My stance is that if both are available, it is a good Christian witness to receive both - unless you have a serious allergy or illness that prevents you from receiving one or the other.^^Which gets back to my question. Without a legit reason for abstaining from the Body of Christ, one should not be receiving the Blood only?
My stance is that if both are available, it is a good Christian witness to receive both - unless you have a serious allergy or illness that prevents you from receiving one or the other.
The “it’s yucky” excuses seem childish, to me.
Could you explain exactly what ‘Christian witness’ is happening that does not occur in the reception of one species alone?My stance is that if both are available, **it is a good Christian witness to receive both **- unless you have a serious allergy or illness that prevents you from receiving one or the other.
What if one is concerned about TB, mono, the flu, strep, etc. Are any of these concerns childish?The “it’s yucky” excuses seem childish, to me.
You’re not obeying Christ’s commands to eat and to drink.Could you explain exactly what ‘Christian witness’ is happening that does not occur in the reception of one species alone?
No,it just means they’re avoiding one of the signs that Christ gave us,for no good reason.
Which would then come back to those who do not receive from the Chalice (without an alergy, etc ) as “not” being good Christian witnesses.
Anthony, perhaps you have finally gone to far?You’re not obeying Christ’s commands to eat and to drink.
Your assertion that Christ commands communion under both species seems to be in direct conflict with this teaching of Trent. And in direct conflict with all subsequent teaching of the Church.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 **. . . 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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan
Could you explain exactly what ‘Christian witness’ is happening that does not occur in the reception of one species alone?
You’re not obeying Christ’s commands to eat and to drink.
What does the “not consecrating” phrase mean?…receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating…
No - Not childish at all. You can add the latest health outbreak and concern to the pot- MRSAWhat if one is concerned about TB, mono, the flu, strep, etc. Are any of these concerns childish?
Actually, you most certainly ARE obeying the commands.You’re not obeying Christ’s commands to eat and to drink.
What ‘sign’ exactly and what exactly does this sign signifiy that is not present in Host.No,it just means they’re avoiding one of the signs that Christ gave us,for no good reason.
The sign of the Eucharist is the bread and the wine together (not one of them, separately) - bread alone, there is no sign. Wine alone, there is no sign. Both together, this is the sign.What ‘sign’ exactly and what exactly does this sign signifiy that is not present in Host.
Greater Christian witness? Is that your terminology here?But it is of greater sign value (a better Christian witness) to receive the full sign, rather than just one part, when it is possible to do so.
I have to disagree with this logic. There are many reasons one may have not want to receive from the cup. I would think few of them are related to minimalism.But “I don’t have to” does not translate to “I should not.” We should not be thinking in terms of the least we can get away with - we should be thinking in terms of doing the best that we can possibly do, given what is available to us, and what is reasonable and possible for us.
The sign of the Eucharist is the bread and the wine together (not one of them, separately) - bread alone, there is no sign. Wine alone, there is no sign. Both together, this is the sign.
So is it your assesment then, that a single species by itself does not Signify the undivided Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty?What they signify is the undivided Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Not by itself, no. The two things - bread and wine - are the essential elements of the Eucharistic sign. Bread without the wine is nothing but bread. Wine without the bread is nothing but wine.So is it your assesment then, that a single species by itself does not Signify the undivided Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty?
That there is nothing in an individual species that points towards, or lead the faithful towards, a unified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
Your idea that these Catholics who are receiving under one species, for other than health reasons, are minimalists is absurd since many of the ones at my church receiving under one species also go to Mass and Communion daily, and seem to go frequently to Confession. There is no indication that they as you phrase it are “thinking in terms of the least we can get away with.” There is no indication that anyone receives under one species alone because of minimalism. You are judging peoples hearts who are receiving Holy Communion and are having serious misperceptions.For lay people, it is not required to receive both, or even either one, except for once a year during the Easter season. But “I don’t have to” does not translate to “I should not.” We should not be thinking in terms of the least we can get away with - we should be thinking in terms of doing the best that we can possibly do, given what is available to us, and what is reasonable and possible for us.