A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The practice of receiving under only one kind predates Trent by hundreds of years. As others have already pointed out, the Hussites protested this and insisted on recieving under both kinds - in the 1400s.
- Status
R
rarndt01
Guest
No, I am NOT wrong Mr teenager, for Jesus held up the bread and he also held up a goblet of wine. TWO things, not one. Would you also like a quote from Justin Martyr as well? Yeah, believe it or not, the early church served BOTH the bread and the wine in the mass.
Ron from Ohio
Ron from Ohio
B
beng
Guest
Mr Teenager? I thought someone who can not admit that he’s wrong is the immature ones.
You made a claim that receiving under either species is because of Trent when in fact the practice itself predates Trent!
Having Justin Martyr mention that the early Church received under both is irrelevant and a straw man.
Finally JESUS HELD UP THE BREAD AND BLOOD BECAUSE OF SYMBOLISM!! STOP REPEATING IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!
You’re wrong. Just admit it.
T
twf
Guest
I’m in the Diocese of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. I’m a convert from Evangelical Protestantism…and will be received into the Church this January. I am not quite sure on this, but I think it may be that in Canada, the CCBC (Canandian Conference of Catholic Bishops) has permitted the distribution of both species…or at the very least, my bishop has, as we always distribute both species in our parish. Maybe amarischuk knows the answer to this? (I noticed that you’re in the Okanagan as well 
).
).
A
amarischuk
Guest
Hello twf…I am from the Okanagan as well. I live in Summerland and Bishop Cooney is our bishop. You don’t happen to be Bernie Earthy’s nephew? He is also a convert being received into the Church in Jan. If so we met before through Byron Dolan.
In any event, communion under both species has not only been the norm but is essential (belongs to the integrity) for all celebrating priests. For the laity it has never been necessary due to the nature of the Eucharist containing the fullness of Christ in either form.
In the Eastern rites within the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox without) it has been the practice to receive leaven bread under both species since at least the time of St. John Chrysostom.
Not only is communion under both species permitted, but it is encouraged by the Vatican which has recently redeligated more power to the Bishops to decide the norms of communion in thier diocese. ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWNORMS.HTM
Essentially, most of the traditions concerning the distribution of both species are governed by practical measures and local customs. This liturgical scawbling is a sad and petty part of the(especially arch-conservative and traditionalist) camps within the Church. I find that most of it is from self-appointed liturgists who specialize in Church rubics but can’t see the forest through the trees.
But that is just the opinion of one layman firmly bigoted by an affinity for collegiality as opposed to ultra-montanism.
Adam
In any event, communion under both species has not only been the norm but is essential (belongs to the integrity) for all celebrating priests. For the laity it has never been necessary due to the nature of the Eucharist containing the fullness of Christ in either form.
In the Eastern rites within the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox without) it has been the practice to receive leaven bread under both species since at least the time of St. John Chrysostom.
newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
Not only is communion under both species permitted, but it is encouraged by the Vatican which has recently redeligated more power to the Bishops to decide the norms of communion in thier diocese. ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWNORMS.HTM
Essentially, most of the traditions concerning the distribution of both species are governed by practical measures and local customs. This liturgical scawbling is a sad and petty part of the(especially arch-conservative and traditionalist) camps within the Church. I find that most of it is from self-appointed liturgists who specialize in Church rubics but can’t see the forest through the trees.
But that is just the opinion of one layman firmly bigoted by an affinity for collegiality as opposed to ultra-montanism.
Adam
J
JGC
Guest
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.207
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
MY BOLD
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#VI
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
MY BOLD
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#VI
- The Church also teaches and believes that “immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united.” (21)
- Since, however, by reason of the sign value, 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.
M
mercygate
Guest
The 12th Century practice of receiving only the Sacred Body was rendered binding in the early 15th Century – before Trent – in response to the Hussite heresy (Jan Hus, d. 1415), which asserted that Communion under both species was necessary for salvation. Receiving in only one kind demonstrated that Christ is entirely present in any particle of the consecrated elements.
R
rarndt01
Guest
The difficulty of denying that both the wine and the bread should be offered to the Catholic laity is this. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper he held up and blessed TWO individual species, and not one. First he held up the wine and then the bread. He passed around BOTH species to his disciples. He said, “eat” and “drink”. Jesus did NOT just offer the consecrated bread. Those on this forum who deny this are liars, plain and simple. I speak the truth before the Lord and you blasphemy the very word of God, you who denies his sacred words.
This SAME practice continued even after the death of Jesus as a simple reading of Justin Martyr shows, as well as others. Both species were offered to all baptized Christians who were present and NOT just to the presiding prebyster.
But corrupt leaders in the Catholic church arose who decided that both species were no longer to be given to the Catholic laity any longer, but only the consecrated bread. They did this for various reasons. Whether for health or afraid that the consecrated wine would be spilled. But NOTICE, even in today’s churches the priest takes BOTH the wine and the bread, but denies it to to laity. This is wrong. Although in some churches both species are offered, but not in the majority.
This change occurred sometime around the council of Trent as did denying priests the right to be married. For a thousand years priests were allowed to marry if they wished. But once again, corrupt leaders CHANGED all that.
So what’s the big deal? The big deal is, is that the practices carried on in the church today were unheard of in the early first century church. Let’s get back to what the REAL Catholic church once believed and stood for.
Ron from Ohio
This SAME practice continued even after the death of Jesus as a simple reading of Justin Martyr shows, as well as others. Both species were offered to all baptized Christians who were present and NOT just to the presiding prebyster.
But corrupt leaders in the Catholic church arose who decided that both species were no longer to be given to the Catholic laity any longer, but only the consecrated bread. They did this for various reasons. Whether for health or afraid that the consecrated wine would be spilled. But NOTICE, even in today’s churches the priest takes BOTH the wine and the bread, but denies it to to laity. This is wrong. Although in some churches both species are offered, but not in the majority.
This change occurred sometime around the council of Trent as did denying priests the right to be married. For a thousand years priests were allowed to marry if they wished. But once again, corrupt leaders CHANGED all that.
So what’s the big deal? The big deal is, is that the practices carried on in the church today were unheard of in the early first century church. Let’s get back to what the REAL Catholic church once believed and stood for.
Ron from Ohio
B
beng
Guest
SYMBOLISM!!!
No one deny that Jesus held up the bread and wine and He and His disciples eat bread and wine.
Strawman strawman starwman.
Irrelevant
No, this is not wrong.
You have been shown FACT that the practice of receiving under bread alone is more ancient than Trent yet you’re so stubborn. No wonder that your assesmaent about priestly celibacy is wrong again.
Do some research.
Another heretical point of view is to think that every bit of practice in the ancient Church is the right one.
Cookie to those who can find what heresy is this (or maybe it’s not a heresy. Hint: trick question)
R
rarndt01
Guest
beng
Code:
Your quote- "Another heretical point of view is to think that every bit of practice in the ancient Church is the right one".
Answer- Well, well. Now the ancient church was not up to date with what they believed and practiced eh? Well, when your out next time stuffing your academic mouth with a hamburger or sitting back in your nice recliner watching TV, in your living room, remember these so called ancient Christians DIED for what they believed. Some to the lions and some by torture.
You couldn't fill their shoes or be worthy to assemble with them. For you would deny all that they held precious.
Ron from Ohio
B
beng
Guest
Nope, sorry, that’s not the heresy.
R
rarndt01
Guest
Beng
Code:
OK Beng, I'll bite. What exactly is your point? Where is the heresy in wanting to follow the authority and example of the apostolic church?
Ron from Ohio
B
beng
Guest
Nope, I’m talking about “If it’s not done by the Early Church, then it’s wrong”
Do you know what happen if you have that believe?
Do you know that there was a time when a murderer will not be given confession?
Do you know that there was a time that there’s “two strike you’re out” rule for confession? (which was why Constantine was never Christian until his death bed Christening)
Do you know about the liturgical abuses and disarray (well, it’s because ethnicity and communication difficulty) during ancient times that the Mass of All time is introduced to starighten things out?
R
rarndt01
Guest
beng
Quit playing games and get to the point!!!!!!!!!!!
B
beng
Guest
The point is, not all practice of the ancient Church is to be followed. Over time the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, reform the practice.
B
Brendan
Guest
The offering of the Chalice to the faithful was suspended in 1432 in response to the Ultraquist heresy.
Those heretics believed (among other things) that the Eucharist was only truly received when one received both species.
This is completely heretical as the Divine Substance is the same, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The only difference is in the accidents. The contents of the paten appear to our senses as bread, the contents of the chalice appear as wine. But they are appearances only.
When one received the Host, one receives the complete, entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. To say that the contents of the Chalice are different in any way other than appearance is heretical.
It is therefore not necessary to receive from the Chalice, and offers no additional Grace, as one has already received Jesus in His entirety.
Those heretics believed (among other things) that the Eucharist was only truly received when one received both species.
This is completely heretical as the Divine Substance is the same, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The only difference is in the accidents. The contents of the paten appear to our senses as bread, the contents of the chalice appear as wine. But they are appearances only.
When one received the Host, one receives the complete, entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. To say that the contents of the Chalice are different in any way other than appearance is heretical.
It is therefore not necessary to receive from the Chalice, and offers no additional Grace, as one has already received Jesus in His entirety.
R
rarndt01
Guest
Brendan
That is NOT what Christ said, nor was it the early church example. When Jesus was with his disciples, he held up the blessed wine and said “this is my blood”. Then he took bread and broke IT and said to his disciples, “This is MY BODY, which is broken for you, Eat”
Jesus in no way stated that only one specie was sufficient as representing his blood and his flesh. He went to great lengths to show they were SEPARATE and EACH became different species after being blessed.
The heresy you spoke of, was the heresy in CHANGING the format of the mass by offering only ONE specie and saying this was now both the blood and body of Jesus Christ. The bread can never be the blood of Christ, for Christ held in his hand the WINE, which he blessed. This is what becomes the actual blood of Christ. I recommend you read the citation of Justin Martyr. He is very explicit on this.
Ron from Ohio
That is NOT what Christ said, nor was it the early church example. When Jesus was with his disciples, he held up the blessed wine and said “this is my blood”. Then he took bread and broke IT and said to his disciples, “This is MY BODY, which is broken for you, Eat”
Jesus in no way stated that only one specie was sufficient as representing his blood and his flesh. He went to great lengths to show they were SEPARATE and EACH became different species after being blessed.
The heresy you spoke of, was the heresy in CHANGING the format of the mass by offering only ONE specie and saying this was now both the blood and body of Jesus Christ. The bread can never be the blood of Christ, for Christ held in his hand the WINE, which he blessed. This is what becomes the actual blood of Christ. I recommend you read the citation of Justin Martyr. He is very explicit on this.
Ron from Ohio
R
rarndt01
Guest
Beng
Here is your quote; " Over time the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, reform the practice."
REPLY- You are digging a deeper grave with each post Beng. The church centuries later had to reform the practice of the early church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Is that what you are REALLY saying?
In other words, when the early church was receiving BOTH species of the consecrated wine and bread they were in error? But where did they receive this teaching Beng? Did they not receive it from the apostles themselves? If this practice was incorrect, then were the the apostles in error as well? I hardly think so.
What you are doing is trying to rectify a heretical change by church leaders centuries later, that was NOT the practice of the early church and claim it was done by the authority of the Holy Spirit. Which is ridiculous. For the SAME Holy Spirit is what guided the apostles and the early Catholic church to begin with.
Ron from Ohio
Here is your quote; " Over time the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, reform the practice."
REPLY- You are digging a deeper grave with each post Beng. The church centuries later had to reform the practice of the early church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Is that what you are REALLY saying?
In other words, when the early church was receiving BOTH species of the consecrated wine and bread they were in error? But where did they receive this teaching Beng? Did they not receive it from the apostles themselves? If this practice was incorrect, then were the the apostles in error as well? I hardly think so.
What you are doing is trying to rectify a heretical change by church leaders centuries later, that was NOT the practice of the early church and claim it was done by the authority of the Holy Spirit. Which is ridiculous. For the SAME Holy Spirit is what guided the apostles and the early Catholic church to begin with.
Ron from Ohio
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think I will stick by what the Catholic Church Teaches.
As found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
Now the next thing Ron will tell us is that we in the Byzantine Churches are in error becuase while we recieve both species of the Eucharist we do so by intinction. Which Christ did not do when he instituted the Eucharist.
As found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
Now the next thing Ron will tell us is that we in the Byzantine Churches are in error becuase while we recieve both species of the Eucharist we do so by intinction. Which Christ did not do when he instituted the Eucharist.
R
rarndt01
Guest
ByzCath
If you receive the consecrated wine and bread then you are following the commands our Lord gave and I do not differ with you. Personally, I am more concerned with the words of my Lord then what men may say or write differently of him. For I will answer on the day of judgement for obeying my Lord and not the teachings of religious men, no mater what their position or piety.
Ron from Ohio
If you receive the consecrated wine and bread then you are following the commands our Lord gave and I do not differ with you. Personally, I am more concerned with the words of my Lord then what men may say or write differently of him. For I will answer on the day of judgement for obeying my Lord and not the teachings of religious men, no mater what their position or piety.
Ron from Ohio
- Status