A
Ann_Stanton
Guest
Thank you for your posts. I have read all of the posts. May God bless you for your faith.
- Status
T
Titivillus
Guest
Does the Catholic Church (in any of her rites) confect the sacrament with just bread alone?
W
Wesrock
Guest
No, we don’t.
I’ve never heard of that practice before .
P
phil19034
Guest
Show me a Catholic Church that never has the Precious Blood?phil19034:
Show me in the Bible were communion was done with just bread alone to represent everything. Anytime communion was done or taught in the Bible it was done with bread AND wine. There is no where in the Bible were is says just take one to represent all.
There should not be so many “acceptable” ways of doing communion (Eastern vs Western) because the source, which is the Bible, laid out the foundation as to why and how it should be done. To do it any other way, or to provide alternative ways of doing it, is basically go way off script. It may seem right to you, and you can rationalize it so that it sounds good, but that’s not what God told us to do.
Proverbs 14:12 & Proverbs 16:25 both say “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death”.
Yes, sometimes it’s not provided to the people in the pews, but the Precious Blood is always there.
M
medwigel
Guest
Soooo, that doesn’t seem weird to you? It’s there but you don’t give it to the people in the pews. What, are they not worthy? Why would it be there but not give it to everyone present?
M
medwigel
Guest
So if the Bible tells us about the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the person on whom the church is built, then how is that not the final authority on the things of God? Christ is the architect of Christianity, not man, so how is His word not the final authority? Since when was man’s teaching and understanding greater than God’s word?
P
phil19034
Guest
No, it doesn’t seem weird.
It’s not a “not worthy” issue. It’s an issue of spillage.
Now, it was originally with held from the laity (in the Roman Rite) to combat a heresy, but we do allow the Priest to give Chalice today to the laity.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Titivillus . . .
Medwigel is talking about the laity “taking” (receiving) Holy Communion under one or both species.
No but that is not what medwigel is referring to.
Medwigel is talking about the laity “taking” (receiving) Holy Communion under one or both species.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
medwigel (regarding BOTH the Body AND Blood of Jesus) . . .
The Body AND the Blood are BOTH there under the appearance of bread AND under the appearance of wine.
That’s the point medwigel.
The Body AND the Blood are BOTH there under the appearance of bread AND under the appearance of wine.
T
Titivillus
Guest
medwigel requested “Show me in the Bible were communion was done with just bread alone to represent everything.”
I assert the Catholic Church does not “do” “communion” with “just bread alone to represent everything.” (In fact, it is absolutely forbidden to do so)
M
medwigel
Guest
If that’s the case then why aren’t people offered both? Why is it acceptable to have it present but not give both to the people?
Again, doesn’t that seem weird? Why is it forbidden to “do communion” with just bread alone but it’s ok to just give the people bread alone
This sounds highly contradictory and suspect to me.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Titivillus . . .
.
Titivillus . . .
medwigel . . .
medwigel seems to be talking about “TAKING” or the reception of Holy Communion.
You are talking about the priest confecting the Blessed Sacrament.
.
medwigel? Please clarify.
You are correct, but I still think that is not what medwigel (and I and others) have been discussing for several days on two threads.
.
Titivillus . . .
In the context of “taking one” (species of Holy Communion or both).
medwigel . . .
.
medwigel seems to be talking about “TAKING” or the reception of Holy Communion.
You are talking about the priest confecting the Blessed Sacrament.
.
medwigel? Please clarify.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
medwigel? Please clarify. (Please see prior post).
M
medwigel
Guest
I am questioning why some churches aren’t given the people in the pew both the Body and the Blood. My nephew informed me that at his school they are only given the bread and not the wine, and I say communion is incomplete unless you take/receive both.
If both are present when it’s consecrated that why aren’t the people given both?
I keep getting the response that the Body and Blood are in the bread but I say “NO”- the bread is the bread and it represents one thing and the wine is the wine and it represents something else- you can’t combine/mix the two because that is not how it was demonstrated and taught to us in the Bible. Jesus gave the disciples bread AND wine, and Paul instructs the early church in how the take the bread AND wine.
There is NO WHERE in the Bible where someone prays over both and just offers one.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Thanks for the clarification medwigel.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
medwigel (bold mine) . . .
I’ll confine my comments to the “Bread” here for brevity.
The Bread (of life) doesn’t “represent” in the sense of MERELY represent.
Once the bread is consecrated, it is transformed into the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity too) of Jesus Christ. There is NO bread that remains. The phyisical traits or “accidents” of the bread remain.
After the Consecration, there is NO Bread that remains.
Only Jesus.
Which is WHY, we are called to WORSHIP the Eucharist.
taylormarshall.com
.
That is WHY, if profanation occurs you are NOT guilty of profaning a mere “REPRESENTATION” of the body and blood of the Lord.
You are guilty of profaning THE Body and Blood of the Lord (because it IS THE Body and Blood of the Lord).
.
I’ll confine my comments to the “Bread” here for brevity.
The Bread (of life) doesn’t “represent” in the sense of MERELY represent.
Once the bread is consecrated, it is transformed into the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity too) of Jesus Christ. There is NO bread that remains. The phyisical traits or “accidents” of the bread remain.
After the Consecration, there is NO Bread that remains.
Only Jesus.
Which is WHY, we are called to WORSHIP the Eucharist.
Quote from here . . .
St. Augustine on Adoring the Eucharist - Taylor Marshall
There has been a debate in the comments over whether St. Augustine believed that the elements of the Eucharist are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is also claimed that St. Augustine held to a spiritual presence of Christ akin to that taught by John Calvin. Concerning the...
taylormarshall.com
.
That is WHY, if profanation occurs you are NOT guilty of profaning a mere “REPRESENTATION” of the body and blood of the Lord.
You are guilty of profaning THE Body and Blood of the Lord (because it IS THE Body and Blood of the Lord).
Last edited:
T
Titivillus
Guest
https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/are-you-an-utraquist
Do you know the meaning of concomitance?
Do you believe communion divides Christ??
C
Cathoholic
Guest
medwigel . . . .
I say “NO” too (but for different reasons). (As a matter of fact, you don’t get that response from ANYONE here.)
Why?
Because The Body and Blood are not IN the bread.
After the consecration, there is NO BREAD (except the "bread of life–Jesus Himself–“Body AND Blood of the Lord”).
Last edited:
V
vallancec
Guest
I know some parishes allow this. I"m not sure why.
- Status