Before the site crash there were various threads started (Liturgy and Sacrament forum)— as to why the Body was offered but not the Blood. By the tone of the inquiry–it seem the original posters were concerned that they were missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord.
Gratias,
This ‘missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord’ is an interpretation of your concern. It could also well be that they desired the ‘fuller’ sign of the Bread and Wine in their participation of the Holy Eucharist.
This is Incarnational to participate through ‘both’ signs with the Apostles and Saints as they did with Christ Himself. This is not necessarily heresy and in fact if your interpretation of their motive is in error it is clearly ‘not’ heresy. The declaration of heresy is not to be ‘assumed until proven innocent’ but quite the opposite.
The vine produces wine, as the Word produces blood. And both of them drink health to men: wine for the body; blood for the spirit. – Clement of Alexandria 195 AD
To drink the blood of Jesus is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality… As wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man… And the mixture of both - of the water and the Word - is called the Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace. Those who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. - Clement of Alexandria 195 AD
There is no rationale to critize one who desires the fuller sign of the Eucharist under two species. They are justified by Holy Tradition to desire it not because ‘one species’ is invalid nor lacking efficacy but because ‘two species’ is the fuller sign.
In one particular thread—a cradle Catholic (born and raised in the Faith) was surprised to learn that our Lord was complete in each of the species. All her life --she had been under the impression that the Body was just the Body and the Blood was just the Blood. Receiving under both species re-enforced this ideology. If she believed this—there are others.
This appears more an example of poor catechesis than heresy. If this individual is not obstinate in their error there are no grounds for a declaration of heresy here. Regardless such declarations are not the prerogative of Laity or apologists but the Bishops and the Pope.
It was about a seminarian who had encounter a group of “Catholics” who denied the divinity of our Lord Christ.
Again if this a position held not in obstinacy of the truth then again there are no grounds to declare them heretical. Again this appears to be a case of poor catechesis not heresy.
So do heresies ever completely fade away. Or do they lie dormant —waiting for the right environment–to rear up again.
A simple ‘fear of heresy’ is not grounds for the exercise of discipline on the Laity.
You and others here are far too quick to jump to conclusions. I’m glad that you are all not members of the clergy.