Receiving Under Both Species

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

rarndt01:

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

By this statement you differ from your profile.

In your profile you say you Catholic but you deny the Teachings of the Catholic Church and Christ.

You have made yourself the authority over that of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and its long standing Traditions/Teachings.

Your argument doesn’t work if you have no problem with intinction.

The words of Jesus were to eat and drink, not dip in the wine and eat.

 

[Brendan]

rarndt01:

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

Ron, it most certainly IS what the Church has always taught and continues to teach. What you are implying is that the Church is now teaching error on a matter of Faith. That would be heresy if that’s what you truly believe.

Look at the example of St. Tarcisius. He was martyred for carrying the Blessed Sacrament from the Bishop to the faithful in prison. He carried the species of Bread alone!

Jesus in no way stated that only one specie was sufficient

So the Eucharistic practices of Tarcisius and his Bishop are insufficient, is that what you are saying here?

For the Body and Blood to be separate means that Christ is dead in front of you. But that is NOT the Christ we receive. He is RISEN and ALIVE. His blood and body are united and will never, ever separate.

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

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”

SYMBOLISM SYMBOLISM!

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.

Where is this “went at great lengths”?

You are indeed advocating heresy.

St Thomas Aquinas seems to not agree with you

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

No, it is just the heresy that you’re advocating and rejected by the Church.

And is Justin Martyr your best shot? Give me the quote and I’ll quote back fathers who affirm that EITHER species contain the Full Christ.

You’re arrogant and don’t wanna admit your mistake. And because of that you’re deep in mistake.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

If infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils (such as Trent, which defined the presence of Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under each species) are to be considered heresy, I guess I’ll start calling the hypostatic union a heresy as well. Why not? I’m the arbiter of Tradition.

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

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?

Yes.

In other words, when the early church was receiving BOTH species of the consecrated wine and bread they were in error?

No. I was talking about the general practices of the ancient Church.

But where did they receive this teaching Beng?

Other people.

Did they not receive it from the apostles themselves?

Some, yes.

If this practice was incorrect, then were the the apostles in error as well? I hardly think so.

Prove to me that the Apostle think that this practice is incorrect. Since the Church had held the believe that receiving either species is OK DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CHURCH DECISION IS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHIHC IS GOD HIMSELF?!

DO YOU DARE TO SAY THAT THIS CANON, PROCLAIMED BY THE CHURCH USING HER INFALLIBILITY AND PROTECTED BY GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF, IS ERRORONEOUS?

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

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

What you have done is deying the word of God, the Holy Spirit Himself spoken through the Church because of some obscure heresy that is condemend by the Church.

 

[rarndt01]

Beng

That’s what I like about you Beng, you show such a loving Christian spirit when cornered. Your mistake is, is thinking that the modern day church follows perfectly what the apostolic church once did in practice. They simply don’t and history proves this to be the case. Jesus established the Eucharist and TWO species were offered to the disciples and not one. Bishops in the church were permitted to marry and this was allowed for some 1,000 years. The apostolic Catholic church knew nothing of erecting statues of Mary and hailing her as their Queen and asking her for gifts of eternal salvation. These errors CREPT into the church over the centuries. The Rosary was not even known as a practice until the middle ages. Actually Marian devotion or should I say worship is not a mandatory practice of the Catholic church.

It is true that the Holy Spirit guides the church, as he guides and instructs us. But he does not force one against their will either. As I said, the church is the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus said that tares would grow up within the kingdom and at the end of the world, when the great judgement comes they will be taken and cast into a furnace of fire.

I know you are angry and full of hate of me, because I tell you the truth. Jesus was hated and despised by learned men as well. But truth remains and God shall be the final judge. The Eucharist consisted of the consecrated wine AND the bread, and no cursing me to hell will ever change the words of Jesus. Be careful how you judge me. For I speak the words of the Lord.

Ron from Ohio

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

Beng

That’s what I like about you Beng, you show such a loving Christian spirit when cornered.

Awww… cute.

Your mistake is, is thinking that the modern day church follows perfectly what the apostolic church once did in practice.

They don’t have to follow every single bit.

They simply don’t

Of course she doesn’t.

and history proves this to be the case.

Duh.

Jesus established the Eucharist and TWO species were offered to the disciples and not one.

Which is still being done by the priest. For reason of symbolism.

Bishops in the church were permitted to marry and this was allowed for some 1,000 years.

There’s no prohibition for Eastern Catholic.

The apostolic Catholic church knew nothing of erecting statues of Mary and hailing her as their Queen and asking her for gifts of eternal salvation.

Strawman.

These errors CREPT into the church over the centuries.

The only errors is your heretical view.

The Rosary was not even known as a practice until the middle ages.

So what? Absolution before penance (and not severe) was not even known until middle ages.

Actually Marian devotion or should I say worship is not a mandatory practice of the Catholic church.

Starwman, Find yourselves a Protestant church.

It is true that the Holy Spirit guides the church, as he guides and instructs us.

Good that you know it. Now you realize that you hold heretical views under the pain of anathema.

But he does not force one against their will either.

Is this how you justify defying the Holy Spirit?

As I said, the church is the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus said that tares would grow up within the kingdom and at the end of the world, when the great judgement comes they will be taken and cast into a furnace of fire.

Yes, those who do not follow what He, God, said (and Holy Spirit is God) through the Church. For example the Canon of Trent about the Real Presence.

I know you are angry and full of hate of me, because I tell you the truth.

I’m full of outrage. Not hate and anger.

And it’s because you’re too arrogant to acknowledge your heresy.

Jesus was hated and despised by learned men as well.

LOL, you’re projecting yourselves to Jesus LOL

Cute. Here’s a cookie.

But truth remains and God shall be the final judge.

The Canon of Trent is God’s word. And I think you have been judged under the pain of anathema.

The Eucharist consisted of the consecrated wine AND the bread, and no cursing me to hell will ever change the words of Jesus.

Jesus word never change. And the Holy Spirit explain again in the Canon of Trent.

You have been anathemized by the canon.

Be careful how you judge me. For I speak the words of the Lord.

You speak the word of yourselves.

You will be judged by the canon protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[mercygate]

rarndt01:

Your mistake is, is thinking that the modern day church follows perfectly what the apostolic church once did in practice. . . .

Discipline and practice *do *change and no Catholic would deny it. This is a discipline not a doctrine. Your point about both species might be relevant if the consecration were limited to one element only. The important point is that the Church today holds – as did the early Church – that Christ is truly and fully present in either species.

Perhaps I digress, and I intend no contrariness, but since most Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence anyway, what does it matter to you that Catholics may receive the Body and Blood of Christ in one kind only? If this question is out of line, please accept my apology and simply ignore it.

rarndt01:

The apostolic Catholic church knew nothing of erecting statues of Mary and hailing her as their Queen and asking her for gifts of eternal salvation. These errors CREPT into the church over the centuries. The Rosary was not even known as a practice until the middle ages. Actually Marian devotion or should I say worship is not a mandatory practice of the Catholic church.

Please see related threads on this; it is off-topic here.

rarndt01:

It is true that the Holy Spirit guides the church, as he guides and instructs us. . . .

Regarding the Catholic understanding of that guidance, I recommend the book which converted John Henry Newman while he was writing it, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. It is not a speed-read but it is the definitive treatment of the subject for modern times.
newmanreader.org/works/development/

 

[rarndt01]

Beng

Your quote- “The Canon of Trent is God’s word”

             REPLY-Really? And I thought Joe Smith and the Mormons had another bible? Now you are telling me that what was drawn up by the council of Trent is the inspired word of God ? Amazing. I always thought it was the disciples who wrote down the word of God? Now we have two bibles? Beng, you have dug a grave so deep you may never get out.

                                   Ron from Ohio

 

[Sarah_Jane]

rarndt01:

Beng

Your quote- “The Canon of Trent is God’s word”

REPLY-Really? And I thought Joe Smith and the Mormons had another bible? Now you are telling me that what was drawn up by the council of Trent is the inspired word of God ? Amazing. I always thought it was the disciples who wrote down the word of God? Now we have two bibles? Beng, you have dug a grave so deep you may never get out.

Ron from Ohio

The Tradition is important.

"Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: “The Word of God”), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”

Source : catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

Beng

Your quote- “The Canon of Trent is God’s word”

             REPLY-Really?

Yes. In a sense that it’s the truth protected by the Holy Spirit. Do you deny this?

And I thought Joe Smith and the Mormons had another bible?

Who care about them?

Now you are telling me that what was drawn up by the council of Trent is the inspired word of God ? Amazing. I always thought it was the disciples who wrote down the word of God?

It’s not inspired the same way the Holy Bible is. Yet it is

Now we have two bibles? Beng, you have dug a grave so deep you may never get out.

Catholics have two rule of faith. Tradition and Holy Scripture.

And about grave digging… I’m not the one who has “anathema” above my head.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Actually Marian devotion or should I say worship is not a mandatory practice of the Catholic church.

We don’t worship Mary!

Mary’s Maternal Relationship With The King Of Kings: The Queen Mother

Mary’s Queenship is first based on her maternal relationship with Jesus. Here the ancient Hebraic notion of the Queen Mother applies to Mary as Mother of the Messianic King, Jesus Christ. In ancient Israel, the most important woman in the monarchy was generally the queen mother, not the queen. In the southern kingdom of Judah, the kings’ wives were apparently never “queens.” It was the queen mother (Hebrew, gebira or “Great Lady”), the king’s mother, who was honored and who wielded authority as a counselor to the king.

In 1 Kings 2:19, Bathsheba, the queen mother of Solomon, is honored by her son, who stands to greet her and pays her homage when she comes to him on a matter of state. The Bible declares, “Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.”

Furthermore, the queen mother often advised the king. Proverbs 31:1-9, for example, summarizes the advice King Lemuel’s mother gave him on how to govern. Included are warnings to the king against focusing on his harem and against excessive drinking, as well as an appeal that he care for the poor. The close link between the king and the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18. Jeremiah warns of the judgment to come on the monarchy and includes the queen mother: “Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns.” Apparently, not only the king but also the queen mother wore a crown.

to be continued…

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Psalm 45:9 refers to the Queen Mother standing at the king’s right hand, arrayed in gold. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies this psalm to Jesus as Messianic King. By extension, Psalm 45:9 would then apply prophetically to the Messianic King’s Mother, Mary.

Which brings us to the New Testament. These texts provide the Old Testament background to Mary’s role in the New Testament. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive and bear a son whom she would name Jesus. Then Gabriel declared, “The Lord God will give him the throne of his David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32-33; RNAB). Since Jesus is certainly the Messianic King, it follows that Mary’s role is that of the Queen Mother of the Messianic King. This explains why St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, would say to her younger cousin, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43; RNAB).

This is the language of the royal court, with the subordinate (Elizabeth) addressing a royal superior (Mary). Elizabeth was honored, not merely by the presence, in utero, of the child Jesus, but also by Mary herself. Elizabeth said, “Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” Elizabeth was honored by the presence of Mary because she is the Queen Mother of the Messianic King, Elizabeth’s Lord.

Mary’s royal dignity as Queen Mother is also evident in Revelation 12, the heavenly vision of the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). The vision depicts the Woman as “Queen of Heaven” insofar as she is both a queenly and heavenly figure — the Woman wears a crown of twelve stars and appears in the sky, in heavenly glory — clothed with the sun and with the moon beneath her feet.

Furthermore, the Woman is a mother. According to v. 2, “she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.” Verses 5-6 state that the Woman “brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” Verse 17 refers to “the rest of her offspring . . . those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.”

to be continued…

 

[Sarah_Jane]

The “male child . . . who is to rule all the nations” is the Messiah; the reference is drawn from the Messianic Psalm 2. But who is the Woman? Some commentators have argued that she is the Church, not Mary. Others see the Woman as the Old Testament People of God personified, e.g., the Daughter of Zion. Both of these interpretations have merit, for both express aspects of the Woman. Yet neither of these interpretations is sufficient by itself. Mary must also be included in the passage, though the case for a Marian interpretation of the text is not as obvious as it may seem at first glance.

For one thing, the Woman gives birth “in travail,” seemingly contrary to the tradition that Mary was exempt from the pangs of birth. Second, immediately after giving birth, the child is “caught up to God,” something difficult to understand in terms of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Third, many of the early patristic commentators on the text saw the Woman as Israel or the Church.

And yet there are also problems with these non-Marian interpretations. The Dragon, i.e., the devil, pursues the Woman after she gives birth to the Messiah. Unable to attack her, the Dragon then makes war against the Woman’s other offspring. If the Woman is Israel, how is it that the Dragon pursues her and makes war against her children? These children are clearly disciples of Jesus (Rev 12:17). Why would Israel be depicted as the Mother of Jesus’ disciples, which is what would be the case if the Woman were simply Israel? Furthermore, is it likely that John would depict Israel as the Mother of the Messiah?

On the other hand, if the Woman is the Church, how do we account for her giving birth to the Messiah? One plausible explanation is that pains of birth refer not to the physical birth of the Messiah, but to Jesus’ Crucifixion. There are at least two reasons for this. First, because the text says immediately afterward the child was “caught up to God” — which fits better with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus than His birth in Bethlehem. Second, because the Lord Himself speaks of His disciples suffering over their loss of Him as like a woman in travail (Jn 16:21).

to be continued…

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Even so, there are still problems with the Woman as the Church. For one thing, the Dragon and the Child are individual persons. It seems inconsistent that the Woman would refer to a collective such as the Church or even Israel, when the other two figures in the text are individuals. For another, the Church seems to be the Woman’s “other offspring” — although one could argue that the Woman is the Church as Mother in relation to individual Christians as her children. A third reason why the Woman seems not to be the Church — or at least not only the Church — has to do with the fact that the Book of Revelation is part of the Johannine corpus of writings. In John’s Gospel, the “Woman” is clearly the Mother of Jesus, who, it must be noted, was at the crucifixion and there referred to by Jesus as “Woman” (Jn 19:25-27; cf. Jn 2:4). If the childbirth in travail does refer to the crucifixion, then the Woman of Rev 12 could just as well be Mary at the foot of the Cross, as the Church. The other Johannine reference to “Woman” — Jn 2:4, the wedding at Cana — only strengthens this view. There, “Woman” clearly refers to the Mother of Jesus.

A fourth problem with the Woman of Revelation 12 being the Church: the vision of the Woman is based on Genesis 3:15, where God tells the serpent (i.e., the Dragon; cf. Rev 12:9) that God will put enmity between the serpent and “the woman,” and between His offspring and hers. The Woman of Genesis 3:15 is Eve, but if the text is interpreted messianically and prophetically, it applies to Mary. Revelation 12 seems to be such a messianic and prophetic interpretation of Genesis 3:15, so it seems likely that the Woman is Mary.

That said, elements of the other two interpretations can be brought together in a Marian interpretation (cf. Redemptoris Mater 24, 47). After all, Mary typifies God’s People of both the Old Testament and New Testament. She was a true daughter of Israel, indeed, the “Daughter of Zion” awaiting the salvation of the Messiah (cf. Zeph 3:14-17 and Lk 1:28,30-31). At the same time, she was also the first person of the New Covenant, for through her Immaculate Conception she was the first to benefit from the salvation of Christ and through her faith in the angel’s message to her, the first explicitly to believe in Jesus as Savior.

Mary is at once the “personal summa” of Israel – at least of the faithful remnant of Israel — and of the Church, the new Israel. In that respect, she gives birth to the Messiah — not only in Bethlehem, but in her collaborative suffering at the Cross. She also becomes Mother of the Church there, for by the word of her own Son Jesus, she becomes Mother of the Beloved Disciple, who becomes her son (Jn 19:25-27).

Perhaps the best interpretation of the Woman of Revelation 12, then, is Mary as the embodiment of the People of God in the Old Testament and New Testament. Since this Woman is a royal heavenly figure — the Queen of Heaven — it follows that Mary is the Queen of Heaven; she is Mother of the King “destined to rule the nations with a rod of iron.”

 

[rarndt01]

Sarah Jane

All of what you posted is nothing but fable and I might add probably borrowed from the liberal writer Scott Hahn. Anyway, it won’t pass the acid test, which in this case is EARLY church testimony of the Fathers. The Fathers who did actually comment on this particular chapter, attributed the “woman” as being the church. and not Mary. Why is this relevant? Because these Catholic writers lived AFTER Mary’s assumption and if it were a fact that Mary would have been crowned “Queen of Heaven” sitting beside her son in heaven, these writers would CERTAINLY have made mention of this. But there is not a word from them, stating this as a fact.

One cannot create religious interpretations without early traditional support. Otherwise, you are just whistling in the dark. There IS early traditional support for our blessed Mother’s ascension, but none for being made Queen of heaven and reigning alongside the triune God over all the angels, apostles and the saints. It just isn’t there. I do appreciate the effort though. Thank you.

Ron from Ohio

 

[beng]

rarndt01:

Sarah Jane

All of what you posted is nothing but fable and I might add probably borrowed from the liberal writer Scott Hahn. Anyway, it won’t pass the acid test, which in this case is EARLY church testimony of the Fathers. The Fathers who did actually comment on this particular chapter, attributed the “woman” as being the church. and not Mary. Why is this relevant? Because these Catholic writers lived AFTER Mary’s assumption and if it were a fact that Mary would have been crowned “Queen of Heaven” sitting beside her son in heaven, these writers would CERTAINLY have made mention of this. But there is not a word from them, stating this as a fact.

One cannot create religious interpretations without early traditional support. Otherwise, you are just whistling in the dark. There IS early traditional support for our blessed Mother’s ascension, but none for being made Queen of heaven and reigning alongside the triune God over all the angels, apostles and the saints. It just isn’t there. I do appreciate the effort though. Thank you.

Ron from Ohio

Jesus is King, Mary is His mother.

Case closed.

 

[amarischuk]

rarndt01:

Sarah Jane

All of what you posted is nothing but fable and I might add probably borrowed from the liberal writer Scott Hahn. Anyway, it won’t pass the acid test, which in this case is EARLY church testimony of the Fathers. The Fathers who did actually comment on this particular chapter, attributed the “woman” as being the church.

Umm, Scott Hahn, LIBERAL? As one of the few people that answered the previous poll: Are you Orthodox or Liberal? with “liberal” I cannot understand just what definition of liberal you are using.

As for more real ‘liberal’ scholars who will agree with you on the woman being the church (the renewed Isreal) check out Donald Senior and Raymond Brown. I concider Hahn more reactionary than anything.

Heck, for a liberal I am so conservative I think I might go Orthodox.

But this is completely aside from the main discussion. I would suggest it be moved to a new thread.

Adam

 

[Paul_Stephens]

The charity level on this thread has denigrated to the point where if it continues much longer in this vein this thread will be closed.

Please self edit your posts for tone and content before pressing the submit button.

Paul Stephens
Moderator

 

[rarndt01]

All I was trying to say was that BOTH the consecrated wine and bread was served to ALL Christians present, during the Eucharist in the early church. Not just ONE specie like Beng claims. Centuries later this was all changed by church councils, who decided only the consecrated bread would be given to Lay Christians, while the priest would be the only one who would partake of both species. Thus the priest denies the sacred blood to it’s laymembers, because of a wrong decision made centuries ago by church councils.

                       Even a simple reading of the gospel account will show that Jesus offered both the bread AND the wine to his disciples, and not just the unleavened bread. Also when one reads Paul's words to the Corinthians, Paul mentions the bread and the cup. TWO SPECIES and not one. 

                          People such as Beng, who posted,  that I be accursed to hell may feel free to do so, but both the New Testament and early church history prove BOTH the bread and the wine were indeed offered to ALL who would partake.

                                           Ron from Ohio