J
jmcrae
Guest
Right - but it is still only one Jesus. We are receiving the same Jesus under two signs, instead of just one, as when we receive only the Host.
- Status
M
Magdalena09
Guest
In RCIA I learned that either way, whether bread or cup, was the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.
Not understanding the question, here?
Not understanding the question, here?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Unless I am mistaken (and I very well could be), it has never been a requirement for the faithful to receive from the cup. It is however a requirement for the clergy.
Receving under one species is complete and sufficient, as we receive Jesus’, body, blood, soul and divinity.
I hate to use such a crude example, but here goes.
If you buy a steak at the grocery store, it is the body of the cow. The meat is still red because there is still a certain amount of blood in the tissue itself. Have you ever noticed that when meat sits for a while, blood still comes out of it? That same steak will lose the blood in the tissues over time, and turn brownish in color.
So, in looking at the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, there is still blood in the body.
Receving under one species is complete and sufficient, as we receive Jesus’, body, blood, soul and divinity.
I hate to use such a crude example, but here goes.
If you buy a steak at the grocery store, it is the body of the cow. The meat is still red because there is still a certain amount of blood in the tissue itself. Have you ever noticed that when meat sits for a while, blood still comes out of it? That same steak will lose the blood in the tissues over time, and turn brownish in color.
So, in looking at the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, there is still blood in the body.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
From my understanding of the Mass and the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist, the bread and wine are consecrated and experience transsubstantiation as Christ commanded us to. This is why both the Body and Blood of Christ are present at every mass. However, the leity need only receive one or the other (i.e. allergies) to receive the fullness of Christ offered in the Eucharist. Having both the Body and Blood do not provide ‘double’ grace or any other blessing/promise associated with Communion, so I have always wondered why certain churches (including the church at my alma mater) offer both to everyone.
A
Apryl
Guest
I agree… that is a crude example… but it WORKS!
Just like: once it’s consecrated, it doesn’t matter the size of the host that you receive, if it’s broken, or anything… you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.
One does not have to receive either or both species… .what about those who cannot receive the wheat of the host, but they can receive the wine. Not all churches may, at all times, have non-wheat hosts. That person is still receiving the Eucharist.
'If I could just touch the hem of His garment…"
T
tweetymom
Guest
Oh thank you so much for this thread? I only asked you when did it cahnge from only the Priest being privy to the cup and now everyone does. Didn’t ask for a bunch of if you buy a cow etc anoligies.
A
Apryl
Guest
Ahem…
YOU didn’t start this thread.
We are enjoying it. If you don’t like it… Pish Posh!
T
tweetymom
Guest
I do not care only that the post has my name in it. I only asked a question. This thread has been reported.Ahem…
YOU didn’t start this thread.
We are enjoying it. If you don’t like it… Pish Posh!
T
tweetymom
Guest
The original question was when did it change the priest only on to have privy to the cup.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I don’t really like threads directed towards an individual…that’s why we have Private Messaging.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Amen I thought it was against the rules
M
Mumbles140
Guest
For Tweetymom:
[edited]. Here is what Wikipedia (not credible, I know, but it is what I logically thought was the case):
“In the Western Church, the communion at the chalice was made less and less efficient, as the dangers of the spread of disease and danger of spillage were considered enough of a reason to remove the chalice from common communion altogether (or giving it on only special occasions). The Protestant controversy turned this into one of its main issues. As a consequence, the Roman Catholic Church first wanted to eliminate ambiguity, declaring that Christ was present both as body and as blood equally under both species of bread and wine. As time went on, the chalice was made more available to the laity. After the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church gave a full permission for all to receive communion from the chalice at every Mass involving a congregation.”
[edited]. Here is what Wikipedia (not credible, I know, but it is what I logically thought was the case):
“In the Western Church, the communion at the chalice was made less and less efficient, as the dangers of the spread of disease and danger of spillage were considered enough of a reason to remove the chalice from common communion altogether (or giving it on only special occasions). The Protestant controversy turned this into one of its main issues. As a consequence, the Roman Catholic Church first wanted to eliminate ambiguity, declaring that Christ was present both as body and as blood equally under both species of bread and wine. As time went on, the chalice was made more available to the laity. After the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church gave a full permission for all to receive communion from the chalice at every Mass involving a congregation.”
T
tweetymom
Guest
[edited] I really do thank you for your answer, Bod Bless you.
J
jmcrae
Guest
And since the Eucharist is Christ’s living Body, clearly it is also the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, as well - undivided.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Tweetymom and I were discussing this subject in another thread, and our conversation was off-topic for that thread, so I brought the conversation to a new thread. I put her name on it so that she would be able to find the thread.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Like I said I could have found it without my name on it, It was done as an embarrassment to me.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
If you look at my answer earlier on in this thread, I stated that it has never been a requirement for the faithful to receive from the cup, and it still is not a requirement.
[edited]
T
tweetymom
Guest
Sorry you are wrong. [edited]
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Believe what you will[edited].
S
Sabda
Guest
Starting threads with other people’s names on them does happen. I have seen it happen I don’t know how many times. Your not the first and you won’t be the last. You had a question that was off topic for the other thread jmcrae started this thread so the conversation could continue with out being off topic. Since the conversation was originally between the two of you jmcrae put you name in the title to help you find it. I personally would have found that to be helpful and would not have been embarrassed by it. It’s not always easy to find a particular thread. On a number of forums on this board the mods do ask that we stay on topic.
Honestly, there really is nothing to be embarrassed about here, and I’m not sure why you feel embarrassed, it’s an interesting question which does make for a good discussion.
- Status