A
arkwright
Guest
What did Jesus command that be done ?
- Status
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the heresy of Utraquism:
Condemned by the Council of Constance.
- PAX
T
thewanderer
Guest
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the heresy of Utraquism:
Quote:
Utraquism, briefly stated, means this: Man, in order to be saved, must receive Holy Communion when he wishes and where he wishes, under the forms of bread and wine (sub utraque specie). This, said the Hussite leader, is of Divine precept. For, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54). To receive only the Sacred Host is not “drinking” but “eating” the Blood of Christ. That this is of Divine precept, continued the Hussite, is further evident from tradition, as up to the eleventh or twelfth century the Chalice and the Host were offered to the faithful when they communicated. Add to this, that more grace is conferred by the reception of the Eucharist under both forms, and it is clear, so Jacob of Mies maintained, that communion sub uraque specie is obligatory. This conclusion the Council of Constance rejected.
Exactly!
If you want to deny the teachings of the Catholic Church and introduce your own understandings and interpretations, feel free, but realize that that is exactly how the protestants found their way out of the Church.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Please see the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia that I posted above and note that your interpretation that Jesus meant that it is obligatory to receive both species was condemned by an ecumenical council.
The Church interprets the scripture and has spoken. We receive the Body and the Blood (and the Soul and Divinity) when we communicate with only one species because all four are present in each species. So when we consume the Host, we are eating His Body and drinking His Blood and therefore obeying Jesus’ command. To say otherwise is to proclaim heresy.
- PAX
M
mfrances
Guest
The Precious Blood of Christ is not always offered to the congregation, especially at daily Mass (Masses on weekdays) in the United States.
In other countries it is almost never offered to the congregation at any Mass.
For a valid Mass, only the celebrant priest ever needs to consume both species.
To answer the OP’s question, we Catholics believe that consuming either the Host or Blood is recieving all of the Soul and Divinity of Christ.
For example, some one who is allergic to wheat/gluten might receive the Precious Blood only, although they should let the priest know first, so that the priest does not think the person is a non-Catholic and try to stop them, because the Host is always recieved whether or not the Precious Blood is recieved.
Just as a note, for wheat/gluten allergy sufferers, you can arrange with the parish to have available for you a low-gluten host which is about 98% wheat free (they must contain a miniscule amount - 1% or 2% of wheat or else the matter is not valid for consecration) but only contact the church for this arrangement if you have a true and serious allergy to wheat.
In other countries it is almost never offered to the congregation at any Mass.
For a valid Mass, only the celebrant priest ever needs to consume both species.
To answer the OP’s question, we Catholics believe that consuming either the Host or Blood is recieving all of the Soul and Divinity of Christ.
For example, some one who is allergic to wheat/gluten might receive the Precious Blood only, although they should let the priest know first, so that the priest does not think the person is a non-Catholic and try to stop them, because the Host is always recieved whether or not the Precious Blood is recieved.
Just as a note, for wheat/gluten allergy sufferers, you can arrange with the parish to have available for you a low-gluten host which is about 98% wheat free (they must contain a miniscule amount - 1% or 2% of wheat or else the matter is not valid for consecration) but only contact the church for this arrangement if you have a true and serious allergy to wheat.
A
arkwright
Guest
The Catholic Church is very enthusiastic about saying that we must take literally what Jesus said regarding the bread becoming his Body and the wine becoming his Blood , but is very lax about taking literally what Jesus commanded we should do with them , namely eat and drink both in both forms .
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You must have missed my post.
The priest DOES ‘take and eat’ and "take and drink’, and when he does so and performs the consecration, the ‘entire’ body and blood of Christ become present in both species.
Remember, Christ is speaking to the APOSTLES here. They eat, they drink, THEY consecrate, and then WE the laity receive the ENTIRE CHRIST.
Of course if you don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches (and don’t just take our word, all of this in the Catechism), you’re perfectly free to go to Rome and tell the Holy Father to revise the Catechism.
Benedict is a rather good theologian. Maybe HE would be able to convince you that the Church is quite correct and that cherry picking Scripture is not really ‘catholic’. . .
T
thomas_jd
Guest
That was your post not mine! I never would mention mixing as you did!
The Consecration is the proper time for FULL body, blood, soul and divinity.
Without blood there is no life, proper respect must be given to both body and blood.
Your post was incorrect.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Arkwright,
note EcceAgnusDei’s post where he quotes the Church condeming your interpretation as a heresy.
The Church has explicitly said that your interpretation is incorrect. If you want to start picking and choosing which of the Church teachings you are going to accept, go right ahead, but again realize that is exactly how the protestants found themselves outside of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church set up by Christ. If you accept that the Catholic Church is the one set up by Christ, and value being a part of that Church then I would be very careful about interpreting scripture on your own. You must always be willing to back down on your own understanding if the Church explicitly says otherwise, which it has done.
A
asia53
Guest
There is another reason some people don’t receive from the cup. My friend, an alcoholic, sober for 25 years, never receives from the cup. I think, we all understand why he doesn’t receive from the cup.
B
Brendan
Guest
Huh? When did I say that proper respect was NOT to be given?
And when did I say that the Eucharist is NOT the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divintiy?
The priest drops a small piece of the species of bread in the Chalice, that is the mixing I am referring to. In the Eastern Rites, it is large sections of loaves that are intermixed.
All that is done by the priest, and it is a beautiful sign of the Resurrection, not a sign of disrepect.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
This is poor reasoning. If Christ is only talking to the Apostles about receiving the Eucharist, then today only the Bishops should be receiving the Eucharist.
A
arkwright
Guest
There is nothing obscure about what Jesus said .
It doesn’t need any interpretation . It is so obvious .
He said that the bread is his Body .
He said that the wine is his Blood .
Then he commanded that we take and eat and drink .
T
thomas_jd
Guest
He also commanded us in Matt.18:9 “and if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you…”
There is nothing obscure about what Jesus said .
It doesn’t need any interpretation . It is so obvious .
He said that the bread is his Body .
He said that the wine is his Blood .
Then he commanded that we take and eat and drink .
In this age of pornagraphy how many of us are walking around blind, yourself included?
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please stay on topic, everyone. Thank you.
A
arkwright
Guest
That is an example of Semitic hyperbole , a device often used by Jesus .
The words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper do not fit into that category .
His words at the Last Supper are clear , plain and unmistaken .
W
Wampa
Guest
Who said anything about people dying? No one expressing a germ concern said anything at all about that.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
And your interpretation of those words are wrong and blatant heresy. If you claim to be Catholic (as your profile suggests), please abide by the Catholic doctrine in this manner, doctrine that has been set forth in an infallible manner and is dogmatically binding on all Christians.
A person is not required to communicate under both species.
I suggest that you do some research on Utraquism, the Hussites, and the Council of Constance. Please don’t continue to lead people astray on this forum in an area that has been perfectly clarified by Holy Mother Church over 600 years ago.
- PAX
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
no it is not. Catholics do not ‘self-administer’ communion. Who gives us communion? The priests (or the extraordinary ministers, and THEY receive from the priest.)
Christ did not say, "yo, people. Every one of you come gather round the altar, lift up the cup, lift up the host, say the words, and you ALL ‘consecrate’ and THEN you ALL ‘eat’ the bread and ‘drink’ the wine, because that is the ‘plain English’ and grammatical construct I gave to you.
I did not say that Christ was only offering communion to the apostles. I said it was only necessary for the priest to actually receive both species. Would you care to cite the passage in the catechism or canon law which says that the priest is NOT the only person who MUST receive both species?
The Church has said otherwise, and the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
This is why I feel the Church should do what it did before and withhold the Cup from the laity again.
- Status