Receiving communion at Protestant services

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjack2222
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt 7:1
I am misleading no-one
Jesus told us to receive it in both ways
The early Christians did so; see above for St. Justin to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining in a letter about what then did Christians did:
The priest does so
The Bishops say, “sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies”

I’ll attach this resource if you want to read the whole document from the Vatican

"It sounds restrictive to suggest that Holy Communion received fervently under one species is more fruitful than a tepid Communion received under both species when concrete objectives aimed at doctrinal formation, care and reverence in the liturgical celebration and organizational forethought could do so much to acknowledge and address the challenges that have arisen.

The psalmist declares the imperative of that in-depth catechesis: “The things we have heard and understood, the things our fathers have told us these we will not hide from their children but will tell to the next generation” (Psalm 78:4).

St. Ambrose discloses what people of faith gain from that knowledge: “For as often as we eat this Bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his Blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy” (St Ambrose, De sacr. 4, 6, 28: PL 16, 464).

Receive it in one species if you like, but I know what Jesus intended, as did Ambrose, and so do you my friend

Caritas non ficta, semper et ubique

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110601_comunione_en.html
 
Last edited:
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.
 
Q. Did Jesus tell us to eat this bread, and drink this cup?
A. Yes

Q. Does the priest do that?
A. Yes

Q. Does the Church recognise the sign value is better when we receive both the bread and the wine?
A. from USC of CB’s . . .
"Christ Himself Is Present in the Eucharistic Species. Christ is "truly, really, and substantially contained"18 in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine.19

The Council of Trent teaches that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words."20 …sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church."

God love you all
 
Last edited:
It isn’t always possible to offer Holy Communion under both species, and so the priest receives on behalf of the people. Certainly it’s great to be able to receive both species, but if one has a cold, for example, one wouldn’t receive from the chalice. I’m certainly not looking to argue with you. I posted to offer clarity to the person concerned about not receiving both. However, the Catechism and Canon Law both agree that in either species we receive Our Lord whole and entire… and as Catholics we submit to the Church’s authority.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

God bless.
 
Uriel1 said:
Receive it in one species if you like, but I know what Jesus intended, as did Ambrose, and so do you my friend
Click to expand...
Why won’t you answer my question??
Are you denying that in one species is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Yes or No.
If you are that would be heresy!
 
Dlee said:
Guess I’ve been guilty of adding Baptists to the protestants when grouping. Hmmm. I know many at my former Baptist Church lean toward Calvin. But again, that is individual interpretation, not from the pastor or as the article points out, any organization with authority. It always bothered me that there is so much individual interpretation.
Click to expand...
They’re Protestants. They just don’t like to admit it. 🙂 They want to think that their forebearers were around before the Reformation. (Former Baptist speaking.)
 
Uriel1 said:
The Church teaches that each of the species in themselves offer both the body and the blood.

Jesus on the other hand when giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom told us to eat his body and drink his blood that we might have eternal life. [ John 6:54]
Click to expand...
If you read what I wrote 5 hours ago up the page, and also what The Council of Trent teaches, that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words."20 …, and the Conference of catholic Bishops teaches, “…sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church,” there would be no need to break the instruction given us in Matt 7:1

God love you Thistle
 
Eric - No, He doesn’t say outside of non-Catholic churches, BUT likewise [and most importantly] He is NOT THERE in the fullness of His Holy Flesh and Blood.
 
Do you trust the Church to make decisions that are right for the people?

If you have celiac disease, you might want to receive the Body–but you can’t. If you’re an alcoholic, you might want to receive the Blood–but you can’t.

If you live in times or places where there exist things which could likely cause illness for those receiving one species, or where opportunities for PROFANATION of one species are rife, do you trust that the Church will take the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guard against illness or evil?

Do you believe that, if a person lives in an area where proper care is taken and there is little chance of illness that a person who is physically capable MUST take both Body and Blood in order to receive Jesus, or that should the person receive only the Body or only the Blood, by their choice, that the person is NOT receiving complete Jesus or is in fact going against Him in doing so?
 
I’ve already written that it’s ok to receive one species alone but that I really want both.

You raise a good point about allergies.

In an allergy case a blessing and communion of desire will do until gluten free hosts are obtained

God love you
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
There are no gluten free hosts as they would be invalid matter, there are only very low gluten hosts.
 
You can never have ‘gluten-free’ hosts. Ever. Because the valid matter calls for wheat bread. Very low gluten, yes, those are permitted and work for some, but you cannot have gluten-free.
 
YOU really want both, and that is perfectly fine. But for others. . .say for many who are physically ‘capable’ but have a dislike of the taste of wine. . .receiving one species is perfectly fine.
 
stpurl said:
YOU really want both, and that is perfectly fine. But for others. . .say for many who are physically ‘capable’ but have a dislike of the taste of wine. . .receiving one species is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
100% for sure

God love you my friend
 
I swear I’ve seen “gluten free host” on the bulletin at the Cathedral. I can’t get the PDF to pull up, but I swear that’s what it said.
 
Pup7 said:
I swear I’ve seen “gluten free host” on the bulletin at the Cathedral. I can’t get the PDF to pull up, but I swear that’s what it said.
Click to expand...
Of course there are “Gluten free hosts”. In Australia they are classified as “no discernable gluten content.” The C of the F indeed stated that one needs some gluten to qualify the host as proper, but the Australian one meets the “consistency of a communion wafer” test while still having gluten content, but so low that it is not discernable, although it is there. the wheat in the USA has been so modified from 60 years of hybridization that the starch is almost all “amylopectin A”, quite unlike that which Jesus would have eaten.

God love you all in the US of A
 
Last edited:
“Try to understand the science?” Um, could you possibly be a bit more condescending, I don’t feel 100% patronized just yet.

Furthermore, what Australia defines as "gluten-free’ is still not gluten free. Very low gluten. Exactly as I said.
 
They say it, but (as in Australia, and indeed, in any supermarket, US or Au, what some Advisory Board decides to LABEL as ‘gluten free’, or indeed fat-free, sugar-free, etc., is never actually 100% free) that doesn’t mean it truly IS so.

There have been places in the U.S. which did, years ago, make things like rice hosts or altar breads, as well as breads made with honey and fat and Lord knows what else, because Catholics/humans just love to push the envelope and decide ‘for themselves’ and ‘have it just like JESUS did’ etc. etc., but that doesn’t mean that it was valid or licit, or that the Church didn’t say, "Whoa Nellie’. It’s just that the Church first has to hear something is happening, then take all kinds of statements, then pass those on to committees and tribunals, and then present to the ‘people in charge’ who THEN make the judgment call, then pass around to committee again after the original group protests or makes changes as called for etc. etc. It can take decades.

And we are still never going to have 100% gluten-free bread for Mass.
 
Uriel1 said:
Of course there are “Gluten free hosts”. In Australia they are classified as “no discernable gluten content.” The C of the F indeed stated that one needs some gluten to qualify the host as proper, but the Australian one meets the “consistency of a communion wafer” test while still having gluten content, but so low that it is not discernable, although it is there. the wheat in the USA has been so modified from 60 years of hybridization that the starch is almost all “amylopectin A”, quite unlike that which Jesus would have eaten.
Click to expand...
stpurl said:
They say it, but (as in Australia, and indeed, in any supermarket, US or Au, what some Advisory Board decides to LABEL as ‘gluten free’, or indeed fat-free, sugar-free, etc., is never actually 100% free) that doesn’t mean it truly IS so.

There have been places in the U.S. which did, years ago, make things like rice hosts or altar breads, as well as breads made with honey and fat and Lord knows what else, because Catholics/humans just love to push the envelope and decide ‘for themselves’ and ‘have it just like JESUS did’ etc. etc., but that doesn’t mean that it was valid or licit, or that the Church didn’t say, "Whoa Nellie’. It’s just that the Church first has to hear something is happening, then take all kinds of statements, then pass those on to committees and tribunals, and then present to the ‘people in charge’ who THEN make the judgment call, then pass around to committee again after the original group protests or makes changes as called for etc. etc. It can take decades.

And we are still never going to have 100% gluten-free bread for Mass.
Click to expand...
Of course there are “Gluten free hosts”. In Australia they are classified as “no discernable gluten content.” The C of the F indeed stated that one needs some gluten to qualify the host as proper, but the Australian one meets the “consistency of a communion wafer” test while still having gluten content, but so low that it is not discernable, although it is there. the wheat in the USA has been so modified from 60 years of hybridization that the starch is almost all “amylopectin A”, quite unlike that which Jesus would have eaten. Is “nitpicking” a word you use over there in the US of A?

God love you friends
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top