Is this the extroadinary form?

[wasserfall]

I beg to differ. I have received in both kinds in the far east, in Africa and in most countries in Europe.

I lived in Germany for four years and most parishes did not offer Holy Communion under both kinds (some did).

I have never seen Holy Communion under both kinds in the far east – although, freely, I have not visited all countries and I have never gone to masses for foreigners.

 

[arkwright]

That’s what he commanded his priests to do (they were the only ones in the upper room), and they do “eat and drink” at every Mass, but as laity, we only need receive under one form, and to say that Jesus commanded us to receive in both forms is a gross misinterpretation of the scriptures. We have the church to interpret these things, and the church has made it clear that we only need to receive under the form of bread to receive the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord.

The logic of this is that the laity should not receive Holy Communion at all if Jesus’ words were only for priests .

No . Jesus’ words are for all who participate in the Eucharist .

He commanded that we take and eat and that we take and drink .

His words are crystal clear .

 

[superamazingman]

The logic of this is that the laity should not receive Holy Communion at all if Jesus’ words were only for priests .

No . Jesus’ words are for all who participate in the Eucharist .

He commanded that we take and eat and that we take and drink .

His words are crystal clear .

You don’t have to take my word for it. The church has spoken clearly that you only need to receive in one form to receive the whole Jesus.

You know this attitude is one of the biggest reasons why communion under both forms was stopped universally the first time around, right?

 

[superamazingman]

And that is an excellent reason to discontinue communion under both kinds today.
Another excellent reason is to combat errors like those Arkwright is making.

Exactly. Those trying to bring in communion in both forms are just trying to drag the church backwards.

 

[liturgyluver]

You don’t have to take my word for it. The church has spoken clearly that you only need to receive in one form to receive the whole Jesus.

You know this attitude is one of the biggest reasons why communion under both forms was stopped universally the first time around, right?

Wrong. That had nothing to do with it.

 

[ProVobis]

The logic of this is that the laity should not receive Holy Communion at all if Jesus’ words were only for priests .

This is true to some extent. In the OT only the priest’s consumption of the sacrifice offered was necessary to complete the sacrifice. And priests in the NT follow the order of Abel, Melchizedek, and Abraham. It says something to this effect in the Roman Canon and EP1.

 

[arkwright]

Another excellent reason is to combat errors like those Arkwright is making.

What errors am I making ?

Surely you are not inferring that Jesus made errors when he commanded that we both eat AND drink .

His command is clear .

 

[wasserfall]

What errors am I making ?

Surely you are not inferring that Jesus made errors when he commanded that we both eat AND drink .

His command is clear .

We both eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ whenever we receive one species alone.

Here are some canons from the Council of Trent for your perusal:
*
If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.
*

 

[Dorothy]

And so you should .

Jesus commanded that we both take and eat and that we take and drink .

Communion under both kinds , in the form of bread and in the form of wine , is a commandment of Jesus .

Our Lord Jesus Christ is present, whole and entire, even if we receive only a crumb of the Eucharist, and/or a drop of the recious Blood.

His Precious Blood is not separated from His Body, when we receive Him in the Eucharist we receive the Risen Lord!

However, the Mass must use both species, so as to show the separation of His Blood from His Body on the cross for us.

Jesus said “He who hears you hears me”. When the Magisterium of the Church teaches us about the mysteries of the Sacraments we need to obey and be at peace.

 

[superamazingman]

What errors am I making ?

Surely you are not inferring that Jesus made errors when he commanded that we both eat AND drink .

His command is clear .

The church is also clear that you only need to receive one to receive the whole Christ.

As with many biblical passages, if you want to obey the church and her interpretation, and trust her 2000 years of wisdom, go right ahead. Be my guest. However, if you want to interpret this passage yourself, feel free to join another protestant church. Self-interpretation is their specialty.

 

[arkwright]

We both eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ whenever we receive one species alone.

Yes , but if you pick up your Bible and read the accounts of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist you will see His words which command us to take and eat of His Body in the form of bread AND to drink of His Blood in the form of wine .

Jesus is Lord . He instituted the Sacrament . He commanded how it should be received .

He as Lord and God has to be obeyed .

 

[ProVobis]

Yes , but if you pick up your Bible and read the accounts of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist you will see His words which command us to take and eat of His Body in the form of bread AND to drink of His Blood in the form of wine .

Jesus is Lord . He instituted the Sacrament . He commanded how it should be received .

He as Lord and God has to be obeyed .

That command went to His Apostles. And His Apostles tell us how the rest of us should accept Him, through confession, etc.