why are some rejecting the cup

[anthony022071]

anthony022071, you’ve made it more difficult to respond by putting your responses in the quotation of another, because the forum doesn’t include quoted text when responding!

All you have to do is highlight the quoted passage,copy it,and paste it into your response.

Suffice to say, I will have rebuttals for your appeals to Pope Benedict’s writing on the matter. In the mean time, consider googling for: church born “from the side of christ”.

That’s a poetic way of putting it,and I’m not disputing that expression. In historical time,the Catholic Church was born at Pentecost,when people from many nations heard the apostles speaking in tongues.

You’ll see that “one” of the “births” of the Church has traditionally been the crucifixion, when blood and water flowed forth from the side of Christ: just as the bride of Adam was born from his side while he slept, so the Bride of Christ (the Church) is born from His side while he slept (in death). And you yourself quoted that “Jesus instituted the Eucharist and at the same time established the priesthood of the New Covenant”.

Yes, Jesus established the priesthood beginning with himself as high priest. That is the Eucharistic source of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But he did not ordain the apostles at the Eucharist,he was teaching them. The apostles were not very Christian or priestly when they abandoned Jesus when he was being arrested,or when they doubted that he had risen from death.

The Last Supper. The Crucifixion. The Resurrection. Pentecost. All of these are the “birth” of the Church. Not either/or, but both/and.

I’m not arguing with that. But the notion that there
was a Church at the Last Supper,before the Resurrection,before Pentecost,can hardly be justified. That’s putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Anthony,

I hope you don’t feel like people are ganging up on you. We all say things or type things that in retrospect, and given new data, we might wish to qualify or refine, or even retract. It seems that some of your assertions are really at odds with authoritative teaching.

For instance you have stated a few times that:

anthony022071:

But he did not ordain the apostles at the Eucharist.

And yet the Council of Trent, Session 22, states:

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, "Do this for a commemoration of me,“Christ did not institute the Apostles priests. . . let him be anathema.”

That seems pretty clear. If you made a mistake, or if you didn’t realize this Canon existed, or if you communicated imprecisely, or if it just slipped your mind, or if we misunderstood you – it’s ok! Happens to all of us. We are all learning.

God bless,
VC

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

I hope you don’t feel like people are ganging up on you. We all say things or type things that in retrospect, and given new data, we might wish to qualify or refine, or even retract. It seems that some of your assertions are really at odds with authoritative teaching.

For instance you have stated a few times that:

And yet the Council of Trent, Session 22, states:

That seems pretty clear. If you made a mistake, or if you didn’t realize this Canon existed, or if you communicated imprecisely, or if it just slipped your mind, or if we misunderstood you – it’s ok! Happens to all of us. We are all learning.

God bless,
VC

It should be pretty obvious that I’m not denying that Christ made the apostles into priests.
The question is – when did this happen?
They could not have been priests before the Resurrection,before Christ gave them the Holy Spirit.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Anthony,

I thought that Trent’s Canon

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, “Do this for a commemoration of me” Christ did not institute the Apostles priests. . . let him be anathema.

was fairly clear that the “when” was “by those words” spoken at the Last Supper. (Luke 22:19)

Chapter 1 of Session XXII, states:

because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed . . . . He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament;

What say you?
VC

 

[Brendan]

It should be pretty obvious that I’m not denying that Christ made the apostles into priests.
The question is – when did this happen?
They could not have been priests before the Resurrection,before Christ gave them the Holy Spirit.

You sound very Protestant…saying that Christ can’t do something. It sounds a lot like the argument they use saying that the Last Supper could not have been Christ’s actual Body and Blood because He was still physically there.

Why do you put limits on God?

You have seen quotes from Pope’s Pius X, John Paul II and Benedict, plus the Council of Trent stating that the Apostles were instituted as Priests at the Last Supper, yet you offer nothing in return, other than your own false conjecture; that God cannot do something.

Have you talked to your parish priest yet about this, like I had requested?

 

[fix]

If Jesus wills that I die from germs received from receiving the Euhcarist by both kinds then I will happily accept that death.

If Jesus is able to calm the seas I believe He will be able to sustain me or recieve my soul at my death regardless of a few germs being in the Eucharist!

Why do people have such little faith?

But more than that why are some people so Fastidious at avoiding germs from the Eucharist and not be as fastidious in avoiding germs in all other contexts?

Let’s get real! Jesus did not rebuke His own disciples for eating without washing their hands–don’t tell me that He wills people to practice and even greater amount of hygiene awareness and avoid germs connected to His own Body and Blood!

I’ll tell you this–if a discple of Christ would gladly wipe his blood and sweat drenched brow as Veronica did as He went to the Cross–don’t tell me that same peson would kill themselves avoiding germs from the cup of the most Precious Blood!

Some people might buy that! I don’t!

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with receiving only one kind.

I am saying that there is something wrong with not receiving the cup because of germs! That’s just a Wrong reason and I don’t buy it!

Do you have a list of reasons you deem legitimate? Does the Church have a list?

 

[adopted_heir]

I don’t know if the Church has a list, but as someone who actually does only receive under one Species, and NOT because of the queasies:

I read the first page of responses, but it looked like there were several so I didn’t really read any posts further than that (because I do other things in the day ), but from what I read no one really touched on any reasons other than “It’s gross–I’ll get germs.”

Personally, I do not receive under both Species, and not mainly for any sanitary reasons (although I do have an aversion to sharing a cup with potentially a hundred strangers, this isn’t the main reason I don’t receive the chalice). My main reason is it avoids an occasion for an abuse of the Most Holy Sacrament. The Precious Blood it just too easy to spill when it’s being passed around, sloshed, or, even worse and as I’ve seen, knocked back like a shot. Or when people clumsily drink and slosh it out of the chalice, then wipe their hands (stained with the Sacrament) on their shirt or pants–not the standard recommended way to clean up the spill. Knowing just what is involved in the Sacrament, I want to receive, of course, but I want to avoid any possibility that I would even inadvertently cause a sacrilege or waste of the Sacrament. As much as it appalls me to see others (no doubt inadvertently) abusing the Sacred Species, I can’t allow myself that possibility.

This is to add to the fact that no extra grace is received by receiving both species (my husband quotes St Thomas Aquinas), so there is no spiritual benefit and only the gravest risk of sacrilege associated with receiving under both species. Germs aren’t even the tip of the iceberg. If it is not an express benefit to receive under both species, as our Catholic doctrine says it is not, and only adds up to an abhorrent possibility of profaning Our Lord in the Sacred Species, then it’s best to receive discerningly and with minimal risk, which for me means receiving the Host and making a bow and sign of the Cross when passing the chalice (because while I have received the Host already and so have a bunch of other people and we are all Tabernacles for a time, the Blood is still fully present and deserves the same reverence we give when we genuflect toward the Tabernacle when entering the church at the beginning of Mass).

Now, I know this isn’t the norm among most modern churchgoers, out of respect for the Sacrament I also do not receive in the hand (for much the same reason–it invites too much opportunity for me to drop the Host, to retain crumbs on my fingers and drop them somewhere to be trampled or otherwise profaned–but also because I have not been consecrated for the handling of the Host, while the priest has been set aside out of the whole community for the main purpose of consecrating, distributing, and minding the storage of the Sacred Species) and do not receive from Eucharistic Ministers. My husband and I are unabashed about crossing lines to get to the priest to receive the Eucharist, since it’s his duty to administer it. The most horrific thing I’ve seen in a Mass was a Eucharistic Minister drop a Host on the floor, then kneel and as she was picking it up (which is also the priest’s duty, not anyone else’s), dump the ciborium on the floor as well. That was a tragedy that could absolutely have been avoided, so I am doing my part to avoid that. Out of respect for the Sacrament, we also kneel to receive.

I know this got into kind of a tangent, but I hope you’ll see it as still relevant, since it is all one and the same Person we are receiving, under whichever Species. There didn’t seem to be really anybody who actually refrains from receiving the cup responding, so I thought I would. Basically it’s little or nothing to do with germs or yuckiness factor: it’s all about what is actually going on at the Mass and how I can make sure it’s as holy, reverent, and fulfilling as possible, how I can participate more fully and honor Christ in the Sacrament the most.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

I thought that Trent’s Canon
was fairly clear that the “when” was “by those words” spoken at the Last Supper. (Luke 22:19)

Chapter 1 of Session XXII, states:

What say you?
VC

“Whom he then constituted priests”…

If the Council really believed that Jesus made the apostles into priests on the very day of the Last Supper,they would have been
hard put to explain why Jesus would do that before he gave them the Spirit. It is the Catholic belief that one becomes a priest through the anointing of the Spirit. And a priest has certain offices which the apostles did not have on that day. The apostles were in no position to preach the gospel of the Resurrection when they did not believe in it,and before it actually happened. They were not given the authority to bind and loosen sins,which is a prerogative of someone who has been anointed by the Spirit for that purpose.

If the Council had in mind that Christ made the apostles into priests after he had been resurrected,then that’s fine.

 

[lak611]

“Whom he then constituted priests”…

If the Council really believed that Jesus made the apostles into priests on the very day of the Last Supper,they would have been
hard put to explain why Jesus would do that before he gave them the Spirit. It is the Catholic belief that one becomes a priest through the anointing of the Spirit. And a priest has certain offices which the apostles did not have on that day. The apostles were in no position to preach the gospel of the Resurrection when they did not believe in it,and before it actually happened. They were not given the authority to bind and loosen sins,which is a prerogative of someone who has been anointed by the Spirit for that purpose.

If the Council had in mind that Christ made the apostles into priests after he had been resurrected,then that’s fine.

What about what Pope St. Pius X had to say in his Catechism?

4 Q: When did Jesus Christ institute the Sacerdotal Order?
A: Jesus Christ instituted the Sacerdotal Order at the Last Supper when he conferred on the Apostles and their successors the power of consecrating the Blessed Eucharist. Then on the day of His resurrection He conferred on them the power of remitting and retaining sin, thus constituting them the first Priests of the New Law in all the fullness of their power.

 

[anthony022071]

You sound very Protestant…saying that Christ can’t do something. It sounds a lot like the argument they use saying that the Last Supper could not have been Christ’s actual Body and Blood because He was still physically there.

Christ said that it was his body and blood,so we can be sure of that,but he did not give the apostles the Spirit,nor did he give them the authority to bind and loosen sins,nor did he give them the commission to preach and to baptize.

Why do you put limits on God?

I’m not putting limits on God,I’m acknowledging that a priest is only a priest if he has been anointed with the Spirit. Before Jesus began his ministry,he had himself baptized by John the Baptist. When John questioned him,Jesus told John that it was fitting for all righteousness.

You have seen quotes from Pope’s Pius X, John Paul II and Benedict, plus the Council of Trent stating that the Apostles were instituted as Priests at the Last Supper, yet you offer nothing in return, other than your own false conjecture; that God cannot do something.

Have you talked to your parish priest yet about this, like I had requested?

Pope Pius did not say that the apostles were priests at the Last Supper,he said that Christ instituted the Sacerdotal Order on that day,and that Christ made them priests on the day of Resurrection.

< 4 Q: When did Jesus Christ institute the Sacerdotal Order?
A: Jesus Christ instituted the Sacerdotal Order at the Last Supper when he conferred on the Apostles and their successors the power of consecrating the Blessed Eucharist. Then on the day of His resurrection He conferred on them the power of remitting and retaining sin, thus constituting them the first Priests of the New Law in all the fullness of their power. >

Neither did Pope Benedict say that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper. He only spoke of the intrinsic relation between the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders,and said that Jesus was the priest.

There’s a difference between Christ founding the Sacerdotal Order and Christ making priests within that Order. At the Last Supper,the apostles learning how to be priests,but they were not priests.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071:
Edit:

Neither did Pope Benedict say,in that quote,that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper. He spoke of the intrinsic relationship between the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders,and said that Jesus established the priesthood at that time,and that Jesus was the priest.

There’s a difference between Christ founding the priesthood,or Sacerdotal Order,and Christ making the apostles into priests within that Order. At the Last Supper,the apostles were taught what to do when they were to become priests;but they were not made priests on that day.

 

[benedictgal]

Edit:

Neither did Pope Benedict say,in that quote,that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper. He spoke of the intrinsic relationship between the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders,and said that Jesus established the priesthood at that time,and that Jesus was the priest.

There’s a difference between Christ founding the priesthood,or Sacerdotal Order,and Christ making the apostles into priests within that Order. At the Last Supper,the apostles were taught what to do when they were to become priests;but they were not made priests on that day.

I don’t know if any of you have this “aha” moment, but, has anyone brought up the point that the Church, in her wisdom and prudence celebrates the Chrism Mass (at least tries, to, anyway-depending where you live) on Holy Thursday?

During the Chrism Mass, the priests renew their vows before their local Ordinary. The readings call to mind the importance of the priesthood. If memory serves, this is the day when the clergy gather around their Bishop as a sign of unity and fidelity to the calling that they have received. The rubrics for Holy Week make that very evident.

Now, in my Diocese, the Chrism Mass is moved to either Tuesday or Wedneday. However, in Rome, the Holy Father has always celebrated the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. JPII always released a letter to priests on that day reminding them of the importance of their ordination.

If then, the Church links the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to the Last Supper (wherein Jesus specifically states, “Do this in memory of me”), why is there even a question or a debate about this? To say that Holy Orders didn’t happen until the evening of the Resurrection, when Jesus breathes on them the Holy Spirit doesn’t make any sense at all. If that were the case, then the Church would not have written a Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer that specifically links the Institution of the Priesthood to the Institution of the Eucharist. Go figure!

 

[peary]

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t know if any of you have this “aha” moment, but, has anyone brought up the point that the Church, in her wisdom and prudence celebrates the Chrism Mass (at least tries, to, anyway-depending where you live) on Holy Thursday?

The pope celebrates the mass of ordination on Pentecost Sunday,so go figure.

If then, the Church links the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to the Last Supper (wherein Jesus specifically states, “Do this in memory of me”), why is there even a question or a debate about this? To say that Holy Orders didn’t happen until the evening of the Resurrection, when Jesus breathes on them the Holy Spirit doesn’t make any sense at all.

I didn’t say that the Sacrament of Holy Orders wasn’t established until Resurrection Day,I’m saying that the apostles were not made priests until Resurrection Day. That’s when they received the Spirit,the authority to bind and loosen sins,and the commission to preach the gospel and baptize. It’s a matter of chronology of historical events.

If that were the case, then the Church would not have written a Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer that specifically links the Institution of the Priesthood to the Institution of the Eucharist. Go figure!

The institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper and the apostles being made into priests are two different events. At the institution of the priesthood,Jesus was the priest and the apostles were being taught what they must do as priests. They were by no means ready to be priests.

 

[Jodi]

I am not allowed any alcohol for a year after a surgery I had so for some it could be medical. Some alcoholics also abstain.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If the Council really believed that Jesus made the apostles into priests on the very day of the Last Supper,they would have been hard put to explain why Jesus would do that before he gave them the Spirit.

Why? Surely the Holy Spirit was active in some way before Pentecost?

What is really very perplexing is that you seem to be asserting you know what the Council really believed, in contradiction to the traditional understanding of what the Council really believed.

If the Council had in mind that Christ made the apostles into priests after he had been resurrected,then that’s fine.

I don’t understand. Let’s assume that you somehow become convinced that the Council did mean what I propose it means (the Apostles became priests at the Last Supper) – are you indicating by the above statement that you will reject the Council’s teaching as error?

Anthony, the evidence seems to be mounting against your assertion. Do you think perhaps it would be more intellectually honest of you to take a look at your own argument and assumptions and see why they may be incomplete - perhaps harmonized with the evidence given to you – instead of denying what the evidence seems to be saying?

For instance here is the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii 13. For, in the first place, as the Council of Trent teaches, Jesus Christ at the Last Supper instituted the sacrifice and the priesthood of the New Covenant: "our Lord and God, although once and for all, by means of His death on the altar of the cross, He was to offer Himself to God the Father, that thereon He might accomplish eternal Redemption; yet because death was not to put an end to his priesthood, at the Last Supper, the same night in which He was betrayed in order to leave to His beloved spouse the Church, a sacrifice which should be visible (as the nature of man requires), which should represent that bloody sacrifice, once and for all to be completed on the cross, which should perpetuate His memory to the end of time, and which should apply its saving power unto the remission of sins we daily commit, showing Himself made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered to God the Father, under the appearance of bread and wine, His Body and Blood, giving them to the apostles (whom He was then making priests of the New Covenant) to be consumed under the signs of these same things, and commanded the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer them, by the words ‘Do this in commemoration of Me.’ "

1. And thenceforth, the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, began to lift to heaven that “clean oblation” foretold by Malachy, through which the name of God is great among the gentiles. And now, that same oblation in every part of the world and at every hour of the day and night, is offered and will continue to be offered without interruption till the end of time: a true sacrificial act, not merely symbolical, which has a real efficacy unto the reconciliation of sinners with the Divine Majesty.VC

 

[anthony022071]

Why? Surely the Holy Spirit was active in some way before Pentecost?

The apostles evidently did not receive the Holy Spirit before Resurrection Day.
It was not active when Judas betrayed Christ
immediately after having been supposedly made a priest;or when the apostles abandoned Christ when he was arrested;or when Peter denied Christ three times;or when the apostles doubted that Christ had risen.

 

[lak611]

The apostles evidently did not receive the Holy Spirit before Resurrection Day.
It was not active when Judas betrayed Christ
immediately after having been supposedly made a priest;or when the apostles abandoned Christ when he was arrested;or when Peter denied Christ three times;or when the apostles doubted that Christ had risen.

How does Judas’ actions or Peter’s actions prove that the Apostles were not priests yet? Holy Orders does not make a man impeccable. Priests are still able to sin. Even the Pope goes to Confession; in fact he usually goes very frequently.

 

[benedictgal]

The apostles evidently did not receive the Holy Spirit before Resurrection Day.
It was not active when Judas betrayed Christ
immediately after having been supposedly made a priest;or when the apostles abandoned Christ when he was arrested;or when Peter denied Christ three times;or when the apostles doubted that Christ had risen.

Just because they received the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders that didn’t necessarily mean that they would become “supermen” and not succumb to the dangers of temptation. If that were the case, then every single priest, bishop and Pope would be out of the priesthood. The Church is a divine institution established by Christ, but, administered by men.

You also cannot say that the Holy Spirit was not active before the Resurrection. That’s a hair away from heresy. Jesus was conceived of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit descended atop Jesus in the form of a dove when He was baptized by St. John the Baptist. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert, where He was tempted by Satan. And, just who do you think inspired St. Peter to make his famous confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”? Jesus, himself said that it was not mere Man, but the heavenly Father who revealed it to him, and, as we understand it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus knew that he was dealing with weak, human beings. Yet, he loved them and still went ahead and conferred the priesthood on them.

Just because ordinations are not celebrated during Holy Week does not take away the important connection the Sacrament of Holy Orders has to the Eucharist. They are intimately united, as the most important duty of a priset is to offer the Holy Sacrifice.

Perhaps we should start another thread because, I, too, plead guilty to leading this discussion into another sphere that is miles away from its original intent.

 

[anthony022071]

How does Judas’ actions or Peter’s actions prove that the Apostles were not priests yet? Holy Orders does not make a man impeccable. Priests are still able to sin. Even the Pope goes to Confession; in fact he usually goes very frequently.

I was responding to a different question.

The actions of the apostles don’t prove that the apostles weren’t priests,but the fact that they were not anointed with the Spirit,and that they did not have the Resurrection to believe in and preach,and did not understand the significance of the Cross,proves that they were not priests of Christ. Until they came to believe in the Cross and the Resurrection,they would not have even understood the significance of the Eucharist.