- Nov 2, 2013
- 133
- 74
- 33
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Peace and blessings to you from a Roman Catholic friend. First, I think I should define what I'm talking about here.
The doctrine of concomitance is the idea that in the consecrated Eucharist, in either species (either the Bread or the Wine), the whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is present. That is to say, we do not teach that someone who receives only the Host, as many Romans do, is only receiving the Body without the Blood, or that someone who receives only from the chalice (as some people with celiac and related diseases do at my parish, even needing a separate chalice from the one the priest uses) receives only the Blood without the Body. This was developed in response to the Utraquist heresy, which claimed that to separate the species was to separate Christ.
I've struggled with this doctrine somewhat, since Jesus did say to take and eat and take and drink, never saying we should only do one or the other. Moreover, I think from a practical, non-dogmatic point of view, that receiving both species is a better symbol of what's really going on in the Eucharist even if we only receive one species. I hope that makes sense. I've made my peace with this definition, and while I don't receive under both species at my parish, I do receive under both species when it's offered at other parishes, and would personally advocate for intinction (which is most similar to the Antiochian/Melkite practice) were I someone worth listening to on the matter. I do want to be clear that while I do not defy Rome's teaching on concomitance, I do prefer both species when it is practical.
What I'm curious about is what Orthodox think about this, not having faced the heresy that prompted this development. Do you believe someone must receive both the "bread" and "wine" in order to receive the full Eucharist? I feel like I've read and maybe even seen at a Melkite parish that infant communion is typically done with the "wine" only, but I don't want to say that confidently. If that is a common practice, that does feel like answer enough, but I'm curious what your experience is.
The doctrine of concomitance is the idea that in the consecrated Eucharist, in either species (either the Bread or the Wine), the whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is present. That is to say, we do not teach that someone who receives only the Host, as many Romans do, is only receiving the Body without the Blood, or that someone who receives only from the chalice (as some people with celiac and related diseases do at my parish, even needing a separate chalice from the one the priest uses) receives only the Blood without the Body. This was developed in response to the Utraquist heresy, which claimed that to separate the species was to separate Christ.
I've struggled with this doctrine somewhat, since Jesus did say to take and eat and take and drink, never saying we should only do one or the other. Moreover, I think from a practical, non-dogmatic point of view, that receiving both species is a better symbol of what's really going on in the Eucharist even if we only receive one species. I hope that makes sense. I've made my peace with this definition, and while I don't receive under both species at my parish, I do receive under both species when it's offered at other parishes, and would personally advocate for intinction (which is most similar to the Antiochian/Melkite practice) were I someone worth listening to on the matter. I do want to be clear that while I do not defy Rome's teaching on concomitance, I do prefer both species when it is practical.
What I'm curious about is what Orthodox think about this, not having faced the heresy that prompted this development. Do you believe someone must receive both the "bread" and "wine" in order to receive the full Eucharist? I feel like I've read and maybe even seen at a Melkite parish that infant communion is typically done with the "wine" only, but I don't want to say that confidently. If that is a common practice, that does feel like answer enough, but I'm curious what your experience is.
