Body & Blood of Jesus why take both?

[JNB]

Melchior:

Communion originated under both species and was the universal practive of the church until the late medievel period when communion was taken completely from the laity and reinstituted years later in part. And the changes that came were denying small children communion and the precious blood to the laity.

This idea of rebellion is, respectfully, absurd. Both species has a much longer history and is still practiced in all the other rites. Why the blank would you abolish the the precious blood that **Christ himself **instituted?!?!?!

You think that one can catch a disease from the blood of Christ? The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have been doing it for 2000 years without a problem.

Mel

Mel

The Eastren Orthodox/Catholics do not recieve communion via a chalcie, they dip the host in the precious blood and via a spoon, drop it in the commnicants mouth.

As for rebellion, it is not absurd, the Vatican did not authorize communion under both kinds untill 84 in t he uS. Before then, the clergy and Bishops that did this practice were doing so without the authorization of Rome. As for the last supper, all present there were not laity, but the apostles, the first clergy, so useing that standard, every mass still is faithful to the last supper where the priest recieves communion under both kinds. As for abolish the chalices, read what I said, I said communion should be done via intinction, the way the Eastren Christians and a small number of Roman Catholic parishes do, and that is dip the host in the precious blood. This manner, all have both species.

Its sad so many American Catholics think more like Protestants than Catholics.

 

[Crusader]

Melchior:

Since when would fuller not be preferred?

Example Pasta is a good expression of Italian food. Pasta with sauce is a fuller expression of Italian food. One is a better example fo an Italian dish than the other. In this case fuller is better.

Why wouldn’t you want the fullest expression of something? Fuller implies better or more complete. Otherwise fuller has no meaning.

So why did Christ establish the New Covenant meal in His body and blood with bread and wine and not just bread? I don’t get how this is not obvious?

Mel

Are you aware what the separation of the wine and bread means (even before they are mixed in the Eastern Churches) during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

By understanding this symbolic separation, you might well find your answer.

P.S. “Fuller” does not always equate to better…

 

[Melchior]

JNB:

The Eastren Orthodox/Catholics do not recieve communion via a chalcie, they dip the host in the precious blood and via a spoon, drop it in the commnicants mouth.

As for rebellion, it is not absurd, the Vatican did not authorize communion under both kinds untill 84 in t he uS. Before then, the clergy and Bishops that did this practice were doing so without the authorization of Rome. As for the last supper, all present there were not laity, but the apostles, the first clergy, so useing that standard, every mass still is faithful to the last supper where the priest recieves communion under both kinds. As for abolish the chalices, read what I said, I said communion should be done via intinction, the way the Eastren Christians and a small number of Roman Catholic parishes do, and that is dip the host in the precious blood. This manner, all have both species.

Its sad so many American Catholics think more like Protestants than Catholics.

Ok. I am with you on intinction. My concern was that you were saying no blood at all for the laity. Not so much the means (chalice). My mistake. My apologies.

But the spoon can be plenty unsanitary. On fact more so that a chalice. I have witnessed Orthodox communion many many times and the spoon goes form one mouth to the next.

BTW, I am a Protestant.

Mel

 

[a_pilgrim]

Melchior:

But the spoon can be plenty unsanitary. In fact more so that a chalice. I have witnessed Orthodox communion many many times and the spoon goes form one mouth to the next.

In the Churches of the East the spoon does not touch the mouth of the communicant. Communicants in the East fold their hands cross-wise, flat across their breast (thus alleviating the potential for someone’s hands to inadvertantly bump the Sacred Cup) and tip their heads fully back with the mouth opened wide and the tongue retracted within the mouth. The priest or deacon drops the Eucharist into their open mouth from above with the spoon.

Years ago, as a Byzantine Catholic altar boy, I was instructed that lay individuals (altar boys included!) were NEVER to touch any of the sacred vessels that would come into contact with the Body and Blood of Our Lord… this would include the spoon.

a pilgrim

 

[Melchior]

a pilgrim:

In the Churches of the East the spoon does not touch the mouth of the communicant. Communicants in the East fold their hands cross-wise, flat across their breast (thus alleviating the potential for someone’s hands to inadvertantly bump the Sacred Cup) and tip their heads fully back with the mouth opened wide and the tongue retracted within the mouth. The priest or deacon drops the Eucharist into their open mouth from above with the spoon.

Years ago, as a Byzantine Catholic altar boy, I was instructed that lay individuals (altar boys included!) were NEVER to touch any of the sacred vessels that would come into contact with the Body and Blood of Our Lord… this would include the spoon.

a pilgrim

The unsanitary remark I made was tongue-in-cheek with reference to JNB’s comment up spreading disease through the chalice. (every at my church seems pretty healthy, btw). But I will say I have seen littles kids wraps there lips around the spoon at Communion. Funny story:

I was at an Antiochian church during Lent and this little boy around 5 or 6 clamped his mouth shut on the spoon and the Priest had to pry it out of his mouth.

Mel

 

[a_pilgrim]

Melchior:

…this little boy around 5 or 6 clamped his mouth shut on the spoon and the Priest had to pry it out of his mouth.

…obviously not quite ready yet to be an altar boy!!

a pilgrim

 

[prodromos]

a pilgrim:

In the Churches of the East the spoon does not touch the mouth of the communicant. Communicants in the East fold their hands cross-wise, flat across their breast (thus alleviating the potential for someone’s hands to inadvertantly bump the Sacred Cup) and tip their heads fully back with the mouth opened wide and the tongue retracted within the mouth. The priest or deacon drops the Eucharist into their open mouth from above with the spoon.

This is certainly not the case in the Orthodox church. The spoon goes into our mouths and we close our lips around it…

 

[mercygate]

Confiteor:

the tiniest bit of a host–contains both the Body and Blood of our Lord. If one can believe in the Real Presence (and some 70% don’t they say), the symbol or the sign is not so important.

Confiteor:

Also, Intinction is great when it is available which is not too often where I live.

Receiving in only one kind was instituted for just the reasons you suggest, in order to combat the Hussites who believed that it was necessary to receive in both kinds in order to receive the whole Christ (so to speak).

I have received by intinction only once – two weeks ago at Assumption Grotto in Detroit. Only Priests distributed the Sacrament to the communicants who knelt at the communion rail. A ciborium was used that had a small cup in the middle containing the Precious Blood. The Priest intincted the Host and placed it on each communicant’s tongue. I was quite surprised that I found this to be “emotionally” (spiritually? symbolically? – I’m at a loss for words) satisfying as well as practical. Communion of about 350 people didn’t take any longer than it does in my parish with 8 EMHCs.

 

[JNB]

Melchior:

The unsanitary remark I made was tongue-in-cheek with reference to JNB’s comment up spreading disease through the chalice. (every at my church seems pretty healthy, btw). But I will say I have seen littles kids wraps there lips around the spoon at Communion. Funny story:

I was at an Antiochian church during Lent and this little boy around 5 or 6 clamped his mouth shut on the spoon and the Priest had to pry it out of his mouth.

Mel

You know, humor has a time and place, but when it comes to the mass, be rest assured, I have NO HUMOR what so ever.

Again, the chalice has the potential to be unsanitary, and the last time I took from the chalice, I had a nasty cold to deal with, if it was germs from the chalice or elsewhere, I dont know, but I from then on decided to reduce the number of risk factors.

The concecration turns the wine into the precious blood, but the accidents remain after the concecration, and as Karl Keating himself said, the alcohol content of the prcious blood is too low to kill of germs, and in addition to that, often “backwash” is added to the precious blood.

Again, I am not against communion under both spcies, but it should be done in a sanitary manner and also should be require more EMHCs.

 

[Melchior]

JNB:

You know, humor has a time and place, but when it comes to the mass, be rest assured, I have NO HUMOR what so ever.

Again, the chalice has the potential to be unsanitary, and the last time I took from the chalice, I had a nasty cold to deal with, if it was germs from the chalice or elsewhere, I dont know, but I from then on decided to reduce the number of risk factors.

The concecration turns the wine into the precious blood, but the accidents remain after the concecration, and as Karl Keating himself said, the alcohol content of the prcious blood is too low to kill of germs, and in addition to that, often “backwash” is added to the precious blood.

Again, I am not against communion under both spcies, but it should be done in a sanitary manner and also should be require more EMHCs.

If you cannot see humor in the innocent behavior of children then you need to lighten up. I was not making lite of the Mass. We receiev from a chalice every week and no one seems to get sick. Same with the spoon in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. Also remeber that the most ancient practice involved a common cup. Personally, I find the idea that we can get sick from receiving the precious blood in faith, the same way the Apostles received it repugnant. The cup is wiped after every sip. And again 2000 year of the Orthodox practice (and ancient Catholic practice) carries more weight than a position that seems frankly faithless in God’s provision in the Sacrament.

Communion is a corporate activity to be done with the body of Christ (the Church). Jesus said 'This cup…". A common cup in many ways shows the unity of the faithful and their communion with each other better than any other method. You can be grossed out by it if you want but Jesus and the Apostles as well as the entire universal church for hundreds of years was not.

All that being said I do think intinction is a valid and indeed a very good way to receieve the Precious body and blood.

Mel

 

[John_C]

Lord I’m not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed. What a beautiful honor and blessing to receive the Lord in either species!

For me there is nothing greater in this world than to receive our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Eucharist. The opportunity to receive it daily and in both species is so awesome that it is my passion. God Bless!

 

[Psalm45_9]

To tell you the truth I recieve under both species because I’m afraid of having Jesus stuck in my teeth. I like how the Byzantines recieve communion.

 

[Finella]

“”"“You think that one can catch a disease from the blood of Christ? The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have been doing it for 2000 years without a problem. “””"

I posted this question:

“can drinking the blood of Christ make you sick?” in the ask an apologist forum on september the 12th.

check out the answer if you’d like.

Finella