why are some rejecting the cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starbuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benedictgal said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that the Spirit wasn’t active before the Resurrection. I’m saying that the apostles did not have the Spirit to guide them when they doubted and denied and abandoned Christ.
 
anthony022071 said:
I didn’t say that the Spirit wasn’t active before the Resurrection. I’m saying that the apostles did not have the Spirit to guide them when they doubted and denied and abandoned Christ.
Click to expand...
But you did, in your post. Now, let’s try to go back to the original focus of this thread. If you want to start a thread disputing the link between Holy Orders and Holy Thursday, be my guest. But, let’s respect this thread.
 
benedictgal said:
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.
Click to expand...
The connection that the Sacrament of Holy Orders has with the
Last Supper goes back to Christ being the High Priest after the order of Melchezedek,who gave bread and wine to Abram.
Christ the High Priest is the source of all priesthood. It is not about the apostles being made into priests at the Last Supper,as some people believe. At the Last Supper,Christ instituted the priesthood upon himself.
 
benedictgal said:
But you did, in your post. Now, let’s try to go back to the original focus of this thread.
Click to expand...
No,I said this:

“The apostles evidently did not receive the Holy Spirit before Resurrection Day.”

If the apostles had received the Spirit before Resurrection Day,there would have been no need for Christ to breathe the Spirit upon them.

There is a difference between Peter being inspired by the Spirit
and Peter receiving the Spirit within him. Peter contradicted Jesus immediately after he acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah.

I’ll start a new thread on whether the apostles became priests at the Last Supper.
 
What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.
 
TMC said:
What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.
Click to expand...
Anthony is the one who started this whole fracas. Go to his new thread and take it up with him.
 
TMC said:
What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.
Click to expand...
It seems silly to me too. But the notion that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper doesn’t make logical or scriptural or doctrinal sense. A priest is consecrated as such with the Holy Spirit,and he believes in and preaches the Resurrection,and he has the authority to baptize. The apostles did not have those qualifications at that time.
 
TMC said:
What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.
Click to expand...
It came from the fact that Christ gave both species to the Apostles. I (and Trent) held that it did not constitute as obligation for us to recieve both, as the Apostles where bishops, not laity.

Anthony objected, saying the Apostles became bishops only after the Ressurection, not at the Last Supper
 
My reason is that in my parish there are many liturgical abuses, for one, I pass by the cup because people intinct themselves, and I don’t want to.

There are other liturgical issues that I don’t take part of because they are liturgical incorrect.

I will look for another thread for my other issues, but this is my reason.
 
anthony022071 said:
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.
Click to expand...
**So, let me get this str8 - so, because, according to you, the apostles weren’t ‘anointed’ with the Spirit, they did not have the resurrection to believe in Christ or preach, and did not understand the significance of the Cross, this proves that their preaching was in vain? I think you need to go read your Bible. I have no clue where you are coming from!! 🤷 **
 
I rarely receive from the cup, although our parish has it available for every Mass. It is a matter of the abuse of the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The word “extraordinary” means that these ministers should be used only under extraordinary circumstances. We have a relatively small rural parish, and our priest (as well as all the other parishes in our rural diocese) uses several EMHCs at every Mass, including daily Mass, which less than 20 people attend. Since Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in every morsel of the Eucharist, it is not necessary to have the Precious Blood for every Mass, and, therefore, the overuse of EMHCs has become an abuse. I do not want to condone this action in any way, therefore, I do not receive from the cup.
 
When one receives the Body of Christ, he is receiving the living Body of Christ, flesh, blood and all.
 
If you have a raging cold or are a recovering alcoholic, or a nazi breastfeeder, or like me told to avoid alcohol after surgery. There are so many reasons, but the host does the job too.
 
Why this thread is too long? 🙂

Some people don’t like the idea of receiving the host not from a pastor, and we know that many times the cup is hold by the EMHC; thus, they would say “No way I would take the cup from EMHC”.

I am only guessing. Could it be true though?
 
clarkent said:
I rarely receive from the cup, although our parish has it available for every Mass. It is a matter of the abuse of the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The word “extraordinary” means that these ministers should be used only under extraordinary circumstances. We have a relatively small rural parish, and our priest (as well as all the other parishes in our rural diocese) uses several EMHCs at every Mass, including daily Mass, which less than 20 people attend. Since Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in every morsel of the Eucharist, it is not necessary to have the Precious Blood for every Mass, and, therefore, the overuse of EMHCs has become an abuse. I do not want to condone this action in any way, therefore, I do not receive from the cup.
Click to expand...
Of course. This is another way of attempting to re-make the Church into our own image and likeness. But this too shall pass…unfortuntately, we won’t be around to see it.
 
I don’t because I’m not used to it - between the two weekday Masses a week I attend with my school where the Blood of Christ isn’t offered, and the fact that for the Sunday Masses I’m almost virtually always either serving or in the choir loft singing, in both cases where the Blood isn’t offered. So when I get the rare opportunity to recieve, I don’t usually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top