No wine at first communion mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter simmie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Both sacred species should be offered to all eligible all the time. Theology should not trump tradition.
Click to expand...
Even if we do not agree, rules are rules - that’s the joy of being Catholic! 🙂

If the priest is allowed to make this call, then that is his perogative.

Nonetheless I totally agree with you in principle, but of course this is not an issue on our side of the aisle.
 
arkwright said:
That is good to hear , for at the Last Supper Jesus commanded that the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND that the consecrated wine be taken and drunk .

Jesus’ command is so clear and straightforward . Take and eat of His Body in the form of bread . Take and drink of His Blood in the form of wine .
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter whether both is offered to everyone. By the priest doing both, Jesus’ command is being followed.
 
arkwright said:
That is good to hear , for at the Last Supper Jesus commanded that the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND that the consecrated wine be taken and drunk .

Jesus’ command is so clear and straightforward . Take and eat of His Body in the form of bread . Take and drink of His Blood in the form of wine .
Click to expand...
Both species are not required because we receive the body AND blood of Jesus when consuming the Host.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.
 
thistle said:
Both species are not required because we receive the body AND blood of Jesus when consuming the Host.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.
Click to expand...
You are misinterpreting the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church is that Jesus is resurrected and alive, therefore fully present in each of the sacred species. What the Church condemns is those who believe that you need to receive both to fully receive Christ, not just merely receiving both.
 
ConstantineTG said:
You are misinterpreting the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church is that Jesus is resurrected and alive, therefore fully present in each of the sacred species. What the Church condemns is those who believe that you need to receive both to fully receive Christ, not just merely receiving both.
Click to expand...
That’s what I said.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Both sacred species should be offered to all eligible all the time. Theology should not trump tradition.
Click to expand...
And didn’t Jesus command that both the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND the consecrated wine be taken and drunk ?
 
ConstantineTG said:
You are misinterpreting the teaching of the Church…
Click to expand...
Let us not do that!
Here is the teaching of the Church:

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.

If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.
 
Brendan said:
It is not widely used in the Roman practice, but Church law permits it “always and everywhere”

Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the CDWDS, to the US Bishops

adoremus.org/1106ExtraordinaryMinisters.html
Click to expand...
It’s self intinction that I’m thinking of. I believe that is not licit.
If Communion in both kinds is offered in these circumstances, it may be administered by intinction, as Cardinal Arinze’s letter noted:
Click to expand...
Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
 
triumphguy said:
It’s self intinction that I’m thinking of. I believe that is not licit.
Click to expand...
You are correct that self intinction is not permitted ( Redemptionis Sacramentum #104). But your comment was in regards to Eastern Practices
Intinction is not a Roman Catholic practice ordinarily. It’s an Eastern practice.
Click to expand...
Self Intinction is prohibited in the East as well.

Intinction by the priest is mandatory in the Byzantine Rites, and a legitimate option ‘always and everywhere’ in the Roman Rite.

FYI, both of my parents recieved the First Communion via Intinction back in the 30’s\40’s under the Tridentine Rite. Holy Communion was also offered in that way at Holy Thursday Mass, Easter Sunday and the Feast of the Most Precious Blood. Granted, this iwas in Ireland, that option seems to have been rarely used in the US.
 
Brendan said:
You are correct that self intinction is not permitted ( Redemptionis Sacramentum #104). But your comment was in regards to Eastern Practices

Self Intinction is prohibited in the East as well.

Intinction by the priest is mandatory in the Byzantine Rites, and a legitimate option ‘always and everywhere’ in the Roman Rite.

FYI, both of my parents recieved the First Communion via Intinction back in the 30’s\40’s under the Tridentine Rite. Holy Communion was also offered in that way at Holy Thursday Mass, Easter Sunday and the Feast of the Most Precious Blood. Granted, this iwas in Ireland, that option seems to have been rarely used in the US.
Click to expand...
There ya go: I thought self intinction was licit in the East but not in the West.
 
arkwright said:
And didn’t Jesus command that both the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND the consecrated wine be taken and drunk ?
Click to expand...
Actually no, He didn’t

He said, “Take and eat, this is my Body” and “Take and drink, This is my Blood”

But that is accomplished in a single species. Each specices is the exact same Substance, that of Christ Himself. The only difference (and I repeat, the ONLY difference) is how they appear to our senses.

You comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding on the true nature of Transsubstantiation.

The elements of wine and bread no longer exists, BOTH are replaced by the person of Christ.

Thus the species of bread is, in reality, living flesh and flowing blood. Our senses do not detect that, in the same way as they do not detect the consumtion of the full, person, fully human and fully Divine.

When we consume the smallest particle of the species of bread, we eat flesh and drink blood, though we do not detect that with our senses.

Christ’s command is completely fulfilled when a person consumes the smallest crumb of the species of bread, or the tiniest sip of the species of wine. Flesh is eaten and blood is consumed.

That is why the Church has the authority to iimit, or even ban, the offering of both species. The Church cannot act against the commands of Christ, but yet the Holy Spirit confirmed (In Trent) that the Church has the authority to do exactly what you decry)

In addition, you cannot assume that the commands given at the Last Supper are to apply in their entirety to the laity; Christ was addressing the Apostles, who were Bishops. Bishops (and priests) at Mass consume both species.

Look at the command “Do this in memory of me”. The Church looks at that command as a mandate for the Sacerdotal priesthood to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. You or I cannot read Luke 22:19 and assume that we have the authority to say Mass. That command is clearly for the clergy, not for the laity.

So we follow the Church is determining how at for whom do the commands of Christ apply.
 
triumphguy said:
There ya go: I thought self intinction was licit in the East but not in the West.
Click to expand...
In the Byzanitine Rites, the Eucharist is offered via the chalice. The species of bread is broken into small pieces and placed INTO the chalice by the priest.

With no disrepect at all, but for terms of clarification only, the effect is almost that of a ‘stew’ of bread and wine inside the chalice.

The Eucharist is then offered in the form wine soaked bread to the faithful via a gold spoon

The recpient holds their arms crossed ( in much the same was as those who come up for a blessing do in the Roman Rite). The recepient will hold a special cloth like a paten under their chin, tilt their head back slightly and the priest or deacon will use the spoon to pour a small amount of the Blessed Sacrament into the recepients mouth. The spoon, therefore, does not touch the recpeient.

Here is a video
youtube.com/watch?v=3NwDYCZgEag

If you get a chance, try going to an Eastern Divine Liturgy. I try and take my kids to either a Rutherian Divine Liturgy or, more commonly to a Chaldean Divine Liturgy a few times a year. It helps develop awareness of the East 🙂
 
thistle said:
That’s what I said.
Click to expand...
You said:
thistle said:
Both species are not required because we receive the body AND blood of Jesus when consuming the Host.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.
Click to expand...
It is not exactly what you said. You said suggesting to receive both plainly is heresy. If you meant otherwise, it is not clear by your statement, especially since you put the two sentences in separate paragraphs.
 
arkwright said:
And didn’t Jesus command that both the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND the consecrated wine be taken and drunk ?
Click to expand...
Yes he did
Brendan said:
Actually no, He didn’t

He said, “Take and eat, this is my Body” and “Take and drink, This is my Blood”

But that is accomplished in a single species. Each specices is the exact same Substance, that of Christ Himself. The only difference (and I repeat, the ONLY difference) is how they appear to our senses.
Click to expand...
Actually he did. He never said, “take this bread it has all my body, blood, soul and divinity.” He took each of the sacred species and gave a commandment from it. He did it this way. And like I said, theology shouldn’t trump tradition. It wasn’t as if Jesus didn’t know what we know today. But he instituted the Eucharist that way to signify his dying and resurrection, both of which we should partake of.
 
ConstantineTG said:
And like I said, theology shouldn’t trump tradition. .
Click to expand...
So you are saying that what the Church knows to be true about God should not affect the way we do things??
Actually he did. He never said, “take this bread it has all my body, blood, soul and divinity.”
Click to expand...
But He knews that His Ressurection would entail that His would Live again in Glory. HIs Blood would never again be seperated from His Body.

The species are consecrated seperately to represent His death, but the Eucharist is given to us the Resurrected Christ.

His Body and Blood are fully present and inseperable. His Divinity is present, well because He is Divine, that too cannot be seperated from, His Soul is present because His is Risen, the Soul animates the Body.

He told us all this when He said that He will Rise from the Dead. So yes, when He said, “take and eat, this is my Body”, He had already told the Apostles, and hence the Church that His Blood, Soul and Divinity are present.

Do you really want the Church to deny that, or would you rather it just be ignored by the CHurch since it is simply theology, and thus should not affect how we celebrate the Mysteries.

(and BTW, the Liturgy of the Presanctified involves the reception Holy Communion via a single species. The wine, as you well known, is not consecrated by the Anaphora, as the Anaphora is not said at all. So the reception of a single species occurs in the East as well.
 
Brendan said:
So you are saying that what the Church knows to be true about God should not affect the way we do things??
Click to expand...
We should not change the traditions handed down to us by those who knew God and the Apostles more intimately than we do. There are reasons why traditions were established as such, why do we think we know better than those who lived in the First Century, those who actually interacted with the Apostles?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top