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

[Uriel1]

Great Mass today with the bread and and the chalice
just as Jesus taught, and
As the Church says, a more complete sign of the meal
Peace be with you

Jesus, who is our risen Lord, took that cup, gave thanks, and giving it to them, said, “ 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

Arguing about the SIGN is fruitless when the reality is that we receive Jesus wholly and completely.

Exactly right; not worth arguing with the Church who say it is a more complete (better) sign
Caritate non ficta

 

[stpurl]

The symbolism of the sign is better in that it visibly shows eating and drinking, BUT that ‘better’ does not mean that one must choose to partake of both or that the only way one ‘eats and drinks’ is actually eating and drinking.

When one partakes of either, one ‘eats and drinks’.

And your insistence of an interpretation which the Church does not teach shows us why the Church was indeed forced for centuries to limit reception to one species. . .

People who think that receiving two is not simply a visible manifestation for those who find it more physically satisfying or esthethically pleasing, but something Jesus requires of us all (He does not) and which, if not received, is wrongdoing and denied (it is not).

Receive both species (if offered) all you want. It is perfectly fine.

For those of us who may receive one, get over it Uriel, reception of one species is a legitimate practice of the Church --not a wrongdoing–and is complete and full and total.

You aren’t getting something better and we aren’t getting something less.

 

[Uriel1]

The symbolism of the sign is better in that it visibly shows eating and drinking, BUT that ‘better’ does not mean that one must choose to partake of both or that the only way one ‘eats and drinks’ is actually eating and drinking.

When one partakes of either, one ‘eats and drinks’.

And your insistence of an interpretation which the Church does not teach shows us why the Church was indeed forced for centuries to limit reception to one species. . .

People who think that receiving two is not simply a visible manifestation for those who find it more physically satisfying or esthethically pleasing, but something Jesus requires of us all (He does not) and which, if not received, is wrongdoing and denied (it is not).

Receive both species (if offered) all you want. It is perfectly fine.

For those of us who may receive one, get over it Uriel, reception of one species is a legitimate practice of the Church --not a wrongdoing–and is complete and full and total.

You aren’t getting something better and we aren’t getting something less.

Bearing false witness is not good in the eyes of the Lord. When did I ever say one needs to have both bread and wine - quote the full posting and don’t be shy. If you can’t then please apologise and tell your confessor what you did to me

Caritate non ficta

 

[Fauken]

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.

So, those who don’t apparently don’t drink from the chalice do not do the Lord’s work. I’d say doing the Lord’s work is pretty necessary, don’t you?

Jesus our God, said to take both or you will have no life

The way you’ve used this previously seems to imply that those who don’t drink from the chalice don’t have life within them, so again, pretty necessary.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

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.

So, those who don’t apparently don’t drink from the chalice do not do the Lord’s work. I’d say doing the Lord’s work is pretty necessary, don’t you?

Jesus our God, said to take both or you will have no life

The way you’ve used this previously seems to imply that those who don’t drink from the chalice don’t have life within them, so again, pretty necessary.

FACT Jesus, who is our risen Lord, took that cup, gave thanks, and giving it to them, said, “ 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

The RSV of the text of the consecration at the Last Supper is rendered: Matthew 26: 26; Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

FACT CCC 1390 says that in the TWO species the sign of the Eucharistic meal is more complete

FACT CCC 1333 discusses TWO “signs” and says

“The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.”

FACT The Church says we can have both species and that if we do the sign is more complete.
FACT We don’t need to take both, but if we can, why would we not want to receive the more complete sign?

Caritate non ficta

 

[stpurl]

FACT: You have been given many reasons why a person who physically ‘can’ receive both species if offered but may choose not to, as only the ‘visible appearance’ is more 'complete."

The actual reception is not ‘more complete’, i.e. there is not ‘more Jesus’ and not ‘better Jesus’.

A person may be gluten-sensitive, alcohol sensitive, not care for the taste of bread, not care for the taste of wine, be scrupulous, be undertaking penance, offering up, etc.

If we are to be like Jesus, should we not be striving to the most charitable interpretations, not implying or even stating that a person who chooses to receive one species if two are available is denying himself or herself of something ‘better’ (again, not better), is somehow receiving a ‘lesser sign’ (it isn’t), or, if part of the Church hierarchy and making a decision, as has been done throughout history, to distribute ‘only one species’ is thereby denying the people something ‘better’, and thus, doing wrong?

 

[stpurl]

I have not borne false witness.

 

[Uriel1]

So quote / paste where you think I said the above stuff
What I posted OP was; "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."

You may say you have not borne false witness, but you are not the judge of that

Res ipse loquitur
Caritate non ficta

 

[stpurl]

I did not bear false witness.

 

[thistle]

So, just to help me keep track, is Urel1 the only person stating that we SHOULD be receiving both species?

Yes and he has stated the Church is wrong.

 

[thistle]

We don’t need to take both, but if we can, why would we not want to receive the more complete sign?

Because the sign is simply a sign.

When we receive, for example, the Host only we receive the COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ

 

[stpurl]

Yes. here, June 29:

Uriel: My post said this,

"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."

In John 6:54 Jesus tells us, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.”

For 500 years lay Catholics were not permitted to drink from the chalice but now we are

No criticism is imputed about wrongdoing on this

What precisely is your gripe? Let me help you

Let’s see: Somebody who posts this: July 7

Uriel: I’m off to Mass now to receive the body and the chalice

as Jesus taught, and
As the Church says, a more complete sign of the meal
Peace be with you.

and later:

Not worth arguing with the Church who say it is a more complete (better) sign.

the ‘better’ in quotes is not what the Church says, but Uriel’s interpretation of what he thinks ‘more complete’ means. And that’s the problem.

If Jesus had taught that the laity were to receive the Body and the Blood as He taught then that would be the norm for any and all cases throughout the history of the Catholic Church.

It is not.

You are implying that what you get through reception of two species is superior to what a person receives with only one species and that in doing so you are following Jesus’ commands whereas a person who ‘could’ receive both and does not is NOT following Jesus’ command, or is not following ‘properly’, like you.

The majority of posters here who themselves prefer to receive both species because, for them, reception in that manner helps them in a visible and sensual way to experience ‘eating and drinking’ (though reception of either species contains the complete eating and drinking experience), do not think themselves thereby getting a ‘better’ experience, or 'doing things like Christ said, instead of those slackers who only receive one species" (pridefully exalting themselves, their ‘intellect’, and the perceptions, above the ‘inferior’ who do not do exactly as they do).

It seems there is only one person here who is accusing the Church of wrongdoing (though ever so magnanimously not ‘criticizing’ the wrongdoing --except, of course, that in claiming the wrongdoing that person is indeed criticizing the Church!) and only one person who claims that a ‘fuller sign’ is a ‘better sign’, i.e., receiving both species is somehow better than receiving one species.

How the reception of one species (a legitimate practice as you yourself cut-and-pasted, though you didn’t highlight it like the rest) is somehow ‘less good’ is something you still have not made clear to us.

 

[KMG]

You do a lot of telling people what to do while impugning consistent Church practice and teaching.

 

[Aulef]

Your explanation about signs was very insightful. Is there any reading you recommend about this topic?

 

[stpurl]

I’m not bearing false witness.

 

[stpurl]

That is the kind of comment that just should be better left unsaid. I’m not bearing false witness against you, so I cannot see what kind of ‘trouble’ you foresee.

 

[thistle]

You mustn’t bear false witness

You should look in the mirror.

YOU are the one saying we should be receiving both species despite the Church teaching that we need only receive from either because the COMPLETE body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is in either species.

YOU are the one claiming the Church is wrong on this issue because it has misunderstood/misinterpreted what Jesus said.

Here are YOUR OWN WORDS (talking against the Church and being insulting and offensive to posters in this thread who disagree with whatever your agenda is):

“Respondents then rely on the magisterium and ignore what Jesus said”

“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”

“I absolutely follow the magisterium, but I think they missed something Jesus said about the wine”

“I think you may have missed something about the wine/blood”

“I use Galileo simply to show that the magisterium don’t always get it right”

“The Church magisterium, undoubtedly subservient to God’s word”

“Please remember Jesus’ teaching before anything else”

 

[Uriel1]

“The Church magisterium, undoubtedly subservient to God’s word”

The magisterium itself says that; were you aware of that ?

Caritate non ficta

 

[sudy]

The magisterium itself says that; were you aware of that ?

Could we have a citation for this, please? Properly referenced.

 

[thistle]

The magisterium itself says that; were you aware of that ?

Caritate non ficta

I see you are deflecting and not denying that you have said the Church is wrong on this issue while at the same time insulting members in this thread.
Christ gave the Church authority in matters of faith and morals (which means all teachings have the full authority of God supporting them) and in these the Church cannot err.
On the other hand YOU are wrong.