I went to a EMHC--I guess HC takes the place for E=Eucharist now? Anyway a diocesan priest did the lecture and overall it was very good but mentioned a couple of things I didnt think was correct. One being you could just take the Precious Blood instead of the Precious Body? He did mention both species was the best.
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."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
It is possible to receive just the cup, but if memory serves - without doing the actual research to dig it up - the exceptions are granted only in cases of gluten intolerance, such as Celiacs disease. There is also available for use low-gluten hosts, but some folks can't tolerate even those. They are the ones for whom the provision of receiving from the cup only would apply.
------------------------ Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours.
It makes sense just never heard that one. It looks like now many churches are doing away with the Precious Blood due to H1N1 and other diseases of the day--but I cant see how the Precious Blood could ever be anything but good for you?
This happens when the person is allergic to wheat and therefore cannot receive the body Christ; in such case the person can receive only the blood of Christ. Besides as you read 1390 carefully, it says “Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species” what does that tell you? The fact that because of “pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion [the body of Christ alone] has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite” does not mean this is the only form or “the sign of communion more complete” It just happen to be way that became legitimately established! The point I that made was only the fact that “Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species” and therefore the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion must be constantly aware of this. So if the faithful would choose to receive only the blood of Christ for Holy Communion that person would still be receiving “all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.”