Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pious_Mat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
jco2004;2581394:
Silly jco, thinking that the accidents imply the Substance.

When we recieve from a single species, Christ’s command to Eat and Drink are fulfilled in their entirety
Click to expand...
.

We both EAT His Flesh and DRINK His Blood with a single species.

The muscular actions of our throat do not define Drinking His Blood anymore than the nervous action of our eyes seeing bread define the Substance.
Click to expand...
 
paramedicgirl said:
Why would you criticize someone who chooses to only receive the Eucharist? It is perfectly valid.
Click to expand...
“only receive the Eucharist”? Excuse me, but the Eucharist consists of both the Host and the Chalice. The Host by itself is not “the Eucharist”. Joe
 
The primary reason for not allowing everybody to drink from the cup was disease, mainly the plagues. People knew 1,000 years ago that disease can be spread orally very easily, and we still know that today. To have hundreds of people drinking from the same cup is filthy and disgusting, and it is a very unhealthy practice. Leave it to the era that brought us “free love” to see nothing wrong with hundreds of people swapping spit from the same cup. :whacky:
 
Brendan said:
jco2004;2581394:
Silly jco, thinking that the accidents imply the Substance.

When we recieve from a single species, Christ’s command to Eat and Drink are fulfilled in their entirety
Click to expand...
.

We both EAT His Flesh and DRINK His Blood with a single species.

The muscular actions of our throat do not define Drinking His Blood anymore than the nervous action of our eyes seeing bread define the Substance.

First of all, accidents do imply the substance, normally. Even St. Thomas would say that. He would just say that the consecrated elements are an exception. But sorry, I don’t believe that the very molecules of the bread which give it it’s appearance, texture, taste, allergic properties for those with gluten allegies, etc. are mere “accidents”. I believe with St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and Pope Gelasius that the substance of the bread remains, although overshadowed by the substance of the Body of Christ, just as Christ was both God and Man.
And I also know that Christ consecrated both the bread and wine, separately, and when He held the bread He said “this is my Body”, and when He held the Cup He said “this is my Blood”, and He didn’t say with either of them, “this is my Body AND my Blood”.
And I also know that He and the apostles knew what “drink” meant, and that Christ said “drink” when He was holding the Cup, not the bread.
And I don’t believe Christ did things in an unnecessary or misleading way. Joe
Click to expand...
 
BigFeet said:
The primary reason for not allowing everybody to drink from the cup was disease, mainly the plagues. People knew 1,000 years ago that disease can be spread orally very easily, and we still know that today. To have hundreds of people drinking from the same cup is filthy and disgusting, and it is a very unhealthy practice. Leave it to the era that brought us “free love” to see nothing wrong with hundreds of people swapping spit from the same cup. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Please read post 37 and 38. To characterize the motive of the Church for the bringing back of offering under both species as related to the “free love” movement and wacky is uncharitable. The Church allows you to partake of only one species but you should not do so for such an uncharitable rationale.
 
jco2004 said:
“only receive the Eucharist”? Excuse me, but the Eucharist consists of both the Host and the Chalice. The Host by itself is not “the Eucharist”. Joe
Click to expand...
It would seem the Ultraquists would agree with you.
 
Pious_Mat said:
They are overused, and no devout Catholic has much use for them, except in (rather ironically) extraordinary circumstances. What could possibly be done to discourage their rampant overuse?

Mat.
Click to expand...
Several solutions:
  1. We need more ordained clergy. We have become too reliant on EMHCs, so this masks the vocations shortage.
  2. Either do not distibute the chalice or implement intinction.
  3. People not in a state of grace must not receive communion.
  4. Receive the host only in the mouth. This is faster then in the hand.
Simple, really…but difficult to implement in the current climate.
 
BigFeet said:
Then you need to read what the Church teaches about transubstantiation…something which protestants reject.
Click to expand...
“The Church” for me means the the entire Church, both East and West, in its unified and unbroken Tradition. What the post-schism western church taught about transubstantiation has to be weighed against what the undivided Church said from the beginning. And in the beginning, it was taught that in the Eucharist there are two things, one earthly, bread and wine, and one heavenly, the body and blood of Christ, although the heavenly is by far more important. Joe
 
jco2004 said:
“The Church” for me means the the entire Church, both East and West, in its unified and unbroken Tradition. What the post-schism western church taught about transubstantiation has to be weighed against what the undivided Church said from the beginning. And in the beginning, it was taught that in the Eucharist there are two things, one earthly, bread and wine, and one heavenly, the body and blood of Christ, although the heavenly is by far more important. Joe
Click to expand...
The Church still teaches that. Our Lord is complete Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in each of the Species. It is my understanding the Orthodox would say it would be heresy to not believe our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity) in each of the species.
 
BigFeet said:
The primary reason for not allowing everybody to drink from the cup was disease, mainly the plagues. People knew 1,000 years ago that disease can be spread orally very easily, and we still know that today. To have hundreds of people drinking from the same cup is filthy and disgusting, and it is a very unhealthy practice. Leave it to the era that brought us “free love” to see nothing wrong with hundreds of people swapping spit from the same cup. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Swapping spit? 🤷 I always take a wee sip, and never allow spit into the cup. Do you?

The person serving always wipes the cup before the next person consumes.

My personal belief is that Christ is not going to punish me for consuming His Precious Blood by allowing my to become infected with some serious disease. Germs may live in ordinary matter, but not in the blood of our Lord! (just my opinion, not quoting anything verifiable in the GIRM…😉 )
 
Walking_Home said:
It is my understanding the Orthodox would say it would be heresy to not believe our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity) in each of the species.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that your understanding is correct, and I say that as one pretty familiar with Orthodox theology and practice. I know for a fact that the Orthodox have always administered both species in their liturgies. Joe
 
sandraladeda said:
My personal belief is that Christ is not going to punish me for consuming His Precious Blood by allowing my to become infected with some serious disease. Germs may live in ordinary matter, but not in the blood of our Lord! (just my opinion, not quoting anything verifiable in the GIRM…😉 )
Click to expand...
Good for you! Joe
 
sandraladeda said:
My personal belief is that Christ is not going to punish me for consuming His Precious Blood by allowing my to become infected with some serious disease. Germs may live in ordinary matter, but not in the blood of our Lord! (just my opinion, not quoting anything verifiable in the GIRM…😉 )
Click to expand...
It’s the substance that changes into Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. The accidents remain in their totality. Hence, if you were to take the consecrated wine to a laboratory (as has been done in the past), you would find that the accidents of wine and all of its properties still exist…and so does all of the spit and germs that are added by hundreds of mouths.

That’s why our less educated ancestors in the middle ages stopped receiving from the cup. Even with their limited knowledge of science and medicine, they knew that drinking from the cup was spreading the plague and literally killing people. I doubt that they felt that “Christ was punishing them for consuming His Precious Blood”, or for not having enough faith. They just logically put two and two together after seeing the results.

Several of my friends who are priests stopped offering the cup to laity shortly after they were ordained. They could see all of the disgusting things swimming and floating in the Precious Blood after the cup was shared, and they were the ones that had to consume the remaining contents of the cup after it had been distributed to all of their parishioners. One of the priests said that all of the “disgusting crud” being added to the Precious Blood by all of those mouths was actually profaning our Lord. “Would you spit on a crucifix? And that is only a symbol!” Another priest documented his increase in illnesses that occurred when he shared the cup, and how he returned to normal health after he stopped sharing the cup.

It’s not the reception of our Lord’s Precious Blood that’s at issue here. It’s the method of distribution, and how it takes extraordinary numbers of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to distribute Him in what has been proven to be a truly unsanitary manner.
 
jco2004 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

It is my understanding the Orthodox would say it would be heresy to not believe our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity) in each of the species.

I do not believe that your understanding is correct, and I say that as one pretty familiar with Orthodox theology and practice. I know for a fact that the Orthodox have always administered both species in their liturgies. Joe
Click to expand...
It is their tradition to administer both species. Just to clarify–go ahead and ask them over at the Eastern forum. Ask the Orthodox if they believe our Lord Christ is not complete in each of the species. For exp.–the Bread becomes only the Body, etc.
 
sandraladeda said:
Swapping spit? 🤷 I always take a wee sip, and never allow spit into the cup. Do you?

The person serving always wipes the cup before the next person consumes.

My personal belief is that Christ is not going to punish me for consuming His Precious Blood by allowing my to become infected with some serious disease. Germs may live in ordinary matter, but not in the blood of our Lord! (just my opinion, not quoting anything verifiable in the GIRM…😉 )
Click to expand...
It is not punishment from God. God allows life to happen to us. Just as we can catch the flu thru contact–the same can happen with the Chalice. God allows life to happen—we get sick, have accidents, etc.
 
BigFeet said:
It’s the substance that changes into Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. The accidents remain in their totality. Hence, if you were to take the consecrated wine to a laboratory (as has been done in the past), you would find that the accidents of wine and all of its properties still exist…and so does all of the spit and germs that are added by hundreds of mouths.

That’s why our less educated ancestors in the middle ages stopped receiving from the cup. Even with their limited knowledge of science and medicine, they knew that drinking from the cup was spreading the plague and literally killing people. I doubt that they felt that “Christ was punishing them for consuming His Precious Blood”, or for not having enough faith. They just logically put two and two together after seeing the results.

Several of my friends who are priests stopped offering the cup to laity shortly after they were ordained. They could see all of the disgusting things swimming and floating in the Precious Blood after the cup was shared, and they were the ones that had to consume the remaining contents of the cup after it had been distributed to all of their parishioners. One of the priests said that all of the “disgusting crud” being added to the Precious Blood by all of those mouths was actually profaning our Lord. “Would you spit on a crucifix? And that is only a symbol!” Another priest documented his increase in illnesses that occurred when he shared the cup, and how he returned to normal health after he stopped sharing the cup.

It’s not the reception of our Lord’s Precious Blood that’s at issue here. It’s the method of distribution, and how it takes extraordinary numbers of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to distribute Him in what has been proven to be a truly unsanitary manner.
Click to expand...
At my church, it is the EMHC who consumes the remaining blood from the chalice. Is that wrong?
 
paramedicgirl said:
At my church, it is the EMHC who consumes the remaining blood from the chalice. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
According to Redemtionis Sacramentum, paragraph 195, “whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.”

The pastor of the parish I used to attend was so grossed out by the filth in the Precious Blood after it was distributed to the laity, that he would always have an EMHC drink whatever remained. Although he himself would never consider drinking from the cup after everybody else did, he chose to continue the practice of making it available to the laity because of their desire for it within that parish.

I also know of another priest who wouldn’t finish the remaining Precious Blood because of his struggle with alcoholism…a sip was all he would allow himself. There again, an EMHC would finish whatever remained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top