L
lak611
Guest
If you do spill the Precious Blood on your shirt, you would take your shirt and soak it in a pan of water at home. Then pour the water into the ground, not down the drain. Then the shirt can be washed as usual.
- Status
A
anthony022071
Guest
Do you also object to your priest referring to the consecrated Host as bread during the liturgy?
Or the pope?
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060615_corpus-christi_en.html
< Jesus, as a sign of his presence, chose bread and wine. With each one of the two signs he gives himself completely, not only in part. The Risen One is not divided. He is a person who, through signs, comes near to us and unites himself to us.
Each sign however, represents in its own way a particular aspect of his mystery and through its respective manifestation, wishes to speak to us so that we learn to understand the mystery of Jesus Christ a little better. >
< During the procession and in adoration we look at the consecrated Host, the most simple type of bread and nourishment, made only of a little flour and water. In this way, it appears as the food of the poor, those to whom the Lord made himself closest in the first place. >
< And so, looking closely at this little piece of white Host, this bread of the poor, appears to us as a synthesis of creation. Heaven and earth, too, like the activity and spirit of man, cooperate. The synergy of the forces that make the mystery of life and the existence of man possible on our poor planet come to meet us in all of their majestic grandeur.
In this way we begin to understand why the Lord chooses this piece of bread to represent him. Creation, with all of its gifts, aspires above and beyond itself to something even greater. Over and above the synthesis of its own forces, above and beyond the synthesis also of nature and of spirit that, in some way, we detect in the piece of bread, creation is projected towards divinization, toward the holy wedding feast, toward unification with the Creator himself. >
< Bread made of many grains contains also an event of union: the ground grain becoming bread is a process of unification. We ourselves, many as we are, must become one bread, one body, as St Paul says (cf. I Cor 10: 17). In this way the sign of bread becomes both hope and fulfilment. >
< On the feast of Corpus Christi we especially look at the sign of bread. It reminds us of the pilgrimage of Israel during the 40 years in the desert. The Host is our manna whereby the Lord nourishes us - it is truly the bread of heaven, through which he gives himself. >
A
anthony022071
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060615_corpus-christi_en.html
< In a very similar way the sign of wine speaks to us. However, while bread speaks of daily life, simplicity and pilgrimage, wine expresses the exquisiteness of creation: the feast of joy that God wants to offer to us at the end of time and that already now and always anticipates anew a foretaste through this sign.
But, wine also speaks of the Passion: the vine must be repeatedly pruned to be purified in this way; the grapes must mature with the sun and the rain and must be pressed: only through this passion does a fine wine mature. >
< In a very similar way the sign of wine speaks to us. However, while bread speaks of daily life, simplicity and pilgrimage, wine expresses the exquisiteness of creation: the feast of joy that God wants to offer to us at the end of time and that already now and always anticipates anew a foretaste through this sign.
But, wine also speaks of the Passion: the vine must be repeatedly pruned to be purified in this way; the grapes must mature with the sun and the rain and must be pressed: only through this passion does a fine wine mature. >
A
Ad_Deum
Guest
Most of the people around the world is not accustomed to received in both species. It is a new added thing in the church today; 50 years ago communicants only received the Host and the wine was reserved only for the priest. I asked a priest once about this issue and according to him, the body and blood of Christ are not separated, so if we received the host we also received the blood of our Lord. In the Vatican, people only received the bread, so why do we need to drink from the chalice if not it is not part of our tradition. Receiving in both species is a protestant way not a Catholic one.
Pax
Pax
D
Digitonomy
Guest
That’s a real kick in the teeth to Catholics across the world faithfully following the GIRM who receive under both species, not to mention the Eastern Catholics who have always received under both species.
R
Roguemelody
Guest
fraisinette,
Just outta curiosity, I know it’s not normally offered in your parish, nor is it in mine, but where he consecrated enough for the whole parish, couldn’t he have offered the cup regardless of whether they usually receive it?
Just outta curiosity, I know it’s not normally offered in your parish, nor is it in mine, but where he consecrated enough for the whole parish, couldn’t he have offered the cup regardless of whether they usually receive it?
C
Cristiano
Guest
There is a difference between using the term in a symbolic matter and saying that they are truly bread and wine. In this thread you have been changing a lot what you affirm to be true. I do not know if you are just aligning yourself closer to the expressions used by St. Thomas or if you are just becoming more aware of what you believe to be true. I think that either way you are doing a good job.
L
lucyenglish77
Guest
Ken,
In context, this meal that Jesus had with the disciples was the Passover Seder. This was during Jewish times and not during present times. Although, this seder was different because he knew that he was going to suffer.
Of course, none of them refused the bread and wine. I agree with you on that.
The event is what the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist is based on.
It really shouldn’t be called the Last Supper. There will be a Banquet in heaven!
Anyway, it is not that the Blood of Christ is bad for us. It is a preference. As I was saying before, some Catholics have been taking the body of Christ for so long that I think they don’t realize that you can share the Blood of Christ with others.
I have been to parishes where only the priests drink the cup and I have been to parishes where they have shared with the Catholic community. Catholics are not require to have both the Body and Blood of Christ. Some who have been Catholics for awhile only take the Body of Christ. Others take both the Body and Blood of Christ.
Also, if you see others who don’t take communion yet still go up there anyway. These people receive a blessing.
It took me awhile to understand this issue. I really don’t know why some Catholics still refuse the Blood of Christ.
There will be a discussion about the sacraments at a RCIA class at my parish in the next few weeks. I’ll give you the information on what a priest says about this. I’ll ask him this same question.
It is important to know that we remember what Jesus did for us either by taking the Body of Christ or both elements (Body and Blood of Christ). Jesus did this so that we can remember his death, burial and resurrection. He wanted the disciples to remember everything about His teachings, His words, His lifestyle. He doesn’t want us to forget.
Feel free to keep asking questions about anything!
May God bless you.
A
anthony022071
Guest
That doesn’t make sense. Jesus started the tradition of the bread and wine,and both species were normally used for the first 12 centuries of the church.
St. Justin:
< Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. >
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm
< History of the Eucharistic Communion
The gathered assembly in the ancient Church would not have conceived of its eucharistic communion without full access to both bread and wine. In fact, the normative practice in the Western Church for the first twelve centuries was the assembly’s Communion under both species. Reception of Communion under either the bread or wine alone was practiced merely for functional reasons. >
ritemagazine.org/resources/0705ReceptionEucharistTwoSpecies.php
L
lucyenglish77
Guest
Wow, I did not know that. I wonder why some parishes don’t let anyone but the priest take the cup.
Do you think Pope Benedict will change this?
I am not confused about this…just curious.
A
anthony022071
Guest
ritemagazine.org/resources/0705ReceptionEucharistTwoSpecies.phpWow, I did not know that. I wonder why some parishes don’t let anyone but the priest take the cup.
Do you think Pope Benedict will change this?
I am not confused about this…just curious.
< In the twelfth century, however, the Latin Church undergoes a dramatic change in its practices concerning the chalice. This variance cannot be attributed to one factor. Yet an increased fixation on the host and reverence for its transformative ocular powers overshadows the place and importance of the eucharistic species of the wine. The eucharistic imagination shifts exclusively to the monstrance and away from the chalice. The pastoral practice of communicating the faithful with the host alone rapidly becomes customary. One witnesses the struggle of the theologians’ attempts to justify the practice of Communion under one species and to find that practice as part of the Church’s long-standing tradition.
By the thirteenth century, the Church in the West had forsaken Communion in the form of wine for all except the presiding priest. The Church of the high Middle Ages had developed complete amnesia concerning the chalice. The practice of giving Communion in the form of bread alone, known as Communion sub una, had become the common practice. To drink from the chalice was abandoned altogether as normative practice of the laity. Moreover, by the fourteenth century, Christians who returned to the ancient practice of receiving Communion under both kinds were condemned and considered heretics or schismatics. Complete ecclesial prohibition of the chalice to the laity resulted in the Council of Constance in 1415, which asserted that Communion in the form of bread alone was the law of the Church. >
See also post 96.
I don’t know if the pope will change it. If the Latin rite traditionalists would ackowledge what really is traditional in the history of the Church,then the practice of receiving the wine might be brought back.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Council of Trent—21st Session
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
[DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS]
The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-whereas, touching the tremendous and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are in divers places, by the most wicked artifices of the devil, spread abroad certain monstrous errors, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, It has thought fit, that what relates to communion under both species, and the com-munion of infants, be in this place set forth. Wherefore It forbids all the faithful in Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach, or preach otherwise on these matters, than is in these decrees explained and defined.
CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND ON THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS
CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
[DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS]
The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-whereas, touching the tremendous and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are in divers places, by the most wicked artifices of the devil, spread abroad certain monstrous errors, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, It has thought fit, that what relates to communion under both species, and the com-munion of infants, be in this place set forth. Wherefore It forbids all the faithful in Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach, or preach otherwise on these matters, than is in these decrees explained and defined.
CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND ON THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS
CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
D
drforjc
Guest
That would appear to seal the deal over and against “Anthony 022271”'s obviously biased quoted commentary.
A
anthony022071
Guest
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)
The Didache,Ch. 9:
First, as regards the cup:
We give You thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Your son David, which You made known to us through Your Son Jesus…
St. Justin,Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.:
God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.
Serapion,The Sacramentary of Serapion,Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice [13]:
We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures
[22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]:
Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.
St. Fulgence of Ruspe,"The Rule of Faith [62]:
…the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine . . .
W
Walking_Home
Guest
No matter what you post—you cannot trump the Council of Trent.
We as Catholics are to abide by it.
A
anthony022071
Guest
That doesn’t make sense – Vatican 2,and subsequent decrees by bishops,allowed the use of the wine. The prohibitions of the wine were misguided over-reactions to heresy,and untraditional.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
A
anthony022071
Guest
I never said that the Church mandates it. But why would Latin-rite
traditionalists,of all people,have a problem with bringing back a tradition begun by Christ?
Christ gave only two commands for the eucharistic meal: “Take this,all of you,and eat it”,and “Take this,all of you,and drink it”.
The whole mass is centered upon the Eucharist,and yet one of the two Eucharistic signs has been withheld from the laity for several centuries,on the excuse that one is sufficient.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Do you believe one species is not sufficient.
- Status