Poll: Do you receive under the species of wine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smichhertz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Incomplete,

I have heard you say that the Eucharist is not literally Jesus Body and Blood but that He is there sacramentally at least 10 times. This sounds like the way Protestants talk about their communion: that His Body and Blood aren’t literally the bread and wine, but He is in the bread and wine spiritually. You have also said, usually right after saying the above, that this is Church teaching. You must be taking this time to find where the Church says this, so I’ll be waiting for you to say where She does.

Also, I DO believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s physical Flesh and physical Blood. They just don’t look as though, as someone said earlier, It is raw meat. The bread and wine are consecrated and only the substances transform (transubstantiation) physically and literally into the Body and Blood of Christ. Notice: I said only the substances changed and not the accidents.
 
ajpirc said:
Incomplete,

I have heard you say that the Eucharist is not literally Jesus Body and Blood but that He is there sacramentally at least 10 times. .
Click to expand...
FYI, Incomplete did recognize that Christ is literally present once we clarified terms.
I DO believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s physical Flesh and physical Blood
Click to expand...
Christ is not physically present. “Physically” or “physica” are accidental properties related to physics.

Mass, density, color, chemical make up. These are all accidental properties. If Christ was physically present, the Host would have the same mass as the Risen Christ, and the chemical compsitions would be that of a human.

Physics only can describe what are accidental properties, not the underlying true reality (something a LOT of scientist forget).

The physics of the Eucharist are that of regular bread and wine, the Reality is the Flesh and Blood of Christ.
 
ajpirc said:
Incomplete,

I have heard you say that the Eucharist is not literally Jesus Body and Blood but that He is there sacramentally at least 10 times. This sounds like the way Protestants talk about their communion: that His Body and Blood aren’t literally the bread and wine, but He is in the bread and wine spiritually. You have also said, usually right after saying the above, that this is Church teaching. You must be taking this time to find where the Church says this, so I’ll be waiting for you to say where She does.

Also, I DO believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s physical Flesh and physical Blood. They just don’t look as though, as someone said earlier, It is raw meat. The bread and wine are consecrated and only the substances transform (transubstantiation) physically and literally into the Body and Blood of Christ. Notice: I said only the substances changed and not the accidents.
Click to expand...
Once again this did not unsubscribe. I’m not sure why. But in this case, it’s good, so I can clarify.

This is from the Catechism:

*1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.*

I know this is confusing. I first learned it from my priest. And at first I was stunned because I thought he was trying to say Jesus wasn’t really present, or just, as you said, spiritually present. And this priest has been so great for me, and so reliable in his teachings. I have learned so much. My first thought was that he was denying the Real Presence and I thought, gasp, I can’t trust this man any longer.

But I found out that’s not true at all. That this is, in fact, Church teaching.

Jesus is completely, really, truly, and wholly present. Sacramentally. In the forms of bread and wine. But still just as real and just as complete.

When you say the accidents don’t change but He is still physically present, that’s the kind of thing I was trying to avoid by saying He isn’t literally there. I think there is no real good word choice here. Because yes, He is totally there. All of Him. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. But sacramentally.

Makes your head spin. Just like the concept of the Trinity. I love that we have a Church that thinks deeply.

And Brendan, thanks so much for your clarification.

If the comments keep coming to my box, I’m just gonna have to find a way to ignore them. So much I haven’t done today. Lately I’m finding Catholic.com more and more addicting, so I guess I have to stop,

One more try to unsubscribe so I can actually get some work done…
 
Brendan said:
FYI, Incomplete did recognize that Christ is literally present once we clarified terms.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for the hint. 👍

I didn’t really understand what Incomplete was saying with that whole thing. They said they believed that Christ’s Blood was present under the species of bread, but said we don’t drink the Blood in the bread nor eat it because we don’t eat Blood. So, I didn’t really understand their belief in that there. 🤷
 
Brendan said:
Christ is not physically present. “Physically” or “physica” are accidental properties related to physics.

Mass, density, color, chemical make up. These are all accidental properties. If Christ was physically present, the Host would have the same mass as the Risen Christ, and the chemical compsitions would be that of a human.

Physics only can describe what are accidental properties, not the underlying true reality (something a LOT of scientist forget).

The physics of the Eucharist are that of regular bread and wine, the Reality is the Flesh and Blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
But, the Eucharist is fully His Body and Blood right? The bread and wine have disappeared?

What would be a word to substitute in for physically?
 
Brendan said:
I don’t pass up the Blood of Christ either, even when I recieve the Host alone 😉
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m taking you wrong…I understand that the Eucharist is both body and blood…but it feels more complete taking both. If they are both body and blood and I receive both…then I get a double dose of Christ;)

But like other people said…if I’m not feeling well then I don’t receive from the cup.
 
ajpirc said:
Ok thanks for the hint. 👍

I didn’t really understand what Incomplete was saying with that whole thing. They said they believed that Christ’s Blood was present under the species of bread, but said we don’t drink the Blood in the bread nor eat it because we don’t eat Blood. So, I didn’t really understand their belief in that there. 🤷
Click to expand...
I read this before unsubscribing. So to clarify:

I believe what the Church teaches. But there are some here who believe (and they may be right) that because the consecrated host contains all of Jesus, we both eat and drink the consecrated host.

I contend (and I could be wrong) that since Jesus is sacramentally present, not present in the way He would be if He was standing here in front me, that when I receive the consecrated host I eat it. I don’t drink it. I only eat it. Because there is nothing liquid in that particular accident. And since Christ is sacramentally present, there is no physical blood for me to drink in the consecrated host. Note: I’m not talking about the chalice here, only the consecrated host.

But I in no way mean that there is anything superior to a decision to receive Eucharist under one or both species. The Church says either way is fine.

However, there are people who find it an obstacle to becoming Catholic when they think we believe we are consuming Jesus in a cannibalistic way, as though we were gnawing on Jesus as He stands physically present among us. I want to make sure that anybody lurking on this thread understands that we don’t.
 
Thanks for not unsubscribing and clarifying your thoughts Incomplete.

I don’t know how the early Church understood the Eucharist before St Thomas Aquinas came along to clarify things; it must have been a mess.
 
I voted no, only under the species of bread… but to clarify, I do on occasion receive from the Chalice. At my parish the chalice is only offered to the laity a few times a year, such as Holy Thursday, Easter Vigil, maybe Christmas or Corpus Christi, and when the bishop comes. On those occasions I will receive from the chalice if I can. (Altar servers don’t always have the opportunity especially if we end up being communion paten holders.) And of course the chalice is never offered to the laity at the FSSP chaplaincy in the Extraordinary Form.
All of the other parishes around do offer the chalice regularly, but since it’s only on special occasions at my parish, it seems odd to receive from the chalice at an ordinary daily Mass elsewhere, so I usually don’t. If it is a special occasion, or if the minister is a deacon or priest, I’m more likely to go ahead and receive.
 
I have never seen the Chalice being offered to the laity - at least that I can recall (although I’ve only returned back Home a short while ago). If offered - of course, I would gratefully and lovingly accept the Blood of Christ. But I entirely understand those who pass on it for moral and/or practical reasons.
 
Nope, never. The chalice is not offered during the Extraordinary Form but even if it was I still wouldn’t receive from the chalice. I receive Christ equally under either species. When at the Ordinary Form I simply stop and bow when I am passing the Precious Blood.
 
Te_Deum said:
Nope, never. The chalice is not offered during the Extraordinary Form …
Click to expand...
FYI, the offering of both species via intinction was allowed in the EF.

Both of my parents grew up in Ireland. When they made their First Holy Communions, they recieved an intincted Host. The intincted host was also offered on Feast Days that have a special relationship to the Eucharist, such as Holy Thursday or Corpus Christi

This was in the 30’s or 40’s
 
Te_Deum said:
Nope, never. The chalice is not offered during the Extraordinary Form but even if it was I still wouldn’t receive from the chalice. I receive Christ equally under either species. When at the Ordinary Form I simply stop and bow when I am passing the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
I hope this isn’t too off topic but I have a question. The chalice was offered pre-Vatican II but it was very limited. Two examples I know are to the bride and groom at a nuptial Mass and to the parents of a newly ordained priest. Now that the EF has been brought out from the “indult,” is the chalice offered in the same way or is it completey supressed for the congregation?
 
The cup is not offered at our parish. I assume because it would create a traffic nightmare with our narrow aisles.

When I am at parishes where it is offered, it just depends. Sometimes I do. sometimes, not!
 
Brendan said:
Actually no. Ideally, we would all be at a state of knowledge and Grace were the sign is superfluous. That is the nature of a sign. Once you get there, you don’t need the sign anymore 🙂
Click to expand...
Firstly, excuse the long delay in responding, I was away on a trip celebrating my cousin’s wedding.

Okay, I see where you are getting at, but no one here can truly arrive at a perfect state of knowledge on the Eucharist, hence the sign is always helpful for us and holds a special meaning. I think as one grows in understanding about the reality of the Eucharist the sign becomes less and less important, but still helpful.

By way of an analogy, it’s like a kiss in a relationship. When a couple is first dating, kisses are important sign of a deeper reality (the relationship). For an old married couple, kisses are far less important as they have grown to understand the deeper reality, yet you would still see an old couple kiss every now and then.

I also recognize, that some people tend to develop an unhealthy attachment to the sign, which is also dangerous, as this inhibits their ability to discover the true reality. So one must take caution to always understand the teachings surrounding the Eucharist and not get attached to the sign alone, but as long as this is done with the correct mindset, I still hold that ideally one should desire to receive the Eucharist under both species since it is the fuller sign.
 
I do receive under both species. Therefore, recently when I was undergoing chemotherapy, I appreciated being able to receive both species by intinction. Having been warned by my medical professionals that due to the severe chemicals that were in my system, I should not have any oral contact with another person. I therefore would not take the consecrated wine from the cup as I would normally do. Intinction allowed me to continue to receive under both species. All this having been said, I will admit that the intinction was performed by an EMHC, as is permitted in my church. As an EMHC myself I understand that self-intinction is not permitted. I personally see that the administration of Holy Communion is an evolving process. At one time only Priests did it; then Deacons were included; and the lay people. The process evolves as we can demonstate an appropriate reverence and preservation of the consecrated hosts and wine. I am so thankful that my parish made receiving under both species in my situation such an easy and very respectful process. I trust that some day we have a broader acceptance of intinction by all who are entrusted with the distribution of Communion and a more consistant policy among all our Dioceses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top