SPLIT: Jesus said to receive under both species--why don't we?

[Cristiano]

I am a little confused… At my local parish, we are offered both the body and the blood, and I partake of the second as often as I am able. Should I not be doing this? Or should the parish not be offering it to me? (A small note, we’re only offered the blood at Sunday Mass, during the week it’s only the body.)

If you are offered the Chalice it is good for you to drink from it. Nobody here is saying that it is wrong to drink from the chalice when it is offered.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I am a little confused… At my local parish, we are offered both the body and the blood, and I partake of the second as often as I am able. Should I not be doing this? Or should the parish not be offering it to me? (A small note, we’re only offered the blood at Sunday Mass, during the week it’s only the body.)

I’ve actually never heard of the practice of only being able to partake of the chalice. The typical practice is distributing the Body. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, just different.

 

[Tigg]

Not at all…wouldn’t want to be that or do that. I prefer Christ and the Gospel. Actually, that’s all I am…an adult Christian Catholic trying to live and promote the Gospel. Many on this forum prefer to live only by what Rome dictates. [edited] Be mature Catholic adults. You act and speak like I did when I was a child in the 1950s.

<BIG… SIGH> Now where are these ideas coming from that Rome does not promote the Gospel and that the Church has no power to regulate and discipline the sacraments? Do you believe in any ecclesiastical law?

[edited]

Serving in this ministry, lay or ordained, honors the gifts of that person and reflects Christ’s ministry who came to serve and urges us to do the same.

What special gifts do you have that others of the laity do not? EMHC (note the E=extraordinary) are not to be confused with the ministerial priesthood and in addition you have no “right” to serve. If we had more priests and deacons, there would be no lay Eucharistic ministers period.

 

[Brendan]

I’ve actually never heard of the practice of only being able to partake of the chalice. The typical practice is distributing the Body. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, just different.

I think what was meant was that the species of wine is offered only on Sundays, in that the chalice AND the Host are offered on Sundays, but on other days of the week, only the species of bread is offered.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I think what was meant was that the species of wine is offered only on Sundays, in that the chalice AND the Host are offered on Sundays, but on other days of the week, only the species of bread is offered.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks.

 

[Jesness]

I’ve actually never heard of the practice of only being able to partake of the chalice. The typical practice is distributing the Body. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, just different.

No, no, we’re offered both the host and the cup, at Sunday Mass; we are *NEVER *offered JUST the cup. There is always host offered. During daily Mass, they never offer the cup to the congregation, we only receive the host. From the current thread I was wondering about the morality of it. Unless I am misunderstanding the use of the word “species,” here? one species is the body/bread the other is the blood/wine, no?

 

[Corki]

I am a little confused… At my local parish, we are offered both the body and the blood, and I partake of the second as often as I am able. Should I not be doing this? Or should the parish not be offering it to me? (A small note, we’re only offered the blood at Sunday Mass, during the week it’s only the body.)

It’s perfectly fine for you to receive both if offered. It’s not ok to feel that you must receive both or that receiving both will result in more Sacramental grace.

 

[TheDoctor]

The Gospels

Anna - what you have missed in your well intentioned attempt to receive reverently is that Catholics hold Tradition and Scripture in equal measure.

Let’s take Jesus’ words in the Gospel. You read them to say that we must receive under both forms. I read them as saying that only the Priest consecrating the Eucharist must receive under both forms. We can’t both be correct, so which is it? Fortunately, we have a Pope and Magisterium to infallibly interpret the Gospels in light of both what is written in Scripture and what has been handed down to us, and what has been declared is that only the Priest must receive under both species and the faithful may receive under either form as either form contains Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity.

If you are Catholic one of the things we all must do is to conform our thoughts to the thoughts of the Church. In matters such as these, She is right and we are wrong.

 

[Fiasco]

<BIG… SIGH> **Now where are these ideas coming from that Rome does not promote the Gospel and that the Church has no power to regulate and discipline the sacraments? ** Do you believe in any ecclesiastical law?

Protestantism.
When it suits an opinion, Sola Scriptura once again rears its ugly head.

And to think that the TLM has been short-changing us all these years!!!

 

[Tigg]

Protestantism.
When it suits an opinion, Sola Scriptura once again rears its ugly head.

And to think that the TLM has been short-changing us all these years!!!

There’s a reason why the Church has condemned modernism, post-modernism, moral relativism and all the other “isms” combined. And why high levels of church leadership are trying to put the intelligentsia in their place when so-called “theologians” (always using the term “developing doctrine,” of course) try to change that which simply cannot be changed. Truth has always been and will always BE, no matter how much God’s enemies wish to obscure it with fancy language, *the new understanding *and empty rhetoric. I’m grateful for this forum and the posters who really know their faith and defend it, and feel sympathy for those who have been duped by radicals who really believe they have discovered something new outside the bounds of Divine Revelation.

 

[ProVobis]

Unless I am misunderstanding the use of the word “species,” here? one species is the body/bread the other is the blood/wine, no?

Confusing it is. It is my understanding that it is the belief of some Protestants that the consecrated bread is just bread and the Body of Christ while the consecrated wine is just wine and the Blood of Christ. It is Catholic belief that the entire Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is present under the accidents of the bread and the wine. Mysterium Fidei. That it might be a fuller sign to receive under both accidents doesn’t change the substance or sacrament of What it is that you’re receiving.

 

[Fiasco]

There’s a reason why the Church has condemned modernism, post-modernism, moral relativism and all the other “isms” combined. And why high levels of church leadership are trying to put the intelligentsia in their place when so-called “theologians” (always using the term “developing doctrine,” of course) try to change that which simply cannot be changed. Truth has always been and will always BE, no matter how much God’s enemies wish to obscure it with fancy language, *the new understanding *and empty rhetoric.

Ah yes, but: theyre** BIG PEOPLE **now! Were the ones who refuse to think “outside the box”, and to abandon mediaeval superstition!
The pied pipers are so full of themselves that they end up playing their masters tune. Theres at least one forum outfit which is proud to promote Fr H Kung, Sr J Chittister, Fr Matthew Fox etc. There`s a breakaway (ex-Catholic) “church” in Brisbane (Australia) which has been known to use for the first reading: “A reading from the works of John Shelby Spong.”
Sugar-coated poison.

I’m grateful for this forum and the posters who really know their faith and defend it, and feel sympathy for those who have been duped by radicals who really believe they have discovered something new outside the bounds of Divine Revelation.

The trouble is that a lot of them have been so duped that they refuse to budge, no matter what! They like what they`ve been told, and they intend to stick with it, truth notwithstanding.