Eucharist via one species...

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I understand the scholastic articulation of the ‘common’ essense between the two species but is this getting philosophy in the way of the direct commandments of our Lord and Saviour?

Again, I say… Except…ye drink my blood…

Such an act appears to do injury to the Divine Blood of Christ.

---

Did you miss the following in (DR) John 6. These too are the words of our Lord.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_PW3.HTM

48 I am the bread of life.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

 

[El_Paulo]

I don’t think there are many here who are denying that the body, blood, soul and divinity aren’t present in both the bread and the wine.

However, since we ouselves are soul and matter (thus ‘sign value’ actually is important) it makes sense that communion under both kinds brings out the symbolism of the sacrifice in a deeply profound way. Of course, it doesn’t diminish Christ’s real presence in either the bread or the wine. The bread and the wine are for OUR benefit and NOT God’s. It’s a case of live and let live - the Church ALLOWS us this preference.

For me, it’s a similar thing to Baptism - full emersion would be the ideal expression of the spiritual reality - but the Church tells us that even without, the sacrament is whole and complete. Nevertheless, I would have liked a good dunking!!

 

[chrisb]

I didn’t open this topic to suggest that ‘one’ species is ‘more’ complete than the other but I do find that I don’t see laity walking past the Body to only drink the Blood…

This kinda rationale is abusive of the presence of God in the Eucharist which is of ‘two’ signs (i.e. Bread and Wine).

To walk by the Blood of Christ without revenerantly taking it in is blasphemy (i.e. doing injury to God).

Jesus Christ didn’t institute the Eucharist to have us picking and choosing this or that but coming to the Table of Heaven and eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Two Acts. Not One. All that other conjecture is just that, conjecture and has no place when be come before the Lord’s Table.

This isn’t about the ‘unity of the essenses’. This is about doing what the Lord told us to do. Eat and Drink…

I am ashamed that we all don’t appear to get that.

 

[Walking_Home]

I didn’t open this topic to suggest that ‘one’ species is ‘more’ complete than the other but I do find that I don’t see laity walking past the Body to only drink the Blood…

This kinda rationale is abusive of the presence of God in the Eucharist which is of ‘two’ signs (i.e. Bread and Wine).

To walk by the Blood of Christ without revenerantly taking it in is blasphemy (i.e. doing injury to God).

Jesus Christ didn’t institute the Eucharist to have us picking and choosing this or that but coming to the Table of Heaven and eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Two Acts. Not One. All that other conjecture is just that, conjecture and has no place when be come before the Lord’s Table.

This isn’t about the ‘unity of the essenses’. This is about doing what the Lord told us to do. Eat and Drink…

I am ashamed that we all don’t appear to get that.

---

So do you consider our Lord blasphemous for saying at various times to eat his Flesh without saying to drink His Blood.

 

[SnorterLuster]

In my life, I have never received the cup at Holy Communion. I am no theologian, and my faith is simple. When I receive the Body of Christ, I am receiving the living Christ. His body could not live without blood, so it is present in the Host. The cup of Sacred Blood likewise has to be also the body because blood by itself is not the complete Christ.

The Church says receiving both species is a fuller sign. I don’t know what that means. When I receive the Body of Christ, what sign does the cup of Sacred Blood fulfill that the Body & Blood in the form of the Host doesn’t fulfill? I don’t get more Grace by getting two Hosts or by drinking from the cup. So exactly what sign am I supposed to be getting?

 

[AlexV]

Chris’ views grow more and more outrageous, and are utterly un-Catholic. The statement that it is “blasphemous” not to receive from the Chalice at Mass is truly one of the most ludicrous remarks I have ever read on these fora.

 

[Andruschak]

Chris’ views grow more and more outrageous, and are utterly un-Catholic. The statement that it is “blasphemous” not to receive from the Chalice at Mass is truly one of the most ludicrous remarks I have ever read on these fora.

Not to worry. I have read this thread, and have NO qualms whatsoever about receiving the wafer ONLY. Jesus knows I am a Recovered Alcoholic (and probably helped quite a bit to get me to 22 years sobriety). Good enough for me.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I didn’t open this topic to suggest that ‘one’ species is ‘more’ complete than the other but I do find that I don’t see laity walking past the Body to only drink the Blood…

This kinda rationale is abusive of the presence of God in the Eucharist which is of ‘two’ signs (i.e. Bread and Wine).

To walk by the Blood of Christ without revenerantly taking it in is blasphemy (i.e. doing injury to God).

Jesus Christ didn’t institute the Eucharist to have us picking and choosing this or that but coming to the Table of Heaven and eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Two Acts. Not One. All that other conjecture is just that, conjecture and has no place when be come before the Lord’s Table.

This isn’t about the ‘unity of the essenses’. This is about doing what the Lord told us to do. Eat and Drink…

I am ashamed that we all don’t appear to get that.

I wouldn’t pass judgement on why someone doesn’t receive from the Chalice (or one of the Sacred Hosts). There may be a variety of reasons, perfectly valid reasons. According to the Church, for Catholics, the final and ultimate arbiter, one of those valid reasons is that they don’t have to rec. both to rec. Christ in His Fullness, that it is sufficient to rec. one of the Sacred Species. That is clear Catholic teaching. To say that one MUST rec. both is to have fallen into the Ultraquist heresy, for which reason the Church forbade the Chalice to the laity for about 5-6 centuries.

And it isn’t a table. It’s an Altar of Sacrifice. There is a meal element to it, just as there was in Jewish sacrifice, but it wasn’t a “table” kind of meal.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Church says receiving both species is a fuller sign. I don’t know what that means. When I receive the Body of Christ, what sign does the cup of Sacred Blood fulfill that the Body & Blood in the form of the Host doesn’t fulfill? I don’t get more Grace by getting two Hosts or by drinking from the cup. So exactly what sign am I supposed to be getting?

The fullness of the sign has to do with the way that Jesus gave us the Sacrament (and how the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles and all the early Church and our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches receive Holy Communion). But Christ also gave authority to His Church to bind and to loose, which means over the Sacraments as well. No one is constrained to take Both of the Sacred Species. Indeed, there are many who cannot receive the Sacred Host and can only receive from the Chalice.

 

[geovet]

I accept the church teaching but have always felt troubled by it.
I wonder why in the mass we continue to use of the wine at the altar since all is contained in the bread.

George

 

[st_bernard]

---

Did you miss the following in (DR) John 6. These too are the words of our Lord.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_PW3.HTM

48 I am the bread of life.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I find it interesting that you avoided that which lies between…

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. - John 6:54-56 DRB

I believe it largely a non sequitor issue but I can appreciate chrisb’s concern of an attitude of rejecting the Blood of Christ especially if it is one which fosters a sense of the Blood having no value. One must admit that the species are not considered equal as you never see only the Blood offered or only the Blood taken and not the Body. This may well be an imbalanced view of the species, with the Body taking precedence.

When I see lines going to the Blood only and not the Body, perhaps the argument of equality between the species would be affirmed. Until that evidence, I would have to agree that there exists an imbalanced view of the species within the Western Church and it has been fostered by the historic emphasis on the Body at the expense of the Blood.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I find it interesting that you avoided that which lies between…

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. - John 6:54-56 DRB

I believe it largely a non sequitor issue but I can appreciate chrisb’s concern of an attitude of rejecting the Blood of Christ especially if it is one which fosters a sense of the Blood having no value. One must admit that the species are not considered equal as you never see only the Blood offered or only the Blood taken and not the Body. This may well be an imbalanced view of the species, with the Body taking precedence.

When I see lines going to the Blood only and not the Body, perhaps the argument of equality between the species would be affirmed. Until that evidence, I would have to agree that there exists an imbalanced view of the species within the Western Church and it has been fostered by the historic emphasis on the Body at the expense of the Blood.

Pax Vobiscum

---

No I did not avoid it. I did not post it since you provided such.

The verses that I provided were to show you that --just as our Lord said to eat and drink —He also said eat— and did not mention of drinking. So we are following His words.

A Catholic with an orthodox understanding of our doctrine—would never consider one species less then the other. This same Catholic would also full well understand that we receive the Body and Blood , Soul, and Divinity of our risen Lord—who can no longer be separated–in each individual species.

 

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I find it interesting that you avoided that which lies between…

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. - John 6:54-56 DRB

I believe it largely a non sequitor issue but I can appreciate chrisb’s concern of an attitude of rejecting the Blood of Christ especially if it is one which fosters a sense of the Blood having no value. One must admit that the species are not considered equal as you never see only the Blood offered or only the Blood taken and not the Body. This may well be an imbalanced view of the species, with the Body taking precedence.

When I see lines going to the Blood only and not the Body, perhaps the argument of equality between the species would be affirmed. Until that evidence, I would have to agree that there exists an imbalanced view of the species within the Western Church and it has been fostered by the historic emphasis on the Body at the expense of the Blood.

Pax Vobiscum

---

Did our Lord foster a sense that His Blood had no value when he said the Following.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

 

[st_bernard]

---

Did our Lord foster a sense that His Blood had no value when he said the Following.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

Unfortunately these passages aren’t the ones that give us our Eucharistic Formula…

And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. - Luke 22:19-20 DRB

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. - Matthew 26:26-28 DRB

Should we look at the actual Eucharistic Prayers?

Come now we are given a sacrament here and we know the exact formula. Why is it not a good idea to follow the lead of our Lord?

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

Unfortunately these passages aren’t the ones that give us our Eucharistic Formula…

And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. - Luke 22:19-20 DRB

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. - Matthew 26:26-28 DRB

Should we look at the actual Eucharistic Prayers?

Come now we are given a sacrament here and we know the exact formula. Why is it not a good idea to follow the lead of our Lord?

Pax Vobiscum

---

Those were still our Lord’s words.

So do you believe our Lord fostered a sense His blood had no value —since He did not say to drink His Blood.

 

[Woodstock]

There are numerous times in the Bible in which the Lord lays down prescriptions for the Christian life (Unless a man…) They don’t usually come up in discussion of the Eucharist, but they do regularly come up in Catholic apologetics concerning works and salvation. To say that the one passage where Christ says man must eat his flesh means that the wine is not needed because the wine is not enumerated in that same passage invalidates the argument for faith and works because there is a text which says that man must believe (and does not say anything else). So is that the only requirement of salvation is to consume the bread of the Eucharist? No.

The fact is that Christ left us with several commandments and one of them is to drink his blood. The above conversation has focused on whether the blood is in the wafer, but no one has pointed out that you cannot drink a wafer. He said eat AND drink. He gave bread AND wine. Why can’t we just respect the Mystery as Christ himself gave it to us? In two forms. The church considers a Mass where the priest does not consume the wine to be invalid (or illicit or whatever other designations of wrong there are). Why would the option not even be present to the faithful?

I would think traditional priests would love to use intinction.

1. It keeps with a literal rendering of Christ’s words and the traditional understanding of eat and drink
2. It eliminates any possibility of EMHCs
3. It eliminates any possibility of receiving in the hand
4. It does not carry any of the concerns passing the chalice back and forth has with germs or with being knocked over

 

[AlexV]

The quite unCatholic views of several people on this thread is, in part, a sign of the deplorable state of Catholic education and catechesis these days.

Once again. If you receive under one species, you are indeed receiving the WHOLE Christ. If you take the Sacred Host, you are receiving his Body, his Blood, his Soul, and his Divinity. Entire. Undivided. Utterly undivided, in fact.

That’s what matters.

The Church has declared anathema those who argue that you must receive under both species.

It is deeply troubling that posters on these fora would be so misguided as to Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (though not surprising, given the aforementioned state of catechesis we currently suffer).

The one species contains the whole Christ. Christ’s command is indeed being fulfilled…Protestant heretics notwithstanding.

 

[marygraces]

It comes down to simplicity and obedience. When Our Lord is offered under one species, the Sacred Host, we receive the full Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If both are offered we may receive both if we wish, but one is sufficient. The offering of both is a fuller sign of what is contained within - Christ Himself. One does not receive more Christ because of receiving under both species.

Once I recieved but a tiny particle for Holy Communion because I was the last in a long line, yet I received Christ fully, Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity. My soul rejoiced.

We are all at different stages of learning and growth in our faith and products of our times… we must seek to instruct and share with others with charity and clarity.

Hope this helps.

 

[Woodstock]

The quite unCatholic views of several people on this thread is, in part, a sign of the deplorable state of Catholic education and catechesis these days.

It is not poor catechesis to believe it an injustice to not even be offered the Chalice. The church itself says both must be offered and consumed at every Mass. It was a late developed western response to concerns no longer valid to withhold the chalice from the laity. Now that the concerns have passed, there is no longer reason to continue this practice. It is not unCatholic to hold such a view, nor does it come from poor education.

The topic: whether the church should withhold offering the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under both species as Christ commanded when there is no recognizable need to withhold one species from the laity.

Not the topic: Whether the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is present in both species.

Once again. If you receive under one species, you are indeed receiving the WHOLE Christ. If you take the Sacred Host, you are receiving his Body, his Blood, his Soul, and his Divinity. Entire. Undivided. Utterly undivided, in fact.

I haven’t seen anyone argue otherwise.

That’s what matters.

I thought what mattered was that we do what Christ commanded. Not that we understand (though that is good and beneficial) but that we do what He instructed us to do.

The Church has declared anathema those who argue that you must receive under both species.

No one has argued this. The argument, which you continue to ignore, is that the church should OFFER both to all people. Not that all people must receive both.

It is deeply troubling that posters on these fora would be so misguided as to Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (though not surprising, given the aforementioned state of catechesis we currently suffer).

Again, you do not respond to the actual concern raised and instead change the topic.

The one species contains the whole Christ. Christ’s command is indeed being fulfilled…Protestant heretics notwithstanding.

If you think that anyone who believes both the Body and Blood should be offered under the species of both the Bread and Wine to all people present makes the person a Protestant heretic then you are the one with poor catechesis. Christ’s command was for the church to eat and drink in memory of him. That memory is an anemnisis, or a re-living of the Last Supper with all the angels and saints. We do not re-create it, but re-live that time. At that time, Jesus offered both Bread and Wine. If we are becoming present at the Last Supper, I would expect both bread and wine to be offered. The Church shares that expectation. That makes no commentary on the individual choices of those present to receive under one, the other, or both. It simply states that the Church continue to do what Christ told her to do, and that it not hold onto anomalies which were in response to concerns no longer present. Now, would you like to actually answer the reasons raised for the church offering both species to the laity?

 

[Walking_Home]

It is not poor catechesis to believe it an injustice to not even be offered the Chalice. The church itself says both must be offered and consumed at every Mass. It was a late developed western response to concerns no longer valid to withhold the chalice from the laity. Now that the concerns have passed, there is no longer reason to continue this practice. It is not unCatholic to hold such a view, nor does it come from poor education.

The topic: whether the church should withhold offering the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under both species as Christ commanded when there is no recognizable need to withhold one species from the laity.

Not the topic: Whether the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is present in both species.

I haven’t seen anyone argue otherwise.

I thought what mattered was that we do what Christ commanded. Not that we understand (though that is good and beneficial) but that we do what He instructed us to do.

No one has argued this. The argument, which you continue to ignore, is that the church should OFFER both to all people. Not that all people must receive both.

Again, you do not respond to the actual concern raised and instead change the topic.

If you think that anyone who believes both the Body and Blood should be offered under the species of both the Bread and Wine to all people present makes the person a Protestant heretic then you are the one with poor catechesis. Christ’s command was for the church to eat and drink in memory of him. That memory is an anemnisis, or a re-living of the Last Supper with all the angels and saints. We do not re-create it, but re-live that time. At that time, Jesus offered both Bread and Wine. If we are becoming present at the Last Supper, I would expect both bread and wine to be offered. The Church shares that expectation. That makes no commentary on the individual choices of those present to receive under one, the other, or both. It simply states that the Church continue to do what Christ told her to do, and that it not hold onto anomalies which were in response to concerns no longer present. Now, would you like to actually answer the reasons raised for the church offering both species to the laity?

---

Where does the Church command that both species be offered.

For your information —it is bad catechesis—to believe it is unjust to not offer the Chalice.