Eucharist question

[chris_molter]

Trent went so far as to declare anathema anyone who challenged the church’s reasons for instituting the practice.

Not quite. Trent anathematized anyone who held that the body and blood were not wholly part of either species.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

Witholding the cup is a liturgical practice, not a doctrine.

(I think that’s what you were saying, anyway, now that I reread your post, if so, then consider this post just further expansion on your point!)

 

[sambos671]

Not quite. Trent anathematized anyone who held that the body and blood were not wholly part of either species.

Witholding the cup is a liturgical practice, not a doctrine.

(I think that’s what you were saying, anyway, now that I reread your post, if so, then consider this post just further expansion on your point!)

\

What if a Catholic wanted to recieve the cup as well as the host?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

\

What if a Catholic wanted to recieve the cup as well as the host?

It wouldn’t be too difficult to find a parish that offers both. In my experience, both are offered more often than not. For that matter, some will refrain from the Chalice even when it is offered. You don’t get “less” Jesus by not receiving from the Chalice.

 

[chris_molter]

\

What if a Catholic wanted to recieve the cup as well as the host?

The vast majority of parishes serve communion under both kinds, so this is not normally an issue. At the TLM, the laity receives the eucharist under one species only.

Interesting side note, there are quite a few religious orders with a devotion to the Precious Blood.

 

[ralphinal]

One of the reasons that it was witheld in the first place was a heresy that said if you did not get both, you either got none of Jesus OR you were in a state of serious sin. Now, what if you run out of Blood? How is that the fault of the faithful? It is not.

To silence that, they began to withhold the CUp. Only the priest HAS to drink from it. Now, once that died, it was open for all, assuming other issues were not in place, such as logistics.

 

[Soutane]

Recently I went to a Mass where the precious Blood was offered as well as the Eucharistic Host.I received only the precious Blood but I received ALL of Christ-Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity.It was not necessary to receive the Eucharistic Host as well.In my parish only the Eucharistic Host is offered.

 

[BlestOne]

At my small parish we are offered and receive the Body and Blood under both species… that is the bread and the wine. In most parishes I believe it is the same.

What are you really fishing for?

 

[bpbasilphx]

You know what I mean. I’m asking a serious question. If the bread is the body what about the wine? The blood?

**If you don’t clearly express what you mean, how can we know what you mean?

However communion in both kinds is the usual rule in Eastern Catholic Churches.

So your question “Why don’t Catholic Laity drink wine for communion?” is based on a false premise.**

 

[FollowTheWay]

Answer: taking a sip of wine or thimble full and a chip of bread was taken from a Mithra ritual. When Christ said do this in remembrance of me what was he doing? he was partying it up with the passover feast. Lets remember Christ as the down to earth Lord who gave us life in him, and celebrated often just as the disciple did even after his death.

 

[sambos671]

Answer: taking a sip of wine or thimble full and a chip of bread was taken from a Mithra ritual. When Christ said do this in remembrance of me what was he doing? he was partying it up with the passover feast. Lets remember Christ as the down to earth Lord who gave us life in him, and celebrated often just as the disciple did even after his death.

Keep that in mind when you read this verses from 1Corinthians:

20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! …27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Sorry I don’t have a copy of the Council of Trent. The same council that wanted to exterminate protestants.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.htm

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

And it IS an essential element of every Mass - the priest celebrating must consume both Host and Chalice. Doesn’t mean that EVERYONE has to have both - no-one apart from the priest, of course, need have anything at all, Communion is not compulsory.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the laity can’t receive only one form - meaning they can choose just to receive the Chalice if, for example, they are allergic to wheat flour products and cannot have the Host.

I don’t know how you can square this with Scripture:

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:27-28

“he who eats my flesh** and drinks my blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:54

It seems to me that Christ is saying that the blood, at least, ought to be drunk by all of us.

I think that a person ought to eat the body also, if possible, but He doesn’t explicitly say that we all ought to do so, as He did of drinking the blood.

I’ve explained why - Jesus does NOT split Himself into bits and pieces such that the Host is ONLY flesh and the cup ONLY blood, but rather Body and Blood both exist in both Host and Cup.

I don’t think this is an adequate argument. Even if it’s true, you surely don’t think that eating His body is the same thing as drinking His blood?

 

[Soutane]

Answer: taking a sip of wine or thimble full and a chip of bread was taken from a Mithra ritual. When Christ said do this in remembrance of me what was he doing? he was partying it up with the passover feast. Lets remember Christ as the down to earth Lord who gave us life in him, and celebrated often just as the disciple did even after his death.

In a pig’s eye,it was taken from a mithra ritual.Don’t drop stink bombs and run.Assertions require proof.Follow who’s way-yours?No thanks,I’ll follow Christ in the Church HE created-not some ersatz man created organization.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Keep that in mind when you read this verses from 1Corinthians:

Yes, I agree with that verse because they werent eating together as a body instead they were getting drunk off of the wine, so Paul had to correct them so that they would finally eat and drink together as one body

Soutane - Jesus called himself the truth, the life, and the WAY. The first believers were called “followers of the way”

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know how you can square this with Scripture:

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:27-28

“he who eats my flesh** and drinks my blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:54

It seems to me that Christ is saying that the blood, at least, ought to be drunk by all of us.

I think that a person ought to eat the body also, if possible, but He doesn’t explicitly say that we all ought to do so, as He did of drinking the blood.

I don’t think this is an adequate argument. Even if it’s true, you surely don’t think that eating His body is the same thing as drinking His blood?

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.

Secondly - what are you suggesting? If you take His words as literally as you suggest, then it would mean that every single person in the congregation must go up for communion and has no option not to do so, as well as consuming both Host and Chalice.

It is entirely optional, and entirely unnecessary, for any person other than the priest to receive. Jesus commanded His priests, the Apostles, to receive. He didn’t make that a blanket command that everybody must receive at every Mass. If our receiving at all is optional, then SO is our choice of host, chalice or both. Neither can possibly be obligatory for laypeople.

Remember Jesus’ words in John 6 - ‘I am the bread of life … if you eat of this bread you shall live forever’. Definitely gives the impression that the BREAD (his flesh for the life of the world) is of primary importance, and necessary for life, and that the blood isn’t really of separate and distinct import.

 

[SIA]

Semantics aside (important though it is to name things properly for what they are), each element of the Eucharist (host and chalice) in and of itself contains Christ whole and entire - body AND blood, soul AND divinity.

Christ doesn’t split himself off into bits such that the Eucharist is incomplete if we do not drink the cup.

Did he tell you that?

 

[LilyM]

Did he tell you that?

He gave me the brain which figured it out. He does let me use it sometimes, you know.

So tell me, what ‘bit’ of Him did you get last time you received Communion? A bit of toenail? A bit of eyeball or hair? A couple of red cells? Or was it some platelets or plasma instead?

 

[SIA]

He gave me the brain which figured it out. He does let me use it sometimes, you know.

So tell me, what ‘bit’ of Him did you get last time you received Communion? A bit of toenail? A bit of eyeball or hair? A couple of red cells? Or was it some platelets or plasma instead?

Scripture doesn’t depict and therefore it’s a non-issue. I would seriously look at why the cup isn’t passed as your mass though. It is a required offering to receivers in the Anglican church I know and for obvious reasons.

 

[sambos671]

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.

Secondly - what are you suggesting? If you take His words as literally as you suggest, then it would mean that every single person in the congregation must go up for communion and has no option not to do so, as well as consuming both Host and Chalice.

It is entirely optional, and entirely unnecessary, for any person other than the priest to receive. Jesus commanded His priests, the Apostles, to receive. He didn’t make that a blanket command that everybody must receive at every Mass. If our receiving at all is optional, then SO is our choice of host, chalice or both. Neither can possibly be obligatory for laypeople.
Remember Jesus’ words in John 6 - ‘I am the bread of life … if you eat of this bread you shall live forever’. Definitely gives the impression that the BREAD (his flesh for the life of the world) is of primary importance, and necessary for life, and that the blood isn’t really of separate and distinct import.

What about what this verse implies?

5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

or this one?

9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

or this one?

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen

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.

 

[chris_molter]

It is a required offering to receivers in the Anglican church I know and for obvious reasons.

Technically, it isn’t. Anglicans generally hold to the same theology (that the entirety of Christ is in both species) and therefore communion can be offered under one alone if necessary.