Eucharist question

[Love_is_Patient]

What about what this verse implies?

or this one?

or this one?

So, it seems we are all preist and should be taking both the bread and the “chalice” (as you say). It seems to short change who the people of God are in his eyes. The people of God also being the laity not just the Clergy which was the problem of the church during the middle ages. They differentiated too much.

What about this one: Exodus 19:1-6

In the third month after their departure from the land of Egypt, on its first day, the Israelites came to the desert of Sinai. After the journey from Rephidim to the desert of Sinai, they pitched camp. While Israel was encamped here in front of the mountain, Moses went up the mountain to God. Then the LORD called to him and said, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob; tell the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself. Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.”

And yet, they still had the Levite priesthood…

Love is Patient

 

[sambos671]

What about this one: Exodus 19:1-6

In the third month after their departure from the land of Egypt, on its first day, the Israelites came to the desert of Sinai. After the journey from Rephidim to the desert of Sinai, they pitched camp. While Israel was encamped here in front of the mountain, Moses went up the mountain to God. Then the LORD called to him and said, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob; tell the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself. Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.”

And yet, they still had the Levite priesthood…

Love is Patient

This is true and they all had to sacrifice in the same manner for the same offenses. It seems to hold back part the entire Eucharist (thanksgiving freely offered) is holding back.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Firstly - Jesus was talking to the Apostles, instituting all of them as the first priests. And yes, all priests at Mass DO have to both eat and drink. So that command to the Apostles is completely fulfilled when they do so.

Are non-officiating priests required to partake when they are present?

 

[inJESUS]

I don’t understand the question. In the Roman Catholic Church, the priest dips the bread in wine at Communion to every faithful so how is the wine missing? it is in our Maronite Liturgy that the priest dips the first piece of the bread and passes it on thepieces of bread in whole Chalice without dipping it each time to each faithful.

 

[LilyM]

This is true and they all had to sacrifice in the same manner for the same offenses. It seems to hold back part the entire Eucharist (thanksgiving freely offered) is holding back.

So they all got to go into the Holy of Holies? No, that was just the High Priest. They all got to slaughter animals at the altar in the Temple? No, the Levite priests did that on behalf of the people offering them. They ALL got to eat the bits of animal that weren’t burnt? Nope again, those too were reserved for the Levite priests.

So no, they did NOT all sacrifice in the same manner.

 

[Eucharisted]

Why don’t Catholic Laity drink wine for communion?

We drink the Blood of Christ. The real Blood of Christ. It only looks, smells, tastes, feels, and sounds like wine, i.e., it is under the appearance of wine. The appearance of wine is the same, but the accidents have changed: the wine is no longer wine but has been changed to Blood.

To put it a different way: The wine has appearance (taste, touch, smell, sound, and look) and it has accidents (what the wine is). It’s accidents is wine, because wine is wine, and being wine, it looks, smells, tastes, feels, and sounds like wine. But when it is consecrated, the accidents change; the wine no longer is wine but has become Jesus, His Precious Blood. It is Jesus under the appearance of wine.

That’s why we don’t drink wine at Communion.

May the Blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life. Amen.

 

[sambos671]

I don’t understand the question. In the Roman Catholic Church, the priest dips the bread in wine at Communion to every faithful so how is the wine missing? it is in our Maronite Liturgy that the priest dips the first piece of the bread and passes it on thepieces of bread in whole Chalice without dipping it each time to each faithful.

Not in the Latin rite.

 

[sambos671]

So they all got to go into the Holy of Holies? No, that was just the High Priest. They all got to slaughter animals at the altar in the Temple? No, the Levite priests did that on behalf of the people offering them. They ALL got to eat the bits of animal that weren’t burnt? Nope again, those too were reserved for the Levite priests.

So no, they did NOT all sacrifice in the same manner.

Following you’re logic then using the high priest then only the Pope should receive the Eucharist entire (bread and wine (host and chalice)). Nonsense. And you’re talking about two things. The priest got to eat the parts not burned up in the holocost not wasting the sacrifice due to several factors. One of which they were not given land of their own except for a few acres around cities and needed to support themselves and their families. A trip through Leviticus should show you many of these things. Its not the same with the Eucharist. It is obvious the early christians had both.

 

[sambos671]

We drink the Blood of Christ. The real Blood of Christ. It only looks, smells, tastes, feels, and sounds like wine, i.e., it is under the appearance of wine. The appearance of wine is the same, but the accidents have changed: the wine is no longer wine but has been changed to Blood.

To put it a different way: The wine has appearance (taste, touch, smell, sound, and look) and it has accidents (what the wine is). It’s accidents is wine, because wine is wine, and being wine, it looks, smells, tastes, feels, and sounds like wine. But when it is consecrated, the accidents change; the wine no longer is wine but has become Jesus, His Precious Blood. It is Jesus under the appearance of wine.

That’s why we don’t drink wine at Communion.

May the Blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life. Amen.

That makes no sense to me. Not the part about the accidents but the part that says "thats why we don’t drink hte wine at Communion. Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you. So…

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t understand the question. In the Roman Catholic Church, the priest dips the bread in wine at Communion to every faithful so how is the wine missing? it is in our Maronite Liturgy that the priest dips the first piece of the bread and passes it on thepieces of bread in whole Chalice without dipping it each time to each faithful.

That meathod is known as intinction, and it is not practiced in all Roman Catholic Churches. Basically, it is left to the local Bishop or Council of Bishops. IN the United States, it is not the common way, but it is allowed with permission.

Personally, I like it for two reasons. First, we are given both species at once, reducing the lines and the number of EMHC. Second, it forces people to receive by the tongue instead of by hand.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s why we don’t drink wine at Communion.

May the Blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life. Amen.

I believe Eucharisted was saying that when we drink the Cup, we are not drinking wine. (I guess he/she was a little confused about what question was being asked.)

 

[GKC]

I believe Eucharisted was saying that when we drink the Cup, we are not drinking wine. (I guess he/she was a little confused about what question was being asked.)

Which sort of brings this thread full circle.

GKC

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Why don’t Catholic Laity drink wine for communion?

The Catholic laity always drinks the Blood at my church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Christ never said anything about the accidents or substance was distinct from its properties. Where did that come from originally? Who originally taught when the accidents cease to be accidents?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Christ never said anything about the accidents or substance was distinct from its properties.

Actually, He did.

Where did that come from originally? Who originally taught when the accidents cease to be accidents?

Read any account of the Last Supper. While He may never have used the exact terms “substance” and “accident” (when did He ever say, “Ask Me into your heart and accept Me as your Personal Saviour”?) that’s exactly what He taught when He held up bread and said, “THIS IS My body” and likewise with the cup, “THIS IS My blood.”

Christ said it. I believe it. That settles it.

 

[LilyM]

Following you’re logic then using the high priest then only the Pope should receive the Eucharist entire (bread and wine (host and chalice)). Nonsense. And you’re talking about two things. The priest got to eat the parts not burned up in the holocost not wasting the sacrifice due to several factors. One of which they were not given land of their own except for a few acres around cities and needed to support themselves and their families. A trip through Leviticus should show you many of these things. Its not the same with the Eucharist. It is obvious the early christians had both.

You’re totally missing my point. I’m not at all arguing that our priests should do things exactly the same as the Jewish priests.

I’m just arguing that a ‘priesthood of all believers’, such as the Jews had by the way (the concept is from the OT), doesn’t mean we all have the same role or all perform the same functions or do the same things, or offer sacrifice in the same manner.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Actually, He did.

Read any account of the Last Supper. While He may never have used the exact terms “substance” and “accident” (when did He ever say, “Ask Me into your heart and accept Me as your Personal Saviour”?) that’s exactly what He taught when He held up bread and said, “THIS IS My body” and likewise with the cup, “THIS IS My blood.”

Christ said it. I believe it. That settles it.

I have no clue what the ask me into your heart question means. You will have to explain that to me.
You did not answer my question, well you did but it just repeats your beliefs, it does not address substance or accident.

 

[bov]

Jesus is present, literally, body, blood, soul and divinity in both species (bread and wine) . Jesus foretold the Eucharist in the 6th chapter off John’s Gospel. At the end of this chapter John tells us, many disciples left Jesus, because they could not accept this “hard teaching”. People have been leaving the Church over “hard teachings” ever since.

Jesus instituded the Eucharist on Holy Thursday evening and after His reserrection shared Eucharist with his disciples again.

Eucharist is par-excellence the greatest source of grace given to us by God.

 

[bov]

I am reminded of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy in the 7th century, where a monk, upon consecrating the bread and wine had great doubts as to the real presence of Jesus. Before his eyes, and the eyes of those present, the bread turned into real flesh and the blood coagulated into 5 globbles of blood.

The species is still present today in Lanciano, for public view. several scientific experimentations have been done on the flesh and blood and it is conclusive that it is true flesh and true blood, with no preservatives. Type AB+ blood. Both scpecies belong to the same person. Just a few of the scientific facts that you can read and study if you are interested. Many other Eucharistic miracles have occured, but none greater.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Jesus is present, literally, body, blood, soul and divinity in both species (bread and wine) . Jesus foretold the Eucharist in the 6th chapter off John’s Gospel. At the end of this chapter John tells us, many disciples left Jesus, because they could not accept this “hard teaching”. People have been leaving the Church over “hard teachings” ever since.

Jesus instituded the Eucharist on Holy Thursday evening and after His reserrection shared Eucharist with his disciples again.

Eucharist is par-excellence the greatest source of grace given to us by God.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66** From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. **

I bolded the part where they left, can you specifically show me the exact reason that caused them to leave please?