Half communion? Whatsup?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartyL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My church at home doesn’t offer both, probably because it’s so huge… but I’ve noticed that most people don’t take it when it is offered, so I guess the problem must be not having enough ministers for all the lines :eek: It does bother me a little that we don’t get it, though, but only since the parishes I’ve been to since being at school (three over four years) all offered both.

Protestants are so dotty sometimes… they reject some of our key teachings and then complain they can’t fully participate :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Katholikos:
The mere symbols used in your church (you won’t reveal your denomination) are not SPECIES. They are plain old crackers and grape juice or Wonder bread and hot chocolate – or whatever symbols your denomination offers to their adherents – but they are definitely not “species,” and I doubt that your denom refers to them as “species.”

You’re going against what God says by rejecting his Real Presence in the Eucharist.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.” Jn 6:53

:yup: Peace, Jay
Jay, Your beef should not be with me. Its Jesus Words not mine. You take it up with Him. :confused: God Bless
 
Jay, Your beef should not be with me. Its Jesus Words not mine
And Jesus was speaking to His apostles at the time, not to every member of the faithful.
 
40.png
drforjc:
And Jesus was speaking to His apostles at the time, not to every member of the faithful.
So His Words were for only the appostles? INTERESTING? :confused:
 
I’ve been away for a few days. Here’s some thoughts on this thread:
  1. No, when I go to RC mass, I don’t participate in the Eucharist. (I also DO NOT pray to Mary, or consider my attendance at a mass to be good work!) Instead, I focus on a lot of the similarities.
  2. Regarding taking one or the other, and not both, seems to me to be a human doctrine creeping into the words of institution spoken by Christ. Indeed, this was quite an issue during the beginning of the Reformation (who wanted to know what a “Reformed Catholic” is?) when Catholic practice actually was to withhold the Blood from the laity, and reserving it only for the officiant. You can read a bit about the issue in “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg,” (Luther, 1523) and “The Smalcald Articles,” no. VI (Luther, 1538).
  3. Even if the Council of Constance, in 1415, decreed the doctrine of sacramental concomitance (that the whole body and the whole blood of Christ are under the form of the bread alone), WHY would a parish as an ordinary course of business choose to ignore Chirst’s instruction to partake of both the bread and the wine? What spiritual benefit can possibly accrue?
  4. Who could possibly believe that since Christ was talking to his disciples on the point, it only applies to disciples? Under that argument, since Christ never actually has sat down in front of you and spoken His will, you can disregard what he said to anybody 2000 years ago.
MartyL
 
40.png
MartyL:
I’ve been away for a few days. Here’s some thoughts on this thread:
  1. No, when I go to RC mass, I don’t participate in the Eucharist. (I also DO NOT pray to Mary, or consider my attendance at a mass to be good work!) Instead, I focus on a lot of the similarities.
  2. Regarding taking one or the other, and not both, seems to me to be a human doctrine creeping into the words of institution spoken by Christ. Indeed, this was quite an issue during the beginning of the Reformation (who wanted to know what a “Reformed Catholic” is?) when Catholic practice actually was to withhold the Blood from the laity, and reserving it only for the officiant. You can read a bit about the issue in “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg,” (Luther, 1523) and “The Smalcald Articles,” no. VI (Luther, 1538).
  3. Even if the Council of Constance, in 1415, decreed the doctrine of sacramental concomitance (that the whole body and the whole blood of Christ are under the form of the bread alone), WHY would a parish as an ordinary course of business choose to ignore Chirst’s instruction to partake of both the bread and the wine? What spiritual benefit can possibly accrue?
  4. Who could possibly believe that since Christ was talking to his disciples on the point, it only applies to disciples? Under that argument, since Christ never actually has sat down in front of you and spoken His will, you can disregard what he said to anybody 2000 years ago.
MartyL
If your that interested in getting a straight answer on this subject, I suggest you go to the ask an apologist forum.
 
So His Words were for only the appostles? INTERESTING
In context, He was speaking to them. That’s why, in order to have a valid mass, a priest must consume both species.
The faithful receiving communion certainly do receive His Body and Blood under either or both forms since the living, entire Christ is present under each form.
 
Since the flu season started in Colorado we have people who only do part even though both are offered, and there are people that do not participate.

Kat
 
Is “Reformed Catholic” a valid name for Lutheran? Just wondering.

Thanks,

Mark (formed Catholic)
 
Hello MartyL,

Is “Reformed Catholic” a valid name for Lutheran? Just wondering.

Mark (Formed Catholic)
 
40.png
MartyL:
Hey John … you’re off topic.

JKirk: But God through Jesus says to do both. Doesn’t that count for something?

MartyL
God told His Apostles to receive both,… and they ( the Bishops ) still do as far as I can tell.
 
To MartyL:

When one receives communion under either bread or wine one receives Christ completely. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and the blood of the Lord.” 1Cor11:27 RSV
 
40.png
banjo:
To MartyL:

When one receives communion under either bread or wine one receives Christ completely. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and the blood of the Lord.” 1Cor11:27 RSV
Vs.26 says every time,then you eat this bread and drink this cup,you proclaim the death of the Lord until He come. EAT AND DRINK. Make any sense? Its not either or.? :confused: God Bless.
 
40.png
MartyL:
when I go to a RC mass, do the priests only give out those little waffers? What happened to the blood?
Where do you go where they don’t give the cup? I have not seen that at any Catholic Church I’ve attended since becoming Catholic. Though Eucharist under either species is complete.
 
Spokenword,
The early church records bringing communion to the sick under the form of bread alone. They did not usually bring a container of the consecrated wine. Seems obvious to me that they had the correct understanding of the Eucharist-- Christ is present, whole and entire, under either species.
 
40.png
drforjc:
Spokenword,
The early church records bringing communion to the sick under the form of bread alone. They did not usually bring a container of the consecrated wine. Seems obvious to me that they had the correct understanding of the Eucharist-- Christ is present, whole and entire, under either species.
Hi drforj, Im only going by what Jesus said ,not what man has said. :confused: God Bless
 
Protestants form their opinions about how Christianity is to be practiced by reading a translation of a translation of a translation (from spoken Aramaic to hand-written Greek to printed English). The earliest nearly complete biblical manuscripts in the original Greek that are available to us date from the fourth century. There are no original “autographs” in the sacred author’s own handwriting. The Catholic Church made every copy of the Christian Scriptures that exists and continued to copy them by hand, by candlelight – arduously, painfully, carefully – for fifteen centuries, until the printing press was invented.

The Catholic Church was present when the Apostles walked this earth and learned her doctrines and practices from them – not from words written on a page. In fact, she herself wrote the New Testament that Protestants love to quote.

Protestants get so confused by the words because they lack the compass for navigating them and learning their true meaning – the context of the*** oral*** teaching of the Apostles. The Church that wrote the NT alone knows what the words in it mean.

Protestants have a passion for parsing words. It’s a waste of time. As former Presbyterian pastor and biblical scholar Dr. Scott Hahn says, Protestants read the menu while Catholics enjoy the meal.

The arguments made on this thread are ludicrous. You who belong to organizations no older than 487 years – and most of them date from the 20th century – try to tell the 2,000-year-old One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who learned from the very lips of the Apostles how she ought to give the Eucharist to her members. And you don’t even believe in the Eucharist!

The Church had already been offering the Holy Sacrifice and gving Holy Communion to the faithful for about a quarter of a century before the first words concerning the Eucharist were ever written in what is now called the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30. St. Paul was reminding the Corinthians of what he had already taught them orally, not teaching them new doctrine. The Catholic Church was nearly 70 before St. John ever wrote his Gospel, with its teaching about the Eucharist (Chapter 6). St. John taught the Church orally for nearly three-quarters of a century before he ever wrote a word.

May you all recognize the Truth. Jesus didn’t leave us a book; He left us a Church and said it would never fail, that he would be with it always. The Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity. It is the record of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church – the New Israel – during the first 100 years of so of its life.

Jesus is present to us through His Church now. The Holy Spirit
guides the Church now. The Church cannot teach error in matters of faith or morals. We have Christ’s guarantee. World without end, Amen.

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Protestants form their opinions about how Christianity is to be practiced by reading a translation of a translation of a translation (from spoken Aramaic to hand-written Greek to printed English). The earliest nearly complete biblical manuscripts in the original Greek that are available to us date from the fourth century. There are no original “autographs” in the sacred author’s own handwriting. The Catholic Church made every copy of the Christian Scriptures that exists and continued to copy them by hand, by candlelight – arduously, painfully, carefully – for fifteen centuries, until the printing press was invented.

The Catholic Church was present when the Apostles walked this earth and learned her doctrines and practices from them – not from words written on a page. In fact, she herself wrote the New Testament that Protestants love to quote.

Protestants get so confused by the words because they lack the compass for navigating them and learning their true meaning – the context of the*** oral*** teaching of the Apostles. The Church that wrote the NT alone knows what the words in it mean.

Protestants have a passion for parsing words. It’s a waste of time. As former Presbyterian pastor and biblical scholar Dr. Scott Hahn says, Protestants read the menu while Catholics enjoy the meal.

The arguments made on this thread are ludicrous. You who belong to organizations no older than 487 years – and most of them date from the 20th century – try to tell the 2,000-year-old One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who learned from the very lips of the Apostles how she ought to give the Eucharist to her members. And you don’t even believe in the Eucharist!

The Church had already been offering the Holy Sacrifice and gving Holy Communion to the faithful for about a quarter of a century before the first words concerning the Eucharist were ever written in what is now called the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30. St. Paul was reminding the Corinthians of what he had already taught them orally, not teaching them new doctrine. The Catholic Church was nearly 70 before St. John ever wrote his Gospel, with its teaching about the Eucharist (Chapter 6). St. John taught the Church orally for nearly three-quarters of a century before he ever wrote a word.

May you all recognize the Truth. Jesus didn’t leave us a book; He left us a Church and said it would never fail, that he would be with it always. The Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity. It is the record of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church – the New Israel – during the first 100 years of so of its life.

Jesus is present to us through His Church now. The Holy Spirit
guides the Church now. The Church cannot teach error in matters of faith or morals. We have Christ’s guarantee. World without end, Amen.

JMJ Jay
Hi Jay, If you have a problem with what I said you will have to take it up with Jesus. Those are not my words But HIS. Please dont tell me I am in error in quoting Jesus Words. :confused: God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top