L
Lucania
Guest
My Parish offers Communion only in the Sacred Host. I am fine with that. My previous Parish offered both species but I never took the Precious Blood. Just a personal preference.
- Status
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
JKirkLVNV said:
I am on the same page as you in a lot of areas. Even though I attend an indult mass, I understand your attachment to the new mass. I am with you on the EMHCs, the need to stomp out abuses, and that we are all members of the One, True Church.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
What about cats? How do you feel about cats (it’s the only area where I wish I could sit down and have a long chat with the Holy Father, so as to make him see the error of his ways)?I am on the same page as you in a lot of areas. Even though I attend an indult mass, I understand your attachment to the new mass. I am with you on the EMHCs, the need to stomp out abuses, and that we are all members of the One, True Church.
B
bear06
Guest
OK Kirk, I’m actually going to disagree with you about this one. While the Church says it’s a fuller sign, not everyone needs a fuller sign. Some of us are just fine with the Host. I just realized that neither of the the Churches I attend do the cup for completely different reasons. One Church is a little more traditional and the other is comprised of the elderly. The pastor at the latter doesn’t do it because there’s way too much of a chance of spilling it. they can barely handle the Hosts.Let’s pray they come around.
I, personally, don’t want to take the cup because it’s an unneccesary risk of Our Lord being “bobbled” that I don’t need to take. I also can’t stand the fact that Our Lord’s blood is simply wiped away after each sip.
That said, I know the Church allows it and that they have good reason for it. That, however, doesn’t mean that we all must or should participate in it. If I had my drothers, which of course don’t contain the Church’s wisdom, I’d bag it.
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
Boy, you are really about to set me off. Kittens are cute, cats are 'worthless. Several years ago, my daughter moved back home due to some financial difficulties. I love my daughter, but she brought her three dogs, 12 cats and two birds. Cat hair got into everything in the house. Boy, I was happy when she moved out after a few months. You cannot believe all the places cat hair accumulates. Since cat hair makes me sneeze, I ended up taking off all the electical wall plates a vacuuming the hair that was even in there.
Better quit, I don’t want to hijack the thread and I feel my blood pressure rising.
M
maklavan
Guest
Nobody is obliged to receive the Eucharist under both kinds ,but it is the will of the Church that they should do so. This is made clear in “The Constitutions of the Sacred Liturgy”, 111;32 " Holy communion,considered as a sign, has a fuller form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly.Morehover, it more clearly shows how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord,as it also expresses the relation of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the father." and, in the Catholic Catechism,1390, “the sign of Communion is made more complete when given under both kinds.”
At the last Supper, the Apostles received Jesus under both kinds.
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
So translating that into redneck, it is saying that Holy Communion is only a sign, not the body & blood of Christ. And since it is not the body & blood of Christ, there is no sacrifice. And since there is no sacrifice, Holy Communion is only a symbol of the last supper. And since it is only a sign or symbol of the last supper, receiving under both species is a fuller expession of nothing but symbolism. It’s no wonder belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is so low.
K
katewithak
Guest
vis a vis- you will receive any less of Him by receiving both either.
But you might be called a child of God.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Receiving both will not make a person any better child of God, than the one who only receives only one form.vis a vis- you will receive any less of Him by receiving both either.
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
And your honour shall stand sure,
God Almighty’s son and daughter
He the valiant, she the pure;
If an angel out of heaven
Brings you other things to drink,
Thank him for his kind attentions,
Go and pour them down the sink.”
Chesterton’s The Flying Inn
“Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink.” -
Chesterton’s *“Wine when it is red” All Things Considered *
I don’t care for *sweet * wine, but a man is not Catholic without a love of wine.
“Feast on wine or fast on water
And your honour shall stand sure,
God Almighty’s son and daughter
He the valiant, she the pure;
If an angel out of heaven
Brings you other things to drink,
Thank him for his kind attentions,
Go and pour them down the sink.”
Chesterton’s The Flying Inn
“Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink.” -
Chesterton’s *“Wine when it is red” All Things Considered *
I don’t care for *sweet * wine, but a man is not Catholic without a love of wine.
K
katewithak
Guest
True what you say there as long as the motive of only receiving one species when both are common and encouraged is not one of contrariness and irritability. I objected originally to reception under both species when it first occurred. When it became apparent that this was the new norm, I had to question my resistance and move toward peace instead. The peacemakers will be called the children of God, actually, not the one who insists on one or both species being received. As the species are both whole and complete and one cannot receive more or less, than the question is entirely one of peace or not.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No, the Church can’t teach that it’s only a sign and She doesn’t teach that. It is both a reality (ie, the bread and the wine, in the words of consecration, become the real, the objective, Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior, offered again as an unbloody Sacrifice to God) and a sign. The Church has never wavered on the doctrine of transubstantiation. The same Church is saying that it is a more complete sign if both Species are rec., but she’s not saying one must rec. both Species (that’s that heresy you spoke of, Snorter, I think it was the Hussites, but I haven’t any of my books here).
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I rec. in both kinds, but I’m stumped here: could you cite where the Church has expressed her will that the faithful SHOULD rec. both Sacred Species? I don’t recall this. I know the stuff about “fuller sign,” but I’ve never heard it said that Holy Mother Church had laid it on us that we SHOULD, in the sense that if we don’t, we’ve acted in less than the best of faith.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Now you and I shall be in perpetual charity, O friend. I don’t require anyone to drink from the Chalice nor does Holy Mother Church. And I know that I’m not as good a Christian as you (seriously), so there can be no question that I’m holier because I do and you less so because you don’t. And if tomorrow, the Holy Father decided to end it toot suite, I’d bend the knee (though I would be sad). Gentle disagreement makes life less tedious, I think. That’s why I hang out with Dr. Bombay.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
God’s ways are indeed a mystery, witness the creation of the cat!
M
maklavan
Guest
not only redneck but,seemingly, Prorestant redneck. Try reading my post again and you will see that your reply is daft. My quotes come from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Are you suggesting that the Church maintains that the Holy Eucharist is merely a sign? that would be really earth-shaking! For myself, I believe that I receive the Body and Blood of Christ whenever I receive Communion.
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
What you quoted, in support of receiving both species, never mentions Christ’s sacrifice or the True Presence. While I don’t believe the Church has changed it’s teachings to now say that Holy Communion is only a sign, the quotation, in isolation, makes it sound that way.
Yea, I may be daft, but I can read a passage and see that is ONLY talks about the Eucharist as sign of the banquet. Again, I would say the empahsis on the banquet aspect adds to the alleged statistic that 70% of Catholics no longer believe in transubstantiation. Whatever the real number, way too many Catholics seem to view Holy Communion as partaking in a symbolic meal, not as the sacrifice of our Lord. To borrow a passage from JKirk in an earlier post “…reality (ie, the bread and the wine, in the words of consecration, become the real, the objective, Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior, offered again as an unbloody Sacrifice to God)”.
- Status