Certainly wine will make a bigger mess than a dropped host but I still have a hard time seeing this as a valid reason for withholding the chalice - certainly not from a Biblical standpoint. After all, the Eastern Orthodox not only distribute in both kinds but even use bread rather than wafers.
That is no doubt true - especially when one considers the vestments worn!
I think you missed exactly WHY the Utraquists believed that it was necessary for salvation. They felt that the instructions to “eat” and “drink” were to be accomplished in an Accidental way, that to fulfill the command we had to physically eat and physically drink.
As Japhy pointed out the accidents of wine are more prone to…well…accidents. Spillage etc…
Perhaps so. I skimmed through the document but will go back and read it more closely.
Of course, there is always this:
1 Corinthians 11:23-34Jason, I am having difficulty reading your posts, because you don’t break things into paragraphs (among other things).
The apostles at the Last Supper were, by the Lord’s words to “do this” (1 Cor 11:24-25), ordained priests of the New Covenant. And the priest celebrating Mass is bound to receive under both forms (i.e. bread and wine). Others are not so bound. In the first several centuries, hermits would reserve portions of the consecrated bread (but not the consecrated wine) to consume daily during the week until the next Divine Liturgy. On Good Friday, we still only receive under the form of bread alone. You’ll never see the Chalice at the Good Friday liturgy.
I would suggest you read the Church’s explanation for Communion under one kind from the Council of Trent, Session 21.
I’m sorry you felt that way, but they were not missing anything. Numerous saints were devoted the Eucharist, and receiving Holy Communion under the form of bread did not harm them or stunt their spiritual growth.
The problem I see is that you seem to believe that if a person DOES question the practice of Communion under one kind, they must come to the conclusion you have, that Communion must be received under both kinds or else it is “incomplete” somehow. You are putting your interpretation and understanding above that of the Church.
I spend a lot of time in Scripture now, and yet I am perfectly content to receive under one species or under both (though that’s rare for me, as I explained). My contentment is not ignorance or stupidity, but contentment in Christ and with the Church’s teaching.
Even those people who receive both Host and Chalice?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your comparison.
I’ll toot my own horn here: I have a book (see below) that explains the liturgy of the Mass with a ton of Scriptural annotations (as well as quotes from the Catechism and Church Fathers). I wrote it to help people understand the Scriptural basis of the Mass, to help them overcome that common Catholic ignorance of Scripture and the liturgy. I want Catholics to understand their faith as much as they can, same as you.
Treading & asking questions are 2 different things buddy. If you want to slap a label on curiosity, be my guest. Anyhow, the question about dead flesh is ridiculous and disgusting and I’m not going to entertain it any further. Secondly, I disagree that the bread & wine were intended for the priests only because in John 6, he’s speaking to a CROWD…here you go… JOHN 6:48-57, as he is giving his bread of life discourse, to a crowd that was searching for Jesus & his Disciples. …he’s saying this to a crowd…not apostles, but a crowd…
I was referring specifically to the command to “do this”. It was by those words in particular that the Lord made priests of the Apostles. The rest of 1 Corinthians is St. Paul’s (inspired) commentary on the matter. Anyway, you are putting your interpretation of the Scriptures over the Church’s interpretation of the same. The Church sees 1 Cor 11:26-29 (referring to drinking from the chalice) not being written by way of command, but by way of allowance.
But you’re answering your own questions! And you didn’t ask a question at all (other than “are we paying attention”) in this post; rather, you stated your position, “answering” your own previous questions:
I could be misreading you, but you seem to distinguish your faith from Catholicism in that underlined portion. Now, perhaps an explanation is in order. Concomitance (the presence of the WHOLE Christ under either species) is a matter of faith, not discipline. The decision to concede the Chalice to everyone is a matter of discipline, not faith. So you can disagree with the discipline (which is a prudential decision) without failing to hold the Catholic faith. BUT it is a matter of faith (not discipline) that one need not receive under both kinds to receive “full” or “whole” or “complete” Communion; it is opposed to the Catholic faith that Communion under only one species is less or inferior, or even worse, “illegal”.
What is “ridiculous and disgusting” about it? Because he used the words “dead flesh”? It’s very convenient to avoid answering a question you don’t like. What makes that particular question out-of-bounds?
And as the Church noted in the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 1 – quoting, if you notice, the same book and chapter as you – that
I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about there…
No. It was not a “priests only thing”. It was, specifically, a only-the-priest-celebrating-Mass thing… but only as a matter of discipline.
Please tell us, what are these “wrong reasons” that the Church has? What are the “right reasons” according to your interpretation of Scripture, specifically John 6.
I agree. It’s not (and the Church doesn’t teach that it is a valid reason).
For those in the U.S., does it make any difference that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved by the Vatican, notes regarding communion under both kinds:
(And for those of you not in the U.S., what does your GIRM say in para 281?)
and what about John 6? When Jesus is talking to the crowd of people. Not the apostles, but the crowd of people LOOKING for Jesus & his apostles…I highly recommend checking out my last couple posts. Or read into John 6. He tells the CROWD of average Joe’s to eat & drink, to paraphrase plainly… That’s great about 1 corinthians & all, but John 6 kinda ties it all together nicely. Read it. Get beck to me w. your thoughts
Already did it and replied.and what about John 6? … Read it. Get beck to me w. your thoughts
Dude, I’m former Episcopalian, not baptist, LOL! YES it’s the ONLY problem I have. That information was very informative. I still think I SEE JESUS is happening here. selective scripture for selective teaching & selective practice. It drives me nutz. He said this last, no, now he said that last…I mean, honestly…
Yes, the Church is being deliberately deceptive and selective. You caught her red-handed!
And I don’t. The issues you raise, the Church has answered. I trust the Church’s interpretation and judgment and decision-making. It is not necessary for our salvation to receive Holy Communion under both species, and it is not illicit or wrong not to receive under both kinds.
Where was the wedding of Cana brought up in our conversation?
The Church certainly teaches that it is a valid reason. See the GIRM #283
LOVE TO…The blessed bread thing. SOMETIMES a military chaplain doesn’t have HOSTS with him when going from compound to compound in theater, as was the case in Kuwait when I was there this past year. SO, he blessed bread. There were 5 catholics among us. THAT was our "HOSTS"we broke it & had a little prayer & had pieces of it each day because there are only 2 catholic chaplains in the country. SO we had a lay person in our unit do the little lay mass. The tabernacle we had was a parts locker that was locked and place way up high next to the exit sign on the ceiling (which was dim in light, but at night shown as bright as a candle in the dark, and such was out tabernacle light. It was always on, even when we lost power…we had to improvise, but yes, there it was. It was faith, not discipline, as you like. Kuwait is a dry country, so rather than cheapen everything with sparking grape juice, we CHOSE not to do that KNOWING that the fullness was in the bread alone. NOW< I know it sounds like I’m contradicting myself & if I was a housefly, I’d be in the room w. you seeing you nodding your head, lol, but we did feel that something was missing & we almost made a chalice out of a small salad bowl & a salt shaker. There was no wine in the country, so it was moot. THAT is what I’m talking about. When there is nothing else, then bread will suffice. We never made it to mass the entire time we were in country, but we got bread blessed. That’s what we did. We had 1 lay person & we had our short little mass service.