Everybody drinking from the same cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter copland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caesar said:
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right of the priest.
Click to expand...
Almost right. The last sentence is wholly and incompletely incorrect and at odds with objective history. The chalice is licitly offered to the faithful on approval by the bishop as per the direction of the Holy See. Even before that was the case, ie, during the time when the laity didn’t regularly rec. from the chalice, there were special occasions and times when they could, as individuals. It was not the special purview of the priesthood.
 
Caesar said:
No sanitary problems when we keep the Chalice away from the laity. Only the priest should be recieving the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
Tell that to our Eastern Catholic bretheren that receive by intinction.
 
copland said:
I just got confirmed into the Church last night. My wife who is not Catholic was there, and she asked me about why everyone drank from the same cup during communion. She was asking concerning sanitary reasons. It is not an issue to me but I would like to get some feedback so I can answer her intelligently. Thank you!
Click to expand...
The contents is Christ’s very own Blood! What more is needed to draw someone to receive it. We receive Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the form of bread individually and receive His Blood, Body, Soul and Divinity from the chalice in a communial manner.
 
Question: Even if we don’t receive from the Chalice, shouldn’t we make an act of reverence when we pass by the Most Precious Blood?
 
Caesar said:
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right of the priest.
Click to expand...
Caesar, darlin’! 👋
Please, will you provide a link that backs this sentence up?
That, or just admit that you might be mistaken.
Either way, we can then all continue on our merry ways here at the CAF.
:blessyou:
 
StephanieC said:
Caesar, darlin’! 👋
Please, will you provide a link that backs this sentence up?
That, or just admit that you might be mistaken.
Either way, we can then all continue on our merry ways here at the CAF.
:blessyou:
Click to expand...
Caesar’s wording may be a bit off–but the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice is the only one bound to receive both species.

Council of Trent----21 Session

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

SESSION THE TWENTY-FIRST,
Being the fifth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, MDLXII.

[DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS]

CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.

Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Walking_Home;1675243 said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Caesar’s wording may be a bit off–but the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice is the only one bound to receive both species.

“Bound” is different from “should,” quite a “bit” different.

%between%
Click to expand...
I responded to StephanieC’s post below. Caesar in that post used the word “right”. Since the priest is the only one bound to receive under both species —it is his right.

We are not bound by divine right to commune under both species.

StephanieC Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right of the priest.

Caesar, darlin’!
Please, will you provide a link that backs this sentence up?
That, or just admit that you might be mistaken.
Either way, we can then all continue on our merry ways here at the CAF.
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
JKirkLVNV;1675262:
I responded to StephanieC’s post below. Caesar in that post used the word “right”. Since the priest is the only one bound to receive under both species —it is his right.

We are not bound by divine right to commune under both species.

StephanieC Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right
Click to expand...
of the priest.

Caesar, darlin’!
Please, will you provide a link that backs this sentence up?
That, or just admit that you might be mistaken.
Either way, we can then all continue on our merry ways here at the CAF.

But I don’t think that’s right,either. “Bound” mean “obligated.” A right is something one MAY exercise or not. The priest has to, we may, where the lawful authority permits it.
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Walking_Home;1675282:
But I don’t think that’s right,either. “Bound” mean “obligated.” A right is something one MAY exercise or not. The priest has to, we may, where the lawful authority permits it.
Click to expand...
Because the priest is bound–obligated–communion under both species is by divine right only his.
Click to expand...
 
Caesar said:
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right of the priest.
Click to expand...
…who puts his pants on one leg at a time…just like the rest of us…😃
 
Julianna said:
…who puts his pants on one leg at a time…just like the rest of us…😃
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by this—but the priest is the only one who offers the Holy Sacrifice in persona christi—we do not.
 
Walking_Home said:
I am not sure what you mean by this—but the priest is the only one who offers the Holy Sacrifice in persona christi—we do not.
Click to expand...
yes…you are correct…on the offering of the Holy Sacrifice…but does that make him any less or any more human? Is he better than us, because he is a priest? That is what I meant. Caesar is still in the dark ages when priests resided on Mt Olympus…guess what…they are just as “earthly” and “mortal” as the rest of us.
 
Julianna said:
yes…you are correct…on the offering of the Holy Sacrifice…but does that make him any less or any more human? Is he better than us, because he is a priest? That is what I meant. Caesar is still in the dark ages when priests resided on Mt Olympus…guess what…they are just as “earthly” and “mortal” as the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Julianna Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesar
Because the Eucharist is fully in one of the species, it is not necessary to partake from the Chalice. That is the right of the priest.

…who puts his pants on one leg at a time…just like the rest of us…​

You are correct—they are just as human as we are—but a priest is something we are not—they are ordained. That is the difference between us and a priest-----a BIG difference.
 
Walking_Home said:
JKirkLVNV;1675466:
I agree–the Church may extent the Chalice to the laity—but only the priest has the right to the Chalice.
Click to expand...
And we may be talking past each other: The post I’m refering to is #7, in which the poster said this:

“Only the priest should be recieving the Precious Blood.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top