Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CommonMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CommonMan said:
Walking_Home

Please explain what Paul really meant when he wrote to Corinth and described the Lords actions and His command to “drink of the chalice”. What does Church say about it? In your own words, how do they interpet “drink of the chalice”?
Click to expand...
I am not a protestant–that picks and chooses scripture and comes up with their own interpretation.
 
frommi said:
Clearly not…your more of a fundamentalist
Click to expand...
A fundamentalist looks to the individual personal interpretation of the Bible as their source of final authority.

I really didn’t see that from Walking. In fact, I’ve seen nothing but 100% adherence to the Magisterium on issues of both doctrine and discipline.

On the other hand, I have seen quite a lot of personal interpreation from others on what “eat my body” and “drink my blood” mean that seems contrary to the Magisteriums teaching that these commands are fulfilled in one species.
 
CommonMan said:
Walking_Home

Please explain what Paul really meant when he wrote to Corinth and described the Lords actions and His command to “drink of the chalice”. What does Church say about it? In your own words, how do they interpet “drink of the chalice”?
Click to expand...
In the exact same way as when Paul says in 1 Cor 13 that we all “See dimly, as in a mirror”

If one was to follow Pauls word’s too closely, one would presume that Paul is calling for optomological services

In the Eucharist, we do not see, taste or smell the Body and Blood of Christ. But it is there.

Likewise, when we drink His Blood in the species of bread, our muscles do not react to it like Blood in the same way as our eyes, nose and taste do not react to it like it would blood.

But we DRINK it as certainly as it truely IS blood.
 
Brendan said:
A fundamentalist looks to the individual personal interpretation of the Bible as their source of final authority.

I really didn’t see that from Walking. In fact, I’ve seen nothing but 100% adherence to the Magisterium on issues of both doctrine and discipline.

On the other hand, I have seen quite a lot of personal interpreation from others on what “eat my body” and “drink my blood” mean that seems contrary to the Magisteriums teaching that these commands are fulfilled in one species.
Click to expand...
Where in this thread did anyone say we shouldn’t adhere to the magisterium…

I think I can question without promoting dissent.

Yes, we receive both the body and the blood in one species.

OK…we’ve established that…

What I have been saying is that it seems inappropriate to me to use the Council of Trent as a justification to restrict the use of boths species when they are able to be distributed in a way that follows all necessary rubrics.
 
frommi said:
Where in this thread did anyone say we shouldn’t adhere to the magisterium…

I think I can question without promoting dissent.

Yes, we receive both the body and the blood in one species.

OK…we’ve established that…
Click to expand...
Actually, I was refering to the command to “eat my Body and Drink my Blood” being fulfilled in a single species.

And it was mostly directed to Common Man.

When we consume one species we fullfil the command in it’s entirety.
 
frommi said:
It’s not incomplete…anymore than it’s incomplete to receive a dab of chrism on your forehead to be confirmed as opposed to having it used generously as a sign of the outpouring of the spirit…
Click to expand...
Also, the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the laying on of hands, not the chrism.

The sign of the outpouring of the Sprirt are the hands themselves and the chrism signifies that laying on itself.

Pope Innocent III (Cum Venisset)
“The anointing of the forehead with chrism signifies
the laying on of the hand, the other name for which is confirmation, since through it the Holy Spirit is given for growth and strength.”
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent IV (Sub Catholicae professione)
said that the conferral of the Holy Spirit
“through the laying on of the hand, which the anointing of the forehead with chrism represents. “
Click to expand...
 
Brendan said:
Also, the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the laying on of hands, not the chrism.

The sign of the outpouring of the Sprirt are the hands themselves and the chrism signifies that laying on itself.

Pope Innocent III (Cum Venisset)

Pope Innocent IV (Sub Catholicae professione)
said that the conferral of the Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
I’m confused as to what this little bit of trivia has to do with my statement about the generous use of oils.
 
frommi said:
I’m confused as to what this little bit of trivia has to do with my statement about the generous use of oils.
Click to expand...
You incorrectly assoicated the use of oils with the 'outpouring of the Holy Spirit"

The hands themselves are the sign of the outpouring, and the oil is a sign of the touch of the hands.

So I’m unclear exactly what you would consider a generous use of chrism to symbolize exactly, because the correct teaching is that it would symbolize a greater laying of hands.
 
Brendan said:
You incorrectly assoicated the use of oils with the 'outpouring of the Holy Spirit"

The hands themselves are the sign of the outpouring, and the oil is a sign of the touch of the hands.

So I’m unclear exactly what you would consider a generous use of chrism to symbolize exactly, because the correct teaching is that it would symbolize a greater laying of hands.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out that whether or not a little oil is used or the oil is used generously…the effect is the same. Much like receiving one or both species.

However, certain pastoral judgments for the generous use of the oils, or the wine, or the bread are prudent and justifiable.
 
This thread is becoming ridicules with the different post. The Holy Eucharist, since both the Body and Blood of Christ are really present and the complete refection intended by Christ are really received, under either species alone; and since, moreover, in the production of whatever grace is given, in additon to the grace of mere presence the more important cause is Christ Himself in His sacred humanity personally present in the recipient.
What exactly is the problem.
 
Likewise, when we drink His Blood in the species of bread, our muscles do not react to it like Blood in the same way as our eyes, nose and taste do not react to it like it would blood.
Click to expand...
Huh? Why didn’t the authors of the Gospels know about this phenomenon? Or Paul?

Ya know, when I was confirmed we memorized the Baltimore Catechism and never once opened a Bible. I thought those days were over.

Then Peter said, “care for another slice of wine John”?
 
What exactly is the problem.
Click to expand...
The GIRM, “fuller form” statement has led to a fantastic exhibit of wiggling and ducking to avoid the obvious question of just what the lesser form is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top