No wine at first communion mass?

[superamazingman]

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ’s command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

I can try and answer this one for you. This one just needs logic more than anything.

The council of trent does not necessarily say that the command is fulfilled by receiving the precious body (although it may, I haven’t looked). However, it is most strongly implied. The point here is that because of trent, precious blood was limited to priests, therefore one of the following statments must be true:

• Trent was implicitly saying that the command is fulfilled by receiving one species, since that is all the laity will be able to do so.
• Trent implicitly taught that the command applied only to priests, who were, after all, the only ones at the last supper. Priests still fulfilled the command, and the congregation had no obligation to receive under both forms.

But here’s the crux of the matter: trent was the council that reformed the missal and restricted precious blood to the celebrant of the Mass. So right there, there is nothing doctrinally wrong with only receiving under one form.

 

[Brendan]

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Where EXACTLY did I say that what you said differed from Trent. Unless I made a statement to the contrary, I do see why I should be obligated to show you what you said. I don’t see my role on this board as a proof reader

My statement was in regards to your comment that the command be obeyed. The Church feels that the command ARE being obeyed. In fact, I would claim that the Church, in the promulgation of it’s disciplines on the Sacraments, cannot act contrary to a command of Christ.

I would think that it would fall to you to show that either the Church feels that the commands of Christ are somehow NOT being obeyed, or to show why your option on the matter should trump that of the Church’s.

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

This Request has been complied with, I did look at your words.

 

[Brendan]

Please respond .

I did, see post #71

 

[Brendan]

And since I have duly responded.

I have some questions for you

Jesus took the consecrated bread and commanded that it be eaten .

Then He took the consecrated wine and commanded that it be drunk .

.

To whom, EXACTLY, did Christ tell to eat and drink?

And do not the heirs of those to whom Christ made this declaration consume both species at Mass?

If so, how can you make any claim to the contrary?

 

[Corki]

especially not in the middle of the night :nope: