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.
KMG said:
There is absolutely no problem with the faithful not being allowed to receive from the Chalice.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree with CCC1396? The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body. The Eucharist fulfills this call: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:”
 
But you are saying, are you not, that not being permitted to drink from the chalice was wrongdoing on the part of “The Church”, aren’t you? That you aren’t ‘criticizing’, but the next words are ‘the wrongdoing’, so you are judging the Church --the entire Church in so far as the entire Magesterium over the time-- as doing wrong?

And this isn’t just a question about some group somewhere or an individual wrongdoing, like a priest who broke the vow of chastity, or a king and his subjects ‘looting’ during the Crusades (both cases in which the people involved, though Catholic, were not following the laws of the Church)

You’re actually saying that the Church itself made a WRONG decision, forced wrong actions for centuries, and that the people who FOLLOWED THE LAW were committing wrong.

Those are some mighty serious charges based on a SIGN (not a sacrament itself, but a visible sign, like a crucifix on a cross, the IMAGE of Jesus, not Jesus Himself), when the actual sacrament (the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity) is fully and completely present in each species, so nobody was ever ‘denied’ anything, and nobody was kept from having something ‘better’.
 
The Church was not in any way, shape, or form wrong for not permitting the faithful to receive from the Chalice.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present in each species. One receives fully that Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and complete, no matter which species is received, one or both.

One does not get “more Jesus” or "a better sacrament’ in receiving both.

It is not ever WRONG to decide, either by an individual who is in a state of grace and is free to receive in the Church, or by the Church’s priest, bishop, or other competent Church authority, that one species alone is to be given.

And I think that, in a nutshell, is the whole issue here: Obedience to the Divine Will (as given through the Holy Spirit as the authority of the Church Christ gave us) when ‘we’ think "but we know better, because WE 'read the words and OUR understanding is DIFFERENT.

You know, kind of how the first Protestants started getting it wrong. . .it was all about their personal interpretation, which contradicted the Church, even if only in a ‘small way’, had to be RIGHT. . . and the Church ‘wrong’. . . and look where that all ended.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
The Church was not in any way, shape, or form wrong for not permitting the faithful to receive from the Chalice.
Click to expand...
No-one had claimed to get less of Jesus’ grace in one species; the church simply says "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly”

Do you too argue against that ?

Caritate non ficta brother.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong when Communion under both species is not permitted.
 
The visible sign shows ‘eating and drinking’ as opposed to simply ‘eating’ or simply’ drinking’. . . but like the sign on a restaurant showing a cup and a knife and fork, or just a cup, or just a knife and fork, has absolutely no effect on the actual food and drink inside.

A restaurant showing a cup, and a knife and fork, isn’t any different on the inside in offering both food and drink, than a restaurant that shows just a cup, or just a knife and fork.

The person eating inside a restaurant isn’t getting a different and better meal if the sign outside has both the cup and the knife and fork.

The sign’s ‘completeness’ does not make receiving both species ‘better’ than receiving one. The Church knows this and has said this for centuries. Why can’t you listen?
 
KMG said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong when Communion under both species is not permitted.
Click to expand...
The Church says that sign is less complete;
because, 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, 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
 
@KMG
It’s a pity you seem unable to discern the words of Jesus

Matthew 7

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
In what Uriel is posting, we see the essence of Protestantism. Cherry pick some texts and decide you know best. Ignore the tradition of centuries. Because, after all…you know best. This is the essence of Protestantism.
 
Ah, this is what happens when people misunderstand language.

A sign being ‘more complete’, in ecclesiastical terms, does not imply that the converse is LESS complete.

Christ’s presence in one species is completely, totally FULL.
Christ’s presence in both species is also completely, totally full.

Receiving one species is totally full, even if one does not visibly ‘eat and drink’ but only ‘eats’ or ‘drinks’, because the other part is present under both species. Therefore, if one receives one species, one is, fully and completely, 'eating and drinking.

But because some people, children perhaps, who are less able to realize more complex issues, might think they ‘needed to’ both eat and drink, in order to ‘see’ that completeness which already exists, the Church has sometimes permitted reception of both species.

These people do not get a ‘better’ sign, and those who receive one species a ‘less complete’ sign.

I can see how wise the Church was for so many centuries to limit the reception, for we see how confused some people can be, in thinking that receiving ‘both species’ is BETTER than receiving one!!!
 
I agree with KMG. You are cherrypicking quotes and interpreting Scripture in your way.

In following the Church we are discerning the words of Jesus and we are following HIM.
 
KMG said:
In what Uriel is posting, we see the essence of Protestantism. Cherry pick some texts and decide you know best. Ignore the tradition of centuries. Because, after all…you know best. This is the essence of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
May the Lord forgive you as I do but remember that there is one who does discern

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
The visible sign shows ‘eating and drinking’ as opposed to simply ‘eating’ or simply’ drinking’. . . but like the sign on a restaurant showing a cup and a knife and fork, or just a cup, or just a knife and fork, has absolutely no effect on the actual food and drink inside.

A restaurant showing a cup, and a knife and fork, isn’t any different on the inside in offering both food and drink, than a restaurant that shows just a cup, or just a knife and fork.

The person eating inside a restaurant isn’t getting a different and better meal if the sign outside has both the cup and the knife and fork.

The sign’s ‘completeness’ does not make receiving both species ‘better’ than receiving one. The Church knows this and has said this for centuries. Why can’t you listen?
Click to expand...
This is an absurd analogy
 
stpurl said:
I agree with KMG. You are cherrypicking quotes and interpreting Scripture in your way.

In following the Church we are discerning the words of Jesus and we are following HIM.
Click to expand...
You have lost this debate, as has @KMG, by descending into an argumentum ad hominem, rather than dealing the substance of the argument itself. I cherry pick nothing, just know scripture rather more than some

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
The rallying call of Protestants for centuries: we know Scripture better than you.
 
KMG said:
And there is no debate here. Church teaching isn’t open to debate.
Click to expand...
The debate is over for you KMG because you chose to descend into an argumentum ad hominem, rather than dealing the substance of the argument itself. And the church is on my side too
Uriel1 said:
The Church says that sign without wine is less complete;
because, 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, 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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Church doesn’t agree with you. Again, you cherry pick quotes to prop up your pet theories, which have more to do with Protestantism than Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top