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

[Uriel1]

Yes Shakuhachi,

Read these words; Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body,” and then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur) for the forgiveness of sins.”

We surely eat his body, but when we drink the cup we are reminded that it is not just for us, the Communicants, but that the cup that was poured for many, and that we are tasked in drinking that cup to do the Lord’s work. That is precisely why the sign is more complete

 

[Shakuhachi]

Yes, the “sign” is more complete and has more i pact on us physicallay. Of course the Lord is fullyy present in either species but the richness of the sign come through better with both.

 

[Vico]

…

Both the body and blood are “for you”, Luke 22:

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

 

[Brendan]

Note what is being called more complete, it is the SIGN value of the Eucharist, not the Grace. That is received in fullness in any species.

So we then have to look at what is the sign value of a Sacrament. A Sacrament bestows the Grace that it signifies. (again that ‘sign’ thing)

A sign is that which points towards something greater than itself. It points towards something else.

An example is a street sign. It indicates that you are on ‘Main Street’. The sign is not the street itself, it only points towards it, or indicates that it is present ( that you are actually ON Main Street)

It is quite true that such a sign can be more complete, the sign could be illuminated, for example.

But the sign serves only to direct. Once you have the surety of what the sign indicates, it’s value or need decreases.

In relation to the Eucharist, for many who are morally sure that they are receiving Christ, the ‘more complete sign’ is unnecessary or unneeded. For others, they have not attained this, or seek additional reassurance of what the Eucharist means, and this rely on the sign, in whatever state of completeness.

That is why the Church speaks of completeness ONLY in regards to the sign value. The Sacrament itself if fully complete, the Church, nor any human, can add or subtract from it. It is only the SIGN value, it direction to the Grace that it provides, that is alterable.

Since the Church allows for both under defined circumstances, it is not up to us to disparage the choice of the other, nor there reliance on sign.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

…

Both the body and blood are “for you”, Luke 22:

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

No Vico, you need to read both Matt and Mark, and the Eucharistic prayers too. The cup/blood is for the many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur). Read it and meditate and the Spirit of truth will speak to you

 

[stpurl]

Oh really? I said ‘appears’, Galileo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Magisterium and the ordinary DOES get it right, and above all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse in the (your bias is showing) "USA Catholic Church.

I’d address an argument or discussion from you, but you offer none.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Uriel1:

…

Both the body and blood are “for you”, Luke 22:

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

No Vico, you need to read both Matt and Mark, and the Eucharistic prayers too. The cup/blood is for the many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur). Read it and meditate and the Spirit of truth will speak to you

My post is not about grammatical case and number but about both being “for you”.

 

[Uriel1]

Oh really? I said ‘appears’, Galileo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Magisterium and the ordinary DOES get it right, and above all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse in the (your bias is showing) "USA Catholic Church.

I’d address an argument or discussion from you, but you offer none.

You said “appears” and you think that’s ok.
You said of Galileo, “who, by the way, was in fact WRONG in some of his theories” in an attempt to divert from the magisterium’s error, (corrected in 1992 by the Vatican).

In the UK your tactics are called ad hominem /straw man and indicate desperation.

Your bishops have had (and may still have) serious issues with homosexual culture in the seminaries, and you react to a serious discussion about both species by claiming they can do no wrong. It is precisely that attitude that allows malpractice to go unchallenged.

God love you friend; caritate non ficta

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

Vico:

Uriel1:

…

Both the body and blood are “for you”, Luke 22:

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

No Vico, you need to read both Matt and Mark, and the Eucharistic prayers too. The cup/blood is for the many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur). Read it and meditate and the Spirit of truth will speak to you

My post is not about grammatical case and number but about both being “for you”.

I understand that and agree Vico, but of the cup Jesus goes further. It is clear in both Matt and Mark, and in the Eucharistic prayers that when taking the cup Jesus was thinking both of us, and the many

 

[Vico]

…
I understand that and agree Vico, but of the cup Jesus goes further. It is clear in both Matt and Mark, and in the Eucharistic prayers that when taking the cup Jesus was thinking both of us, and the many

It is clear in all of them as allusion to Isaiah 53:12

12 Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.

Luke was very good with writing in Greek. Is was suggested that he may avoid using the word polloi (the many) to avoid the exclusive meaning it would have for Gentiles.

 

[Brendan]

No Vico, you need to read both Matt and Mark, and the Eucharistic prayers too. The cup/blood is for the many (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur). Read it and meditate and the Spirit of truth will speak to you

As an FYI, the qui pro refers, in Matthew, to the SHEDDING of the blood, not the cup itself. Thus it has little bearing on the question of any necessity for both species ( the Church has already ruled that it is not a necessity)

The Blood is already present by concummittence, so in each species, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are fully present.

 

[thistle]

Galileo is relevant because he did NOT attack the magisterium, just told them they might be wrong. I haven’t done this but have followed the magisterium completely.
You, my friend have accused me, without cause. Matt 7:1

Caritate non ficta

This is what you said: " I absolutely follow the magisterium, but I think they missed something Jesus said about the wine,

The Magisterium does not miss anything. If anyone disagrees with the Magisterium it is the person who does the disagreeing that is always wrong and never the Magisterium.

 

[margaret42]

With both species though, it’s a good reminder of the words of Christ: “This is my body…this is my blood”.

 

[stpurl]

I stand with the Magesterium. I did not claim the bishops ‘can do no wrong’ but it is obvious by your own ad hominem and strawman tactics who is the desperate one here.

Continuing on topic: One receives the complete Christ in either species. One cannot receive “More Jesus” by receiving both, nor “Less Jesus” in receiving just one.

 

[otjm]

And round and round and round we go, generally going nowhere.

I proposed this scenario some years ago and asked a question; I will repeat it.

It is Sunday, and you have proceeded up to receive the Host. as you are going across the front of the pews and nearing the individual holding the Cup, you realize that instead of an EMHC, or the deacon, or a second priest, the individual holding the Cup is looking at you directly, and you realize it is Christ himself holding out the Cup to you.

Will you go past him with a nod of the head, a bow, a smile or just break eye contact, or will you receive from him?

It is just a mind exercise. Not an argument; not a theological reflection on the theological battle of the 1500’s, nor an indictment of Catholic theology. It is just a simple question: if Christ was presenting the Cup, would you receive?

 

[Shakuhachi]

I’d settle for an EMHC. My parish does not offer the cup.

 

[CatholicTurk]

@Uriel1, the things you get caught up in are so simple in fact, but they require deeper study of theology. If you don’t get bored, please read to grasp it. First, one needs to understand the essence of the sacrificial offering according to the Law, what it meant in its reality and in its symbolism as a precursor to Jesus’ offering of Himself:

The life of any animal or human is in the blood. That is why God instructed the draining of blood of the sacrificial animal as for an offering. “The wages for sin is death”. Therefore, when Jews offered a sacrifice, they were specifically instructed by God to offer its blood (life) on their behalf. Nevertheless, they were absolutely prohibited from drinking the blood of the sacrificial animal because partaking in the life of the animal, hence the unity with (the taking on of) another tainted blood, meant death, as well. Why? Because aside from it being only an animal instead (not human), it was also unsatisfactory to God by all means, since the whole creation had been tainted by the Fall. But God never needed an animal sacrifice anyway, this whole act - just like Abraham’s offering of Isaac - was to give a glimpse of what was to come next, namely the Messiah and His offering of Himself. The Jewish scribes of the day understood very well what the Levitical Law instructed them, and they followed it down to the dot. However Jesus, on the other hand, comes making such a bold and mind-blowing statement by instructing His followers the exact opposite; that they must drink His blood. WHY? Because His is the only pure (untainted) blood with which we can unite in order to partake in His blood (His life), and so become a clean and acceptable offering to God ourselves. That is how Jesus is our Sacrificial Lamb according to the Old Law. Also, it is how He is still our High Priest.

Now that we get what the Sacrifice is about…

When the priest consecrates and goes along with the liturgy he is so doing in the person of Christ, for it is the re-presentation of the last supper and the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, it is right and necessary for him to consume under both species, as he is “re-presenting” the moment. It is the one and the very same sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, NOT just countless offerings every day all around the globe.

SO FINALLY THE ANSWER: Although in its reality and in its efficacy it is absolutely sufficient under either form (even a single crum or a drop of it), “symbolically” speaking it means much more to consume under both species, as i explained above.

 

[otjm]

Understood. My scenario is more directed to those for whom the Cup is presented, and do not partake.

 

[stpurl]

Which could be for many reasons. Whether you deem them sufficient or not is irrelevant, it depends on the person and God.

I’m curious. If a person ‘saw Christ offering’ and did not partake, would you say the person was wrong in doing so?

Because if you do, you are in fact implying if not outright stating that anyone who does NOT receive the Blood is rejecting Christ. . .

 

[otjm]

I don’t go about “deeming” anything.

It isn’t for me to say how anyone should respond to Christ. He says enough about that in the Gospels that I don’t need to repeat what he says.

And no, I am not suggesting that anyone who would refuse the Cup from Christ is rejecting him; that is over the top.

I offer the scenario to prompt people to think in a manner they have not thought before. We tend to get caught up in linear thinking. We tend to make a decision - for whatever reason - and the scenario is offered to provide a different way of looking at an issue. Looking at the thread, I see the same go-arounds as in the past; and I suggest that looking at the issue from a different perspective may prompt some people to re-evaluate the decisions they have made; that is not to say the prior decisions were “right” or “wrong”; only to suggest that when we approach something from an entirely different direction, we may make a different choice.

the last time I offered the scenario - several years ago - I received the response that because of the different perspective, they had looked at the reception of Communion in a new light.

If someone considering my scenario comes to the same decision they had had before I wrote it, then they have used the thought project productively. The same can be said for anyone who comes to a different conclusion. And if anyone is offended by considering my scenario, I would suggest that indicates internal conflict on something, as it is not offered to offend anyone.