wall". (cf. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 139-143)

I have often heard the phrase that Mass is being celebrated with the priest "turning his back on the people". This is confusing theology with physical position. The crucial point is that the Mass is a common act of worship where priest and people together, representing the pilgrim Church, reach out for the transcendent God. The priest isn't turning his back on the people; he is joining the people in prayer. At Mass, all of us are praying together to God through Jesus Christ. Whether the priest celebrates towards the people or not, all of us - both you and me - are turned towards God as our first spiritual movement in prayer.

The physical position must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is towards the community. (CDW, 25 September 2000, Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez)

Notice that during the Eucharistic prayer, the prayers are not addressed towards you - but to the Father. At that moment in the Mass, the priest is not speaking to the faithful; he is offering prayer to the Father as a representative of the entire Church.

This is why, since the earliest times, Mass has been celebrated with both the people and priest facing the same direction, ad orientem, toward the East. Even after Churches were built where it was not literally possible to face East, then at least symbolically the priest and people were turned toward the Lord. It had nothing to do with trying to obstruct people's view of what is happening, or of the priest turning his back on the people. Nor is it even primarily for the sake of facing the altar or tabernacle. Rather, when the priest and faithful together face the same way, it manifests our common act of worship; it symbolizes our common pilgrimage toward the returning Lord, the Sun of Justice and our hope in the resurrection and the world beyond the here-and-now, our pilgrimage to the Promised Land.

Furthermore, it is with a heart of charity that I point you toward more information about our beautiful faith. I wish someone had told me 20 years ago (or more!) what I have just come to know in the last 3 or 4 years. I don't want to derail this thread. But, if you are serious about your Catholic faith, please read more at the links below:

1) This site is my favorite and has almost EVERYTHING you need to know about Catholicism, not base on opinions, but on fact, history, tradition and the Magesterium.

http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html 

2) This link gives you a quick overview of the Traditional Mass vs. the Novus Ordo mass

http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 

[kgreen]

Another note to be aware of about those other than the priest even touching the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord...

St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274),br> "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by kgreen 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.

[LessTraveledBy]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. 

Sorry if someone already mentioned this.... We are definitely not "encouraged" to receive under both. In some parts of the world, the people are allowed. The local Bishops' Conference has the right to make this decision. However, under both kinds is not the norm. A good example was give at the papal Mass on Christmas Eve: The only way the faithful could receive was on their knees, on the tongue, and only the Body of Christ.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by kgreen 

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 

With all due respect kgreen, your sources and their opinions are extreme and, and, as noted, perhaps not even valid in some cases.

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by kgreen 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.

I've been educated in the Catholic faith as well (2 years of specialized diocesan education to become a commissioned lay ecclesial minister), and I could cite valid sources in bold favor/defense of VII reforms, receiving under both species, and receiving in the hand.  I have a mini library of books on [USCCB-sanctioned] Catholic teaching (and in particular, the HISTORY of our Church - which, incidentally, did not start with the Council of Trent!) and related topics.

This is purely an issue of Trent vs. VII reforms, which we can debate til we are blue in the face (or fingers, as it were) and we will likely never agree.  You are obviously comfortable believing that your salvation is a given, because you hold fast to "the sure way".  Likewise, I am assured of my own salvation because I hold fast to "The Way" - Jesus Christ.  So I guess we're all good. 

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by KempsMama 

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.

oh good heavens!!!  People need to get a life.  I was actually reading an article the other day about fasting restrictions in the early church (and how much they have relaxed these days) but it said that "pregnant women should consume as much wine as their condition necessitates." it made me laugh.  I can't believe people would get all huffy over a pregnant woman receiving the Eucharist..  

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by LessTraveledBy 

Originally Posted by Trigger 

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. 

Sorry if someone already mentioned this.... We are definitely not "encouraged" to receive under both. In some parts of the world, the people are allowed. The local Bishops' Conference has the right to make this decision. However, under both kinds is not the norm. A good example was give at the papal Mass on Christmas Eve: The only way the faithful could receive was on their knees, on the tongue, and only the Body of Christ.

I had to edit these for the quotation guidelines, sorry.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm 
 

 

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. ...

Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."²²⁶  

 

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." ...

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.²³⁰ 

 1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, ... 

Edited by Trigger - 12/28/10 at 10:59am

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by christianmomof3 

 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

This is a poor translation at best.  The words translated in remembrance   are the same ones used to refer to the Passover.  It is my understanding that it is not just a remembering but that they are actually, mystically participating in the events of the passover.  There with the released captives.  not merely reliving or remembering.  It would make sense that since Christ was participating in the passover that this is what he would be talking about that we are not to do this in remembrance of him but to be mystically present with Him.

Yhe early church taught a real presence.  People called them cannibals.  people left the faith over this teaching.  It is referred to as a hard teaching to follow.  Its one of the reasons Christians were so harshly persecuted.  None of this really points me towards thinking it was just a chance to reflect and remember.

[kgreen]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Originally Posted by kgreen 

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 

With all due respect kgreen, your sources and their opinions are extreme and, and, as noted, perhaps not even valid in some cases.

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by kgreen 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.

I've been educated in the Catholic faith as well (2 years of specialized diocesan education to become a commissioned lay ecclesial minister), and I could cite valid sources in bold favor/defense of VII reforms, receiving under both species, and receiving in the hand.  I have a mini library of books on [USCCB-sanctioned] Catholic teaching (and in particular, the HISTORY of our Church - which, incidentally, did not start with the Council of Trent!) and related topics.

This is purely an issue of Trent vs. VII reforms, which we can debate til we are blue in the face (or fingers, as it were) and we will likely never agree.  You are obviously comfortable believing that your salvation is a given, because you hold fast to "the sure way".  Likewise, I am assured of my own salvation because I hold fast to "The Way" - Jesus Christ.  So I guess we're all good. 

 

Trigger, I agree with you that we may not agree and I surely do not want to debate. If one can step outside of the issues of Church Councils, etc and simply look at the issue through the eyes of love and reverence to Our Lord, why in the world would a lay person even want to touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands? It is quite a sacrilege. You will undoubtedly accumulate minute particles of the sacred host on your fingers, hands, the chalice, and unfortunately anywhere else. This, as we both know, believe and agree, IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. The utmost reverence is required in receiving (and thus distributing) Holy Communion.

Although you may have a lot of books and a sincere heart, I encourage you to look within and pray to Our Lord for guidance. I have spoken to many good, holy and pious priests about this very issue. We cannot rely on our own interpretations, opinions, education or "feelings". We must follow what Holy Mother Church tells us. It is for our own good. This was quite an issue for me at one point and it all boiled down to my own pride...thinking I knew better. I don't. None of us do. We must protect the Faith that has been guarded and cherished and handed down to us for centuries.

Please also note that my sources are Popes, synods, councils, and holy saints. This are hardly what anyone would consider "extreme sources" as you state. On the contrary, they are holy and reliable sources.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by kgreen 

 If one can step outside of the issues of Church Councils, etc and simply look at the issue through the eyes of love and reverence to Our Lord, why in the world would a lay person even want to touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands? It is quite a sacrilege. You will undoubtedly accumulate minute particles of the sacred host on your fingers, hands, the chalice, and unfortunately anywhere else. This, as we both know, believe and agree, IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. The utmost reverence is required in receiving (and thus distributing) Holy Communion.

And - by your own reasoning, why WOULDN'T I?  I'm receiving Christ into my own body, what is wrong with touching Him first exactly?  To me it is a great honor and privilege! 

I ministered the Host to others on Christmas Eve, with great reverence and joy.

I disagree with just about every other condescending thing you wrote, so I'll leave it at that and continue to be thankful for a Catholic community that nurtures my faith. 

[Bluegoat]

Trigger, I agree with you that we may not agree and I surely do not want to debate. If one can step outside of the issues of Church Councils, etc and simply look at the issue through the eyes of love and reverence to Our Lord, why in the world would a lay person even want to touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands? It is quite a sacrilege. You will undoubtedly accumulate minute particles of the sacred host on your fingers, hands, the chalice, and unfortunately anywhere else. This, as we both know, believe and agree, IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. The utmost reverence is required in receiving (and thus distributing) Holy Communion.

Although you may have a lot of books and a sincere heart, I encourage you to look within and pray to Our Lord for guidance. I have spoken to many good, holy and pious priests about this very issue. We cannot rely on our own interpretations, opinions, education or "feelings". We must follow what Holy Mother Church tells us. It is for our own good. This was quite an issue for me at one point and it all boiled down to my own pride...thinking I knew better. I don't. None of us do. We must protect the Faith that has been guarded and cherished and handed down to us for centuries.

Please also note that my sources are Popes, synods, councils, and holy saints. This are hardly what anyone would consider "extreme sources" as you state. On the contrary, they are holy and reliable sources.

So you feel that the Catholic Church is content to allow sacrilege?  While I think there are practical advantages, and also psychological advantages, to receiving on the tongue, a tongue is not somehow innately different than a hand - one is not clean and the other unclean.

It is interesting that you say you are now following the Church and that your pride was a problem, because I don't see how anything has changed.  You are still doing what you are convinced is best, judging other practices, and saying that the Church is mistaken in allowing other ways of doing it.  How is that letting go of your pride?  Pride is lost in obedience.  If your priest or Bishop says receive one way or the other, do it.  If you are given the choice, do what seems best for you personally.  Even express why you think it may be a better choice in general.  But you are hardly in a position to judge something that is allowed by other individuals Bishops and priests, or the Church herself.  And it is a lie to say it isn't allowed when it is, even if it is a condensation to individual weaknesses.  I have to wonder if you really believe in the authority of the CC at all?
 

[shanniesue2]

my quote function isn't working... I wanted to address the poster who said they saw a bit of the communion floating in the cup.  Unless the practice has changed (I'm a former Catholic), it's my understanding that the priest breaks off a bit of the host and puts it into the wine.  When I was growing up, there were several times that I remember seeing a piece floating in the cup... I always just assumed that it was the piece the priest had put in there.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by shanniesue2 

my quote function isn't working... I wanted to address the poster who said they saw a bit of the communion floating in the cup.  Unless the practice has changed (I'm a former Catholic), it's my understanding that the priest breaks off a bit of the host and puts it into the wine.  When I was growing up, there were several times that I remember seeing a piece floating in the cup... I always just assumed that it was the piece the priest had put in there.

Yes, I think that is usual.

[ledzepplon]

Originally Posted by Lollybrat 

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.

Me too. 

[PatienceAndLove]

I usually only receive Our Lord under the spieces of the bread.  The only time I recieve both is when I am at the Anglican Use Mass, in which the priest or deacon intincts for the communicant.

I do hope that the PP who mentioned intinction was not referring to self-intinction, which is not allowed.

And to the PP who referenced the EO as a "priest performance", or something similar, I humbly point you to this article:

via Fr. Z: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/11/america-magazine-two-items-on-summorum-pontificum-a-jeer-and-a-reflection/

and the original via American magazine: http://www.americamagazine.org/images/pdfs/636.pdf

I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”... I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant...hen I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God? ... Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

[indie]

I think that was me and I did mean self-intinction. I'm an Episcopalian so it is allowed though I believe not the preferred. I don't think my priest likes it, but its up to her to educate and persuade people so I just go with whatever comes my way (as a EM).

Anyway, I think this thread is not really for me. All of this "straining a gnat to swallow a camel" stuff is a little more than I can handle.

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I do hope that the PP who mentioned intinction was not referring to self-intinction, which is not allowed.

[PatienceAndLove]

Actually, I believe it was a Catholic PP. I don't dwell on the practices of non-Catholics, as I am not versed in the communion practices of non-Catholics
 

Originally Posted by indie 

I think that was me and I did mean self-intinction. I'm an Episcopalian so it is allowed though I believe not the preferred. I don't think my priest likes it, but its up to her to educate and persuade people so I just go with whatever comes my way (as a EM).

Anyway, I think this thread is not really for me. All of this "straining a gnat to swallow a camel" stuff is a little more than I can handle.

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I do hope that the PP who mentioned intinction was not referring to self-intinction, which is not allowed.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

And to the PP who referenced the EO as a "priest performance", or something similar, I humbly point you to this article:

via Fr. Z: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/11/america-magazine-two-items-on-summorum-pontificum-a-jeer-and-a-reflection/

and the original via American magazine: http://www.americamagazine.org/images/pdfs/636.pdf

I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”... I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant...hen I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God? ... Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

Beautifully put, great article.  My experience is that usually, people who characterize TLM as a "performance" have never actually attended one. 

At any rate, I usually receive under both species at NO Mass.

 

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. ...

Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."²²⁶  

 

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." ...

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.²³⁰ 

 1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, ...

This has absolutely nothing to do with receiving under both species, though.  When one consumes the Host, you're consuming both the Body AND the Blood (and Soul and Divinity) of our Lord. 

The relevant part of the CCC would be this-

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."²²² This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Either way is acceptable, it's simply a difference in Rites.  I tend to agree more with the Eastern Rite when it comes to reception of Holy Communion.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

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.

Intinction from a priest is permissible.  Self intinction is absolutely forbidden.  http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect2

As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ's faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue

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

First of all, it isn't about *you*  Whether or not a parishioner receives from you or the priest is none of your business, nor is their reasoning behind that decision.  You aren't there to judge people, as far as I know.  I don't receive from EM's if I can help it, for a number of reasons.  Most importantly, most are obviously uncomfortable administering on the tongue, and some outright refuse (and woe to you if you have the audacity to kneel down to our Lord!  ) Although that sometimes happens with priests, it's less likely in my experience.  Secondly, I think the way most EMs are used is an abuse of the intention of the position, and have no desire to implicitly support that.  If it's a case where an EM is actually appropriate, I have no problem receiving from them.  I do when I'm in the hospital, which is an appropriate function of the EM.  Extraordinary is supposed to be just that.  And some other reasons, but that's another thread.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by kgreen 

However, just because receiving in the hand is "allowed" does not mean it is required. I am in no way being disobedient to the Church and Her teachings by reverently kneeling at the altar rail and receiving on the tongue. No priest can mandate that everybody must receive in the hand.

I can't see that anyone on this thread said that receiving in the hand, or receiving under both species, is REQUIRED, that anyone's priest has "mandated" such, nor that you are being disobedient to the Church in any way.  You are the one pointing fingers here, not the other way around.

Also - a suggestion - you might want to refer to the posting guidelines.  You have obviously exceeded the 100-word limit for quoting a source.

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by shanniesue2 

my quote function isn't working... I wanted to address the poster who said they saw a bit of the communion floating in the cup.  Unless the practice has changed (I'm a former Catholic), it's my understanding that the priest breaks off a bit of the host and puts it into the wine.  When I was growing up, there were several times that I remember seeing a piece floating in the cup... I always just assumed that it was the piece the priest had put in there.

Yes, I think that is usual.

That is typical in my church.
 

Originally Posted by CherryBomb 

Originally Posted by Trigger 

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.

Intinction from a priest is permissible.  Self intinction is absolutely forbidden.  http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect2

My bad, for not specifying.  Thank you for the clarification.

 First of all, it isn't about *you*  Whether or not a parishioner receives from you or the priest is none of your business, nor is their reasoning behind that decision.  You aren't there to judge people, as far as I know.  I don't receive from EM's if I can help it, for a number of reasons.  Most importantly, most are obviously uncomfortable administering on the tongue, and some outright refuse (and woe to you if you have the audacity to kneel down to our Lord!  ) Although that sometimes happens with priests, it's less likely in my experience.  Secondly, I think the way most EMs are used is an abuse of the intention of the position, and have no desire to implicitly support that.  If it's a case where an EM is actually appropriate, I have no problem receiving from them.  I do when I'm in the hospital, which is an appropriate function of the EM.  Extraordinary is supposed to be just that.  And some other reasons, but that's another thread.

 

Yes dear, obviously I know it isn't about *me*, but thanks again for the clarification.