Body and Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter CheesusPowerKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
holyspirit1985:
i receive both. at some masses i’ve been to, they dip the body in the blood, which i thought wasn’t allowed anymore. but they did it! also, in some churches they don’t let the congregation receive the wine, only the bread.
Click to expand...
Intinction is allowed, as long as it is done by the priest or deacon.

What is not allowed is self-intinction.

Anyways, intinction is the only way to recieve in the Byzantine Churches.
 
Since the body and blood are both fully present under both or either species, I don’t understand why you would need to receive both. It seems almost a duplication of some kind.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Since the body and blood are both fully present under both or either species, I don’t understand why you would need to receive both. It seems almost a duplication of some kind.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II said that the fullness of the sign of Communion was most evident in the reception of both Sacred Species. Our Lord told us to take both, why wouldn’t we? I don’t mind if people don’t, for whatever reason, I just get tired of complaints because some of us do. If the rad trads were put in charge (God forbid), then the Chalice would be refused to the laity again.
 
40.png
Life4Christ:
Secondly, and this is just a question, but when did it become acceptable to receive one or the other? As I stated in an earlier post for this thread, Jesus instructs his apostles to partake in both the body and the blood. He did not say we could choose between either. My question is when did this become an acceptable practice in the Church?
Click to expand...
Whether you receive the bread or the wine, you receive both the Boby AND Blood of Christ. It is not necessary to receive both bread and wine in order to receive both Body and Blood. Each species is complete alone.
 
I am concerned about germs, but don’t really have a strong opinion about it. Just would rather think about Jesus than bacteria.
 
Michael Welter:
Whether you receive the bread or the wine, you receive both the Boby AND Blood of Christ. It is not necessary to receive both bread and wine in order to receive both Body and Blood. Each species is complete alone.
Click to expand...
I completely understand that and agree (please note my very first post to this thread where I in fact point that same fact out), but my question is, when did it become acceptable for us to choose on our own which to accept. Jesus instructed his apostles to take both…why does this not apply to us today? Have we gotten to smart for our own good? Now we can sway a little from Jesus’ teachings simply because we think we understand something that’s true, and we really dont have to do “exactly” as he shows us or teaches us…because we know what he really meant, right?

Isnt this what most Protestants have done with the Eucharists…“I know Jesus said that the bread and wine were His body and blood, and in John 6 He says that He is the bread of life that gives eternal life…but I know that he really just means it was symbollic…”

I understand that he is fully present in both the bread and wine, but my question is when did we decide that it was ok to choose?

And to the germ statement…I just dont understand how you can be thinking of germs either. You are about to receive our Lord and Savior, who cured lepers, healed the blind and raised men from the dead. You’re worried that you might catch a cold from your neighbor?! How can we be putting ourselves before Jesus?
 
40.png
Life4Christ:
I completely understand that and agree (please note my very first post to this thread where I in fact point that same fact out), but my question is, when did it become acceptable for us to choose on our own which to accept. Jesus instructed his apostles to take both…why does this not apply to us today? Have we gotten to smart for our own good? Now we can sway a little from Jesus’ teachings simply because we think we understand something that’s true, and we really dont have to do “exactly” as he shows us or teaches us…because we know what he really meant, right?
Click to expand...
You are aware that before Vatican II that the laity only recieved the host when they recieved the Eucharist.

One thing I can think of, just off the top of my head, is that the apostles, who Christ commanded to recieve both, were the first clergy of the Church. The clergy has always recieved both.

I am sort of bothered by your use of the word “take” in reference to our reception of the Eucharist. We do not “take” the Eucharist, we recieve it.

We have not always been able to recieve both in the history of the Western Church, so I really do not see what the issue is here. You seem to be judgeing what others are doing rather than focusing on what you are doing but then thats just my view of what you have said here.
 
40.png
katy:
I am concerned about germs, but don’t really have a strong opinion about it. Just would rather think about Jesus than bacteria.
Click to expand...
Your feelings about germs and bacteria are common to many of the faithful. I had a priest explain this to me - the alcohol content of altar wine is so high on purpose so that it kills any contaminents to the Precious Blood. He also stated that God would protect us from such contamination.

Both items make sense. Don’t worry about the germ factor, you are doublely protected.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
40.png
ByzCath:
You are aware that before Vatican II that the laity only recieved the host when they recieved the Eucharist.

One thing I can think of, just off the top of my head, is that the apostles, who Christ commanded to recieve both, were the first clergy of the Church. The clergy has always recieved both.

I am sort of bothered by your use of the word “take” in reference to our reception of the Eucharist. We do not “take” the Eucharist, we recieve it.

We have not always been able to recieve both in the history of the Western Church, so I really do not see what the issue is here. You seem to be judgeing what others are doing rather than focusing on what you are doing but then thats just my view of what you have said here.
Click to expand...
With respect, Byz, I’ve never found the Apostles as clergy argument to be compelling. In the early Church, both Species were rec. by the community. Now, I would be pleased (not that that matters) if we did as your folk do and rec. both by intinction or by spoon, etc., as opposed to a common chalice, but for me, it is important to rec. both.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I am sort of bothered by your use of the word “take” in reference to our reception of the Eucharist. We do not “take” the Eucharist, we recieve it.
Click to expand...
“Take” is actually the word that Jesus used: “Take and eat, this is my Body.” (Matt 26:26)
 
Ok, I"m maybe getting the drift here a little better. When receiving from the cup was first intrduced into our diocese, it was offered as an option for those to whom it would be meaningful. It never occurred to me that it would be disobedient to our Lord to just keep on doing what I was doing.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
With respect, Byz, I’ve never found the Apostles as clergy argument to be compelling. In the early Church, both Species were rec. by the community. Now, I would be pleased (not that that matters) if we did as your folk do and rec. both by intinction or by spoon, etc., as opposed to a common chalice, but for me, it is important to rec. both.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that it is not all to compelling of an argument, afterall it was just off the top of my head, I did not know others had made it before.

As the Species are separated in the Western Church, I see how the error that occured that caused the Church to restrict the laity to the Host only. That is that if one does not partake of both Species then one does not recieve Christ wholly. I know that Life4Christ says that he understands that you recieve Christ wholly in just one Species but I wonder if that intellectual understanding is also a spiritual understanding for him. I just do not see the issue.

Michael Welter said:
“Take” is actually the word that Jesus used: “Take and eat, this is my Body.” (Matt 26:26)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Jesus did not say “Take” as take is an english word and Jesus did not speak in english. This is a case were we must look to the original language and see what the word is there.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Sorry, but Jesus did not say “Take” as take is an english word and Jesus did not speak in english. This is a case were we must look to the original language and see what the word is there.
Click to expand...
You may be on to something there. I did a little research, and the word used in latin (the official langauge if the Church), is Accipite. This is the plural of Accipio, which makes sense, since He was talking to more than one person. Accipio translates to english as “to take without effort, receive, get, accept”. So it seems that “take” and “receive” are both correct translations.
 
Michael Welter:
You may be on to something there. I did a little research, and the word used in latin (the official langauge if the Church), is Accipite. This is the plural of Accipio, which makes sense, since He was talking to more than one person. Accipio translates to english as “to take without effort, receive, get, accept”. So it seems that “take” and “receive” are both correct translations.
Click to expand...
Awesome job Michael! Thanks for clarifying. I was tired or hearing people being corrected because of the word they were using.
 
40.png
Life4Christ:
Awesome job Michael! Thanks for clarifying. I was tired or hearing people being corrected because of the word they were using.
Click to expand...
Yes Michael thanks.

But… Its not so much the word that is being used, its the mindset that goes behind the choice of the word used.

We to not take communion, we recieve it. To take communion is to self-communicate which is forbidden for the laity to do.
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
Just wondering, does everyone hear take the Body AND the Blood? or just the Body? When I was younger my mom wouldn’t let me take the blood, just looking to see if anyone else is the same way

In Him,
Britty
Click to expand...
I recieve both, there’s no reason not to! 🙂
 
40.png
ByzCath:
We have not always been able to recieve both in the history of the Western Church, so I really do not see what the issue is here. You seem to be judgeing what others are doing rather than focusing on what you are doing but then thats just my view of what you have said here.
Click to expand...
Judging? What are you talking about? This is a forum to discuss different topics. The original question was if and why different people receive both the host and the chalice at communion. I have just pointed out that Jesus instructed the apostles to take both, and asked the question of when did we start choosing which we could receive. This is just a discussion, I am not judging anyone. How could you say a thing like that? Not cool.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Yes, I can see that it is not all to compelling of an argument, afterall it was just off the top of my head, I did not know others had made it before.

As the Species are separated in the Western Church, I see how the error that occured that caused the Church to restrict the laity to the Host only. That is that if one does not partake of both Species then one does not recieve Christ wholly. I know that Life4Christ says that he understands that you recieve Christ wholly in just one Species but I wonder if that intellectual understanding is also a spiritual understanding for him. I just do not see the issue.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for the disposition of anyone’s heart or mind, but I hope we all understand that in rec. either of the Sacred Species, we are rec. Our Lord and our God, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, fully and completely in Both or Either. I just believe Our Lord intended we rec. Both. I do, however, acknowledge that the Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him have the authority to restrict, either for a season or more permanently, the reception of the Chalice.
 
40.png
Life4Christ:
Judging? What are you talking about? This is a forum to discuss different topics. The original question was if and why different people receive both the host and the chalice at communion. I have just pointed out that Jesus instructed the apostles to take both, and asked the question of when did we start choosing which we could receive. This is just a discussion, I am not judging anyone. How could you say a thing like that? Not cool.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if you do not like what I said, but your questions do appear to be judgeing.

Here is what you said…
40.png
LIfe4Christ:
but my question is, when did it become acceptable for us to choose on our own which to accept. Jesus instructed his apostles to take both…why does this not apply to us today? Have we gotten to smart for our own good? Now we can sway a little from Jesus’ teachings simply because we think we understand something that’s true, and we really dont have to do “exactly” as he shows us or teaches us…because we know what he really meant, right?
Click to expand...
Your question was, “when did it become acceptable for us to choose on our own wich to accept” and “Have we gotten to smart for our own good?” and “Now we can sway a little from Jesus’ teachings simply because we think we understand something that’s true” and finally “because we know what he really meant, right?”

All those seem full of a judgemental attitude.

Those who recieve the Eucharist by only recieveing the Host recieve Christ wholly. As the Church teaches. No where does the Church teach that everyone must partake of the Chalice.

I have been to Masses where the Chalice was not even offered which was the norm pre-Vatican II.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I am sorry if you do not like what I said, but your questions do appear to be judgeing.

Here is what you said…

Your question was, “when did it become acceptable for us to choose on our own wich to accept” and “Have we gotten to smart for our own good?” and “Now we can sway a little from Jesus’ teachings simply because we think we understand something that’s true” and finally “because we know what he really meant, right?”

All those seem full of a judgemental attitude.

Those who recieve the Eucharist by only recieveing the Host recieve Christ wholly. As the Church teaches. No where does the Church teach that everyone must partake of the Chalice.

I have been to Masses where the Chalice was not even offered which was the norm pre-Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Ok, no problem. I’m not going sit here and watch you try to build a case from my qoutes to prove that I am being judgmental. I apologize if it seemed that way. This is rediculous that we cant even discuss topics now on a forum without being accused of something. Anyway…God bless you. Again, sorry to offend you. I’m done with this thread that has been thrown way of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top