After the 12th century, the Roman Catholic church withheld the cup from the laity. why?

[Corki]

Right… 'cause it’s far better to scandalize the poorly catechized than it is to properly teach them.

Scandlaize? It is very common in many parishes and in whole regions of the world to distribute Communion under the single species. My own included. There is nothing scandalous about it.

 

[Dorothy]

I think you are misreading the text

Christ gave that command to the Apostles, who had received the Grace of Holy Orders. That command came at the same time Christ gave the Apostles the command to 'Do this in memory of me", to conduct the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The command to celebrate Mass is thus binding on the Sacerdotal Priesthood, as well as the command to Take both forms.

We, the laity, are not to take the command to “Do this in memory of me” as a command to celebrate Mass, we cannot.

Likewise we were not given the command to “Take and eat…Take and drink”. We, as the laity RECIEVE Holy Communion as a gift, we do not TAKE it at all.

We see that at Mass, a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating, takes the Blessed Sacrament themselves, and always both species. They do not receive it from the hands of another.

And, as a gift, the laity can receive in either form alone, or together, as the Church chooses to offer it to us.

We receive it from the hands of another, and do not take from the paten as do the priests.

So yes, the Church reads the same Bible that you do, but we look to the Church for the correct interpretation. The Church, we know, cannot violate a command of Christ as does not do so when it offers only a single species.

Thank you! I knew that it was necessary for both species to be consecrated at a Mass, and that the Lord is present whole and entire in the host alone, and in the consecrated wine alone.

However, I had never heard it so clearly explained as you did above.

 

[Gelnhausener]

In 67 yers I have seen Hosts dropped; I have yet to see the Blood spilled.

I must confess that I spilled the Blood. It occurred when the communicant was passing the cup back to me. I think that when I held my hand out to retrieve it the communicant and I met with a little too much force and the Blood splashed out of the cup. Terrifying and embarrassing.

 

[petronus]

I think you are misreading the text

Christ gave that command to the Apostles, who had received the Grace of Holy Orders. That command came at the same time Christ gave the Apostles the command to 'Do this in memory of me", to conduct the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The command to celebrate Mass is thus binding on the Sacerdotal Priesthood, as well as the command to Take both forms.

We, the laity, are not to take the command to “Do this in memory of me” as a command to celebrate Mass, we cannot.

Likewise we were not given the command to “Take and eat…Take and drink”. We, as the laity RECIEVE Holy Communion as a gift, we do not TAKE it at all.

We see that at Mass, a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating, takes the Blessed Sacrament themselves, and always both species. They do not receive it from the hands of another.

And, as a gift, the laity can receive in either form alone, or together, as the Church chooses to offer it to us.

We receive it from the hands of another, and do not take from the paten as do the priests.

So yes, the Church reads the same Bible that you do, but we look to the Church for the correct interpretation. The Church, we know, cannot violate a command of Christ as does not do so when it offers only a single species.

Your theology is weird .

The logical conclusion to your reasoning is that those who are not priests need not receive the Eucharist at all .

 

[Classicist]

Your error is in assuming that Christ stanted “This is my Body alone” and “This is my Blood without the Body”

Christ said neither.

He still made a distinction between the one and the other. He did not bless the bread and then say “This is my body and my blood”.

The separation of Body and Blood is death, but we receive the Risen Christ, whose Blood flows through the veins of His Body.

In your theology, we receive the dead Christ, that Death in the Victor. The Church teaches otherwise.

That is why the Church teaches that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present, because they cannot be separated in the Risen Christ.

And yet the Church explains the distinction between Body & Blood by saying that separation of the two elements symbolizes & communicates the sacrifice which is the Mass. Remember that the Mass and the Eucharist specifically re-presents Calvary, not the empty tomb. Body & Blood are separated at death, at Calvary.

The Lord also said “do this in remembrance of me”, indicating that it is the same sacrament on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. It is the same passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ in one. Separating them is impossible.

Yes, it might be Scholastic, but the Scholastics correctly taught of the Resurrection., You seem to deny it.

Given the choice, I’ll take Scholastic though any day.

I do not deny the life-giving resurrection of the Son of God. What a thing to imply! I fix myself to what the Lord said. He said “whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life in him” - but one does not eat of the chalice, nor drink of the host.

I am not attacking the Church, only asking for clarification.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I’ll wager that the Eastern Christians are giggling at this thread.

 

[Classicist]

I’ll wager that the Eastern Christians are giggling at this thread.

I’ve always respected their less scrupulous attitude about the Holy Mysteries.

 

[Brendan]

Your theology is weird .

The logical conclusion to your reasoning is that those who are not priests need not receive the Eucharist at all .

That is correct. The celebrant MUST receive Holy Communion. Those in the pews may freely choose not to without violating any Commandment of Christ. They are under no obligation, while the priest IS obligated to do so.

Are you claiming otherwise, that EVERYONE at Mass must receive or else they are violating a Commandment of Christ.

 

[Brendan]

He still made a distinction between the one and the other. He did not bless the bread and then say “This is my body and my blood”.

You are falling into the same error Luther did when he claimed that Romans 3:28 meant ‘faith alone’, when St. Paul simply noted 'Faith".

And yet the Church explains the distinction between Body & Blood by saying that separation of the two elements symbolizes & communicates the sacrifice which is the Mass. Remember that the Mass and the Eucharist specifically re-presents Calvary, not the empty tomb. Body & Blood are separated at death, at Calvary.

I never said that the Church makes no distinctions in the symbolism of the species. What I am saying that the Church makes no distinction on the substance of the Eucharist.

The consecration of the species seperatly is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the mingling of the species is a re-presention of the Resurrection.

The Lord also said “do this in remembrance of me”, indicating that it is the same sacrament on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. It is the same passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ in one. Separating them is impossible.

But yet you claim that they remain Seperated. In that the loss of the Blood within the Body that occurred at Calvary has not been restored in the Resurrection. That the Body and Blood are not rejoined, but remain separated.

I do not deny the life-giving resurrection of the Son of God. What a thing to imply!

But what else can the separation of Body and Blood be but the Death of Christ.

It seems that you claim that we receive PARTS of Christ, one species had the part of Christ known as His Body, the other species is the part of Christ known as His Blood.

My claim, and that of the Church is that one does not receive parts of Christ, but the totality of Christ.

I fix myself to what the Lord said. He said “whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life in him” - but one does not eat of the chalice, nor drink of the host.

When the Host is inclusive of flowing Blood, we DO drink of it. In much the same way as Christ is Present in the Eucharist, not bread. Our eye interact with the Eucharist in such a way as we see the image of bread, but the reality is that we are looking upon Christ.

Thus our mouths interact with the species of bread as if it was bread, but we are consuming flowing Blood. And what the consumption of flowing blood other than the action of drinking.

 

[angelic06]

Even worse, I have been encountering a growing number of Catholics who lack the Church’s understanding of concomitance.

They think of the species of wine as being the Blood to the exclusion of the Body, and of species of bread as being ‘Body’ to the exclusion of Blood.

As often as I can, I go to a noon Mass near work. It is not my home parish.

Chatting with one lady, an EMHC, she asked why I never received the Blood. I answered that I did, at just about every Mass. She replied that she often held the chalice and never saw me receive from it. I replied that was immaterial, as I received the Blood present in the Host.

It took the involvement of the priest to get her to understand that, yes I received the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ with the reception of a single species.

And even then, I think the acceptance was grudging.

Having not been an EMHC save at a Catholic campus ministry center, I am wondering what kind of training EMCHs receive for their ministry.

If you are going to participate in the distribution of the Holy Elements, I think that you should at least receive some instruction in what it is you are distributing.

 

[Classicist]

our mouths interact with the species of bread as if it was bread, but we are consuming flowing Blood. And what the consumption of flowing blood other than the action of drinking.

That is very interesting. The rest of your post is good, but this part convinced me of the mystery of Body & Blood in one element.

 

[petronus]

Which is why I also think it’s time to withhold the Cup yet again.

And again disobey the command of Jesus .

 

[Vico]

It seems that patronus believes that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to determine the sacramental discipline to be followed by the faithful. Is this true?

 

[vames]

I’ll wager that the Eastern Christians are giggling at this thread.

And rightly so. If one reads this thread, they will be taught that Jesus authorized only the priests to receive the Eucharist and that all the praise should go to some heroic priests who are so generous as to tolerate these stupid, clumsy laypeople to partake. But these laypeople should know that it’s only an undeserved favor that can always be taken away. Wow, these stupid laypeople could spill a magic drop of blood, so let’s withhold the chalice! Maybe it’s time to withhold the host too, with so much potential for abuses?

For Jesus said “He that eateth my flesh OR drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

 

[bsroufek]

It seems that patronus believes that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to determine the sacramental discipline to be followed by the faithful. Is this true?

I think patronus is leaning on his own understanding of Christ’s command to eat and drink His Body and Blood.

For me, I believe the Church (having researched this) that each of the Body and Blood is “The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of Christ entirely.

But, when the Blood is offered, I receive it as well. I receive Both when I can, but am satisfied with Body if only It is available.

 

[Classicist]

So could there be a valid reception of holy communion on the part of the laity in receiving only from the chalice? Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord are just as present there as in the ciborium.

 

[bsroufek]

So could there be a valid reception of holy communion on the part of the laity in receiving only from the chalice? Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord are just as present there as in the ciborium.

Yes, If I only receive the Blood, I am receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord. The same with the Body. This is Church teaching.

 

[petronus]

I think patronus is leaning on his own understanding of Christ’s command to eat and drink His Body and Blood…

No . Just leaning on Christ’s command .

 

[Corki]

So could there be a valid reception of holy communion on the part of the laity in receiving only from the chalice? Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord are just as present there as in the ciborium.

Yes, many people with gluten sensitivities regularly receive in this way. It is also the manner used for Communion when a person has an illness that makes swallowing difficult.

 

[petronus]

If one reads this thread, they will be taught that Jesus authorized only the priests to receive the Eucharist and that all the praise should go to some heroic priests who are so generous as to tolerate these stupid, clumsy laypeople to partake. But these laypeople should know that it’s only an undeserved favor that can always be taken away. :

Unfortunately that is the crazy opinion some seem to have . They are blind to what Jesus said . So ignore them , they are blind guides .