Eucharist; Communion; Lord's Supper

[ralphinal]

Communion is also passed through the pews and sometimes setup at stations too in Protetstant churches. In the Catholic stations, is there a single cup at each station, or do you have individual cups at each station?

One cup per. You go to the station and receive.

Now, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of diseases spread by the shared cup.

 

[2nd_Adam]

One cup per. You go to the station and receive.

Now, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of diseases spread by the shared cup.

In a practical sense, that’s a tough practice considering the issue of spreading common colds and flu this time of year.

 

[Marie5890]

One cup per. You go to the station and receive.

Now, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of diseases spread by the shared cup.

A person is more likely to pick up some sort of illness (and far worse germs) by handling the door handles of bathrooms (esp public restrooms) and shaking hands, handling money, than they are to picking up something by drinking out of a metal, non-porous chalis.

 

[izoid]

Communion is also passed through the pews and sometimes setup at stations too in Protetstant churches. In the Catholic stations, is there a single cup at each station, or do you have individual cups at each station?

The parish will typically share the cup. For the Catholic, mass is a time of family gathering. We all come together to share in Christ’s sacrifice. Coming forward and being served by the priest is very powerful. I have found that this sense of family, community, is much more present in the Mass than in the protestant worship services. We recirte our prayers together, we stand, sit and kneel together. It is a picture of unity where we all come to God of one mind. The culmination of all of this is in the Eucharist. It would only follow that we would partake of this sacrament as a family also.

 

[2nd_Adam]

When I used to attend a Reformed Church prior to moving, we used to have some individual cups filled with wine, and others filled with grape juice. Each partook either the wine or grape juice per a person’s conscience. Baptist churches tend to serve only grape juice. Within the Catholic Church, is wine used as compared to grape juice?

 

[Filioque]

I’m well aware that some Protestant Churches started using individualshot glass sized cups in the 1800’s, nowadays sometimes plastic medicine cups. It does not bother me, just as it does not bother me that some use grape juice and a very few water, since they don’t want others to mistake it for wine. I figure, (and this is not a dig at Protestants) since they have abandoned the early teachings of the Church, and do not belive in the real presense, they can have a memorial service in any manner they want to.

There are also Protestant sects that argue the use of individual cups is non-biblical, and wrong.

As Catholics harkening back to the practice of the Early Church, to the Apostles themselves we see Communion as both the real Jesus, as He promised, but we do not overlook the symbolic significance of Communion either. First the word Communion is derived from the Latin and Greek ideas of our union with God, and our Union with each other. When we are in communion with God, we are in agreement with His Will. When we say we are in communion with each other, that is our union in the same faith and worship of the One true God. The use of one cup vs. many little cups is also a symbol of what Jesus showed us at the Last Supper, and of the Cup at the Seder and on the Sabbath/Havdalah. At a traditional and ancient Seder, as well as on Sabbath, and at the Havdalah service, (which closes the Sabbath) we always drank from the same cup, because it was a symbol of our sharing in the same lot in life, and the same God.

If we receive as Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church believed the Real Jesus, and not just a spiritual or symbolic Jesus, then it does not matter if it is in one or several cups. Each cup would have the real and whole Jesus. However if we look at the symbolism given us by Jesus at the last supper where he refers to one cup, then the many little cups are more symbolic of disunity and individual doctrine and belief than the one cup.

 

[Janet1983]

Well it is shared by most Christians, though not all will call it “sacrament”…
Baptists call it an “ordinance”…

Some Baptists don’t use wine, but the fruit of the vine (grape juice). Protestants also partake on a regular basis, but this leaves a wide array of possibilities. Some do it once a week, some every second week, some partake only once a month (usually on the first Sunday), some go even further to have a communion Sunday every second month and some even take it to twice a year. They have their reasons, be it economic or raising the value. Partaking on a regular basis does not need to be every day or even every week, it just means that it follows a regular scheme…
Catholics partake at least on a week with the possibility of partaking every day. Most common and in accordance with RC laws is wine, but under certain circumstances mustum may be used too. Grape juice is not an alternative.
Most Christians partake in both, though not all Catholics do it. There are quite a few Catholic parishes I know that give the possibility of partaking in both and I have been in a few which do so.
Some use one cup or chalice and others (as my current church for example) use as many small plastic cups as there are members partaking (which is great from a medical point of view).
As far as I know just partaking in one of two is not a problem in the RCC as they believe that it is of equal value. When partaking in both in the RCC there are different methods of doing so: Some dip and some sip. The priest however will always take both.
The reason why some do not have both for the whole congregation might be practicality… First of all it is both of equal value and only the priest has to take both, so there is no absolute necessity for the congregation to partake in both. Secondly it might not be practical and economically not the best reasoning. After all it is not necessary, so why go ahead and have a very large congregation partake in both? I don’t know the regulations in the US, but I know that there are strong restrictions in Germany on what wine may be used and these wines come only from approved vineyards. They are therefore very high in quality and not the cheapest on the market. It makes sense to only use a small amount for the priest and not the whole congregation when it is not needed.

Even though this sacrament or ordinance is common to most Christians inter-communion is rare because different teachings are attached to the sacrament / ordinance. While there is a possibility of inter-communion among Protestants which is usually practiced in military chapels the inter-communion between Protestants and Catholics is widely inexistent, discouraged and violating Catholic laws.

 

[Marie5890]

When I used to attend a Reformed Church prior to moving, we used to have some individual cups filled with wine, and others filled with grape juice. Each partook either the wine or grape juice per a person’s conscience. Baptist churches tend to serve only grape juice. Within the Catholic Church, is wine used as compared to grape juice?

Red wine.

 

[greggy53]

Thanks for the info. Since the Eucharist seems to be the highlight of the mass, I hope everyone will share their views on the subject. I think many Protestant churches have too low of a view of communion (mostly non-denominational and baptist churches).

The Eucharist IS the highlight of the Mass. I talked to one fundamentalist recently who said his Church has a communion service once a year…I thought why bother? It seems to me to be an obligation to Protestants who only go through the motions every now and then. It’s like it’s a very Catholic thing, and they wouldn’t do it at all for that reason except that Jesus commanded it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The parish will typically share the cup. For the Catholic, mass is a time of family gathering. We all come together to share in Christ’s sacrifice. Coming forward and being served by the priest is very powerful. I have found that this sense of family, community, is much more present in the Mass than in the protestant worship services. We recirte our prayers together, we stand, sit and kneel together. It is a picture of unity where we all come to God of one mind. The culmination of all of this is in the Eucharist. It would only follow that we would partake of this sacrament as a family also.

In Reformed Churches, it’s quite similar to your practice as described. A Presbyterian practice of communion is quite different than the typical Baptist communion in many ways. When I attended the PCA Reformed Church, we served communion every Sunday. I now attend a non-denominational church which serves communion once a month. One church believes communion is a means of grace, where Baptist churches tend to have a much lower view of communion. I bet Lutheran churches are even more similar to the Catholic practice than Reformed churches.

 

[ralphinal]

When I used to attend a Reformed Church prior to moving, we used to have some individual cups filled with wine, and others filled with grape juice. Each partook either the wine or grape juice per a person’s conscience. Baptist churches tend to serve only grape juice. Within the Catholic Church, is wine used as compared to grape juice?

Grape juice is not allowed. Ever. Wine was what was used then, it must be used now. Grape juice, as you understand it, did not exist then.

 

[greggy53]

When I used to attend a Reformed Church prior to moving, we used to have some individual cups filled with wine, and others filled with grape juice. Each partook either the wine or grape juice per a person’s conscience. Baptist churches tend to serve only grape juice. Within the Catholic Church, is wine used as compared to grape juice?

I remember the Assembly Of God used shot glasses for the grape juice. Bottoms up!

 

[greggy53]

Grape juice is not allowed. Ever. Wine was what was used then, it must be used now. Grape juice, as you understand it, did not exist then.

The AG preacher years ago tried to tell me that back in Jesus time the wine really wasn’t wine. It was not fermented as much as now…

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Eucharist; Communion; Lord’s Supper is a sacrament in which Christians share.

Let’s try to discuss our similarities and differences in this sacrament and means of grace given to us as Christians.

My first question: Do Catholics just partake in the bread and not the wine as laity? If so, why is that?

My parish only offers the species of Bread to the laity. In fact, all of the parishes I know of in the D.C. / Northern Virginia area do the same. The reasons for it are that

(1) consuming either is still communing with the fullness of Christ. Protestants take both because to them it is solely a symbol. We recognize the symbolism, but think it’s much more than that, so we’re not as concerned with making sure that the metaphor matches up just so, but with partaking in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in a unique and incredible way.

(2) 1 Corinthians 11:27 is the Biblical support. “Therefore whoever eats the Bread **or **drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body **and **Blood of the Lord.” The Bread symbolizes His Body, in that it looks like flesh, as the Wine looks like His Blood, but in reality, the Bread is Body *and *Blood, as is the Wine.

(3) Offering the Cup to the laity was proposed by those who denied #1 and #2 historically - both Hus and Zwingli were vocal proponents of it, if memory serves. Had the Church begun to offer both at that time, it would have given the (heretical) impression that the Host alone wasn’t enough.

(4) Offering the Cup to the laity runs some risk of spilling the Blood of Christ on the floor. Without some overriding reason to take that chance, the Church didn’t generally risk it (at least in the West).

(5) The metaphoric and symbolic remembrance is still fulfilled by the priest’s actions. He mixes a small bit of water into the wine (remember what flowed out of Jesus’ side), he presents the two species separate, to signal the parting of Blood from Flesh at the Passion, and he breaks the Bread, another symbol of the Passion.

(6) In modern times, one of the major problems is that of ministers of Holy Communion. Properly, this is something which should be done by the priest or a deacon ordainarily. But in extraordinary circumstances, when there’s a shortage of priests and deacons, lay people can be used to help distribute. Offering both Host and Chalice makes the shortage and lines worse.

(7) Just as before, when many of the people pushing for reception under both species were heretics, many of those today who push for reception are trying to blur the line between priests and laity since they can’t have women’s ordination. Something like 80% of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are women. So by trying to introduce reception under both forms, a lot of the proponents are really trying to put women (often wearing white vaguely-clerical robes) at the front of the church distributing Eucharist and appearing priestly.

All of that said, there’s nothing innately wrong with reception under both forms. There’s just nothing wrong with reception (by the laity) of reception only of the Host.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Red wine.

Marie,

Actually, red isn’t specified or necessary, just the fact that it is wine.

VC

 

[2nd_Adam]

Well it is shared by most Christians, though not all will call it “sacrament”…
Baptists call it an “ordinance”…

Some Baptists don’t use wine, but the fruit of the vine (grape juice). They also partake on a regular basis, but this leaves a wide array of possibilities. Some do it once a week, some every second week, some partake only once a month (usually on the first Sunday), some go even further to have a communion Sunday every second month and some even take it to twice a year. They have their reasons, be it economic or raising the value. Partaking on a regular basis does not need to be every day or even every week, it just means that it follows a regular scheme…
Most Christians partake in both, though not all Catholics do it. There are quite a few Catholic parishes I know that give the possibility of partaking in both and I have been in a few which do so.
Some use one cup or chalice and others (as my current church for example) use as many small plastic cups as there are members partaking (which is great from a medical point of view).
As far as I know just partaking in one of two is not a problem in the RCC as they believe that it is of equal value. When partaking in both in the RCC there are different methods of doing so: Some dip and some sip. The priest however will always take both.
The reason why some do not have both for the whole congregation might be practicality… First of all it is both of equal value and only the priest has to take both, so there is no absolute necessity for the congregation to partake in both. Secondly it might not be practical and economically not the best reasoning. After all it is not necessary, so why go ahead and have a very large congregation partake in both? I don’t know the regulations in the US, but I know that there are strong restrictions on what wine may be used and these wines come only from approved vineyards. They are therefore very high in quality and not the cheapest on the market. It makes sense to only use a small amount for the priest and not the whole congregation when it is not needed.

Even though this sacrament or ordinance is common to most Christians inter-communion is rare because different teachings are attached to the sacrament / ordinance. While there is a possibility of inter-communion among Protestants which is usually practiced in military chapels the inter-communion between Protestants and Catholics is widely inexistent, discouraged and violating Catholic laws.

Thanks for your post sister. My denominational background has been basically non-denominational (Baptist in reality) and Reformed. I currently attend a non-denominational (Baptist distinctive) church in which the Pastor grew from Arminianism Baptist distinctives to Reformed in theology, but still Baptist in regards to communion and baptism. He is a good friend of mine, so we always have good theological discussions and debates. He married into a Reformed family in which his father-in-law is a pastor in the PCA Reformed Church. His dad is also a Baptist pastor. It’s interesting that he was baptized as a young child who professed Christ, but he admits to me that he was converted after his baptism. Therefore, he may practice believers baptism in the pulpit, yet his actual experience refutes that position.

I think his view of the two sacraments (ordinance) is too low since he is quite Baptistic in his view. Do you think Baptists tend to have too low of a view in regards to communion and baptism?

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Eucharist IS the highlight of the Mass. I talked to one fundamentalist recently who said his Church has a communion service once a year…I thought why bother? It seems to me to be an obligation to Protestants who only go through the motions every now and then. It’s like it’s a very Catholic thing, and they wouldn’t do it at all for that reason except that Jesus commanded it.

Protestantism has a wide variance of the practice of communion.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The AG preacher years ago tried to tell me that back in Jesus time the wine really wasn’t wine. It was not fermented as much as now…

LOL… I guess the first recorded miracle in Scripture refutes that view.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Interesting postings. Any comments about fencing the table?

 

[ralphinal]

raph,

I’ve seen this asserted many times, but I can’t seem to find a definitive statement that this is the case. I can find teaching that the priest’s communion is a solemn obligation, a Divine command even, and a very grave abuse to omit it. But can you point me to a source that says that without the Mass is invalid? (P.s. I’m not sure what it means for a Mass to be invalid either. I assume it means no sacrifice occurs? Or does it mean something different?)

EDITED to add: I also can find statements that mention that the Priest’s communion completes the sacrifice. . . but this doesn’t say that no sacrifice takes place prior to it (and, in fact, seems to imply the opposite).

Thank you!
VC

Other than the fact that it says that they must in the Mass, I cannot find it right now, either. I will look some more when I can

Valid and invalid means that it does what it is supposed to. In this case, if the priest does not complete the sacrifice, there is no sacrifice there. Although Jesus may be present, the priest has not completed his role in the Mass.