Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

[Brendan]

Huh? Why didn’t the authors of the Gospels know about this phenomenon? Or Paul?

Of course they did. Did you think that Peter looked into the chalice and saw Type O+? Or was passed a slice of bicep on a plate?

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

No, but they knew that after the Resurrection, that the Body and the Blood could never be seperated again. They knew that both were present, even if their eyes, nose, tounge and throat muscles reported something differently.

Then Peter said, “care for another slice of wine John”?

So your ‘bible’ has Peter thinking it’s still wine. No wonder your misreading it.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

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.

One form is no lesser than the other. Lets just move on.

 

[Brendan]

CM,

Suppose some fundamentalist came up to you and said that deaf people can’t really hear the Gospel, and as proof, brought out the following verses

He who hears you hears Me
Luke 10:16

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life
John 5:24

If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
Rev 3:20

Their claim is that the Bible clearly states that you have to HEAR the Word of the Lord to be saved.

Now, of course you would consider that to be truely nonsense and would (hopefully) provide the correct Catholic answer:

That HEARING really refers to the action of the Holy Spirit upon the Intellect and Will of the Soul. And that action can come from the result of the example of verbal instruction, written instruction or even by example.

Now the fundamentalist replies that the Catholic answer is bunk, and that we can’t even crack our Bibles and see it for ourselves, and even questions of the Apostles understood this.

But the fact still remains, in the Catholic Sense, "HEARING’ is action done upon our Spiritual Souls that can, and DOES occur, even if the physical sense of hearing is not used.

Now the exact same thing is true for eating and drinking the Eucharist. We EAT His Body and we DRINK His Blood because that is how our souls react to His Divine Substance, not how our bodies react to the accidents. It the same way as Hearing the Word of the Lord happens even if no physical senses are used.

Does that make sense ?

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

CM,

Suppose some fundamentalist came up to you and said that deaf people can’t really hear the Gospel, and as proof, brought out the following verses

He who hears you hears Me
Luke 10:16

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life
John 5:24

If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
Rev 3:20

Their claim is that the Bible clearly states that you have to HEAR the Word of the Lord to be saved.

Now, of course you would consider that to be truely nonsense and would (hopefully) provide the correct Catholic answer:

That HEARING really refers to the action of the Holy Spirit upon the Intellect and Will of the Soul. And that action can come from the result of the example of verbal instruction, written instruction or even by example.

Now the fundamentalist replies that the Catholic answer is bunk, and that we can’t even crack our Bibles and see it for ourselves, and even questions of the Apostles understood this.

But the fact still remains, in the Catholic Sense, "HEARING’ is action done upon our Spiritual Souls that can, and DOES occur, even if the physical sense of hearing is not used.

Now the exact same thing is true for eating and drinking the Eucharist. We EAT His Body and we DRINK His Blood because that is how our souls react to His Divine Substance, not how our bodies react to the accidents. It the same way as Hearing the Word of the Lord happens even if no physical senses are used.

Does that make sense ?

YES, Perfect Sense!!!

 

[dessert]

I have to agree with Brendan as when I was little we just received the Eucharist as considered the form. When I came back I actually felt guilty about receiving the wine like I was not worthy, and then it became apparent that even though the cup gets wiped off it seems like I could get germs. I never really thought that the Eucharist was the blood also but now I can see it after reading this thread. But if I had been trained to believe the fuller form is both I would now feel guilty if I didn’t take both forms. I presently do not do the wine anymore as I feel complete with the Eucharist and there are times when I am not offered the wine as during choir. I kind of thought that they didn’t offer the wine as because of the alcohol problems some have but also because they didn’t want to have to supply so much. Priests were reverenced much more in the old days and it was considered a special blessing for him to recaive the blood but as I said now I see that it is in both so I’m not aure why we even ddo the wine and it makes me more and more want to go to an eastern church but I am happy with the way I am doing it with no wine because I can close my eyes and imagine I am in an eastern church anyways. So to me the Eucharist is the fuller form. dessert

 

[CommonMan]

CM,

Suppose some fundamentalist came up to you and said that deaf people can’t really hear the Gospel, and as proof, brought out the following verses…

Does that make sense ?

No, it makes no sense.

Christ said eat and drink. If you say he didn’t really mean drink then you must apply the same logic to eating. Did he not mean eat? What were the disciples doing if not eating and drinking?

 

[Walking_Home]

No, it makes no sense.

Christ said eat and drink. If you say he didn’t really mean drink then you must apply the same logic to eating. Did he not mean eat? What were the disciples doing if not eating and drinking?

Quote=CommonMan
Perhaps part of the problem with the laity’s grasp of what the Holy Euchrist / the Lord’s Supper, really is can be attributed to the Church itself confusing the issue.

It’s the Catholic Church that isn’t listening or apprently, not reading the Word very well.​

From statements you have made and seeing that you are still over-riding the Church with your own interpretation of scripture–is leading me to think ----you may believe the Church has lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

By the way—are you familiar with CCC 113.

CCC

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

 

[CommonMan]

From statements you have made and seeing that you are still over-riding the Church with your own interpretation of scripture-

You say that my interpretation of scripture is not the same as the church interpretation of scripture.

Let’s test that assumption.

Here is my “interpretation”, simplified to the essence.

The Lord took bread and broke it (literally broke bread)
This is my body (literally his flesh)
The disciples ate it (actually ate the bread, now flesh)
The Lord took the cup of wine (real wine)
The Lord said it was the cup of his blood (literally his blood)
He commanded all to drink (actually drink from the cup)
The disciples drank from the cup (his real blood)

OK, Lets see the different interpretation you have so we can compare.

 

[Brendan]

No, it makes no sense.

Christ said eat and drink. If you say he didn’t really mean drink then you must apply the same logic to eating. Did he not mean eat? What were the disciples doing if not eating and drinking?

Christ also said to Hear his Word. Are deaf people excluded from the Gospel?

 

[Brendan]

Do you mean to say the CC has a different interpetation of the Gosplel account of the Lord’s Supper than the literal plain reading of the text. Baloney, the disciples actually drink the wine! You know it, the CC does not disagree, it just ignores it.

The could not have drank any wine, and the cup passed to them contained no wine. Only the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

Once again, the literal, plain reading of :

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life
John 5:24

would mean that deaf people cannot have everlasting life.

Do you hold an opinion on that that is contrary to the literal, plain meaning?

 

[CommonMan]

From statements you have made and seeing that you are still over-riding the Church with your own interpretation of scripture-

You say that my interpretation of scripture is not the same as the church interpretation of scripture.

Let’s test that assumption.

Here is my “interpretation”, simplified to the essence.

The Lord took bread and broke it (literally broke bread)
This is my body (literally his flesh)
The disciples ate it (actually ate the bread, now flesh)
The Lord took the cup of wine (real wine)
The Lord said it was the cup of his blood (literally his blood)
He commanded all to drink (actually drink from the cup)
The disciples drank from the cup (his real blood)

OK, Lets see the different interpretation you have so we can compare.

 

[CommonMan]

Christ also said to Hear his Word. Are deaf people excluded from the Gospel?

There are those who have physical afflictions or limitations that prevent them from participating in many things. The Lord knows this.

The Lord speaks to us through scripture. Helen Keller could not hear or see. Babies cannot read or understand the bible. Did the Lord abandon them? No, he speaks to those who care to listen in many ways.

Still, many can read plainly but refuse to believe what lies there on the page. People who don’t accept the literal word of Jesus.

 

[Brendan]

There are those who have physical afflictions or limitations that prevent them from participating in many things. The Lord knows this.

Sort of like how we “see dimly” (as Paul said in 1 Cor 13:12) and cannot see the actual Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but participate in it none the less?

Can you explain exactly how a plain reading of John 8 does not apply here, but applies to “take and drink”. It would seem that we all have a physical affliction that prevents us from seeing, tasting, and bodily reacting to the Eucharist in exactly the same way that a deaf person’s ears physically react to the Word of God physically sounded out.

The Lord speaks to us through scripture. AND TRADITION

And has His Blood in the species of Bread

Still, many can read plainly but refuse to believe what lies there on the page. People who don’t accept the literal word of Jesus.

CM,

Do you accept that the Eucharist present at a Catholic Mass is truely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divintiy of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine?

Namely, that the Eucharist given as Mass while appears like bread and wine, but is NOT bread and wine, contains no bread and wine, rather is God Himself?

 

[SnorterLuster]

Can someone tell me, exactly who was Jesus addressing at the last supper? I always thought that he was addressing the Apostles. He told his bishops, so to speak, to eat and drink. I sure don’t remember anything about the laity being there and taking part. Am I missing something? Where does it say that what Jesus said to the Apostles applies to me? When he told them whatever they “loose or bind will be done also in Heaven” apply to me?

All I can see is that many people are buying in to the thought that they have a right to both forms and if they are denied, they are missing something. I have never received from the Cup, so am I missing something? I believe that I am receiving the complete Christ with the Host. Why should I find it necessary to do something twice? Would it be a fuller form if I received a bigger Host or went through the line twice? If not, how can someone argue that the Cup is necessary?

 

[Walking_Home]

You say that my interpretation of scripture is not the same as the church interpretation of scripture.

Let’s test that assumption.

Here is my “interpretation”, simplified to the essence.

The Lord took bread and broke it (literally broke bread)
This is my body (literally his flesh)
The disciples ate it (actually ate the bread, now flesh)
The Lord took the cup of wine (real wine)
The Lord said it was the cup of his blood (literally his blood)
He commanded all to drink (actually drink from the cup)
The disciples drank from the cup (his real blood)

OK, Lets see the different interpretation you have so we can compare.

---

Well It seems —it is becoming more clear. The Holy Spirit apparently—has taken a hike.

 

[Brendan]

You say that my interpretation of scripture is not the same as the church interpretation of scripture.

Let’s test that assumption.

Here is my “interpretation”, simplified to the essence.

The Lord took bread and broke it (literally broke bread)
This is my body (literally his flesh)
The disciples ate it (actually ate the bread, now flesh)
The Lord took the cup of wine (real wine)
The Lord said it was the cup of his blood (literally his blood)
He commanded all to drink (actually drink from the cup)
The disciples drank from the cup (his real blood)

OK, Lets see the different interpretation you have so we can compare.

Here is the Church’s interpretation

The Lord took bread and broke it (literally broke bread)
This is my body (literally his flesh AND BLOOD)
The disciples ate it (actually ate the bread, now flesh AND BLOOD)
The Lord took the cup of wine (real wine)
The Lord said it was the cup of his blood (literally his blood AND BODY)
He commanded all to drink (actually drink from the cup)
The disciples drank from the cup (his real blood AND BODY)

The Eucharist is a Risen Lord, Body and Blood are not, and **cannot **be seperated.

The Eucharist is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearance of common matter.

The contents of the paten and the contents of the chalice are identical in every way, except how it appears to our bodies.

When we recieve the Host, we drink His Blood. When we recieve from the chalice, we eat His Body.

 

[dessert]

---

Well It seems —it is becoming more clear. The Holy Spirit apparently—has taken a hike.

Well if he has it is the clergys fault because when we have word and communion we don’t get the cup so the Eucharist has to be both and why have the cup for us anyways if they are seperated one time but not the next?
So i don’t receive from the cup anymore and I won’t because the priest gets it but I don’t?
Just watch what would happen if i suggested that the priest go with out the cup once! I’m sure all hell would break loose and the whole thing of tradition in this sense does’nt! dessert

 

[CommonMan]

Brendan,

The literal reading of the passages describing the events of the Lord’s Supper is important. You believe Christ was speaking figuratively. I believe it was all literal. I believe Christ didn’t waste words, or speak in a manner that was unclear. Everything he said should be taken at face value. Everything. Picking and choosing what to believe and what not to just isn’t an option.

The GIRM is correct. We should partake in the “fulller form”. If you disagree, take it up with the authors. They said it.

Snorter Luster. It’s not reserved just for the clergy. The curtain separating God from the people was torn remember? For further evidence, read John 6…

 

[Walking_Home]

Brendan,

The literal reading of the passages describing the events of the Lord’s Supper is important. You believe Christ was speaking figuratively. I believe it was all literal. I believe Christ didn’t waste words, or speak in a manner that was unclear. Everything he said should be taken at face value. Everything. Picking and choosing what to believe and what not to just isn’t an option.

The GIRM is correct. We should partake in the “fulller form”. If you disagree, take it up with the authors. They said it.
Snorter Luster. It’s not reserved just for the clergy. The curtain separating God from the people was torn remember? For further evidence, read John 6…

---

The way it looks CommonMan—the one doing the choosing is you. We give assent to the teachings of the Church–who states the Holy Communion can be received via the Host alone–both species–or in certain circumstances by the Chalice alone.

You have accused the Church of being confused and not interpreting scripture correctly. This only comes to show–that what You believe ----over-rides the authority of the Church in this matter. Once a person gets to this pt. —they are down the road to dissent.

 

[dessert]

Brendan,

The literal reading of the passages describing the events of the Lord’s Supper is important. You believe Christ was speaking figuratively. I believe it was all literal. I believe Christ didn’t waste words, or speak in a manner that was unclear. Everything he said should be taken at face value. Everything. Picking and choosing what to believe and what not to just isn’t an option.

The GIRM is correct. We should partake in the “fulller form”. If you disagree, take it up with the authors. They said it.

Snorter Luster. It’s not reserved just for the clergy. The curtain separating God from the people was torn remember? For further evidence, read John 6…

John 6; 63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
58;this is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.

59; these things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

He was talking to people who were literal along with the disciples but many left Him and the twelve remained. He was talking to them literally becuase that is all they understood because they were not spiritual.
So in verse 58 it is just the bread. So he doesn’t mention the wine.
God’s DNA is in the body, flesh and in the blood as the flesh contains the blood and that is the saving grace.
So if you want to be so literal bread of life he doesn’t ay bread and wine of life.
(All Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.) quote form NAB as you notice again that Simon Peter is the only one to acknowledge that " You have the words of eternal life." dessert