Communion in both kinds/species - are both better than one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Uriel1

Guest
As a new user I inadvertently hijacked a thread on taking communion in a protestant church; apologies and lesson learned.

Please don’t dwell on allergies/alcoholism which is another discussion.
Do the readers feel both species are better than one only, or it’s all the same, one way or both, and why?

Please remember Jesus’ teaching before anything else.
 
Last edited:
Some people aren’t able to take bread because of allergies so I guess they might be done for…
 
It’s established that there is a bread with 6ppm gluten (Australia deems it gluten free) which is non allergenic so please forget that one and deal with the two species discussion on this thread
 
Last edited:
People also have allergies to wheat and that is a different story.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Church has consistently taught that taking Communion in one form only is completely sufficient. We receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity completely in both the Bread and the Blood, so we don’t need to take both. However, taking both when we have the opportunity is encouraged, but it’s not necessary in order to completely receive Our Lord.
 
Last edited:
I’m not going to get into that debate. I trust the Church and the Magisterium. The Church teaches that both forms are completely Jesus and I believe it. He is not divided between the Bread and the Wine.

Our Lord gave us the Church to settle matters like these. I’m so glad to have the Church as an authority, instead of trusting to individual’s private interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Our Lord was speaking to the Apostles in what I predict will be your prooftext. The priest (the successor of the apostles) does have to take both species at Mass.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Our Lord was speaking to the Apostles in what I predict will be your prooftext. The priest (the successor of the apostles) does have to take both species at Mass.
Click to expand...
No prooftext; why did you think I had a single prooftext?
 
Then why don’t you stop being vague and explain what it is that you think the Magisterium missed? People can’t discuss it if you don’t explain your position.
 
It’s just what I have encountered from other people making your argument.
 
ShowersofRoses said:
Then why don’t you stop being vague and explain what it is that you think the Magisterium missed? People can’t discuss it if you don’t explain your position.
Click to expand...
Maximilian75 said:
It’s just what I have encountered from other people making your argument.
Click to expand...
That’s a first: I’ve just managed my first double reply.
I originally asked, Do the readers feel both species are better than one only, or it’s all the same, one way or both, and why? and to please remember Jesus’ teaching before anything else. Respondents then rely on the magisterium and ignore what Jesus said
 
Okay, I’ll bite.

I think 1 species is completely sufficient for lay people. Priests, as successors of the Apostles, are a different matter.
 
There is no doubt that early Christians did take both species, and for a reason. I want to see if anyone sees a reason in Scripture (NT) as to why two species are more complete. It hit me at Mass tonight for the first time
 
Thanks, That is all clear, but have you never seen a reason in the Scriptures that both are necessary if possible, and not just for the priest?
 
Try reading what Jesus said, and why he said it. I’ve heard it thousands of times but tonight “got it” for the first time
 
So, then, other than showboating your secret knowledge and not revealing it to us, is there a point to this thread?
 
Maximilian75 said:
So, then, other than showboating your secret knowledge and not revealing it to us, is there a point to this thread?
Click to expand...
I’m not showboating; I am asking others to read what the perfect man said, which makes the bishops say that it is more complete in both kinds
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top