Why do you, or don't you recieve Christ's blood at Holy Communion?

[Seven_Sorrows]

Alright!!! I got some evidence about the “germ” thing.

Just found it in the newspaper yesterday!

“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opinion that liturgical practices such as sharing a commmon Communion cup and shaking hands or holding hands offer only tiny risks of transmitting disease.”

a little later… "the chances of passing the flu or cold with the common cup or through a handshake appear miniscule at best, said CDC spokesman LLelwyn Grant.

“There’s no firm science that suggests any disease could be transmitted through a common Communion cup,” he said."

 

[otm]

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

Then why are you bugging me about it?

I am not bugging you. I am asking a question.
shannon e:

But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Don’t confuse the sign of completeness that the two provides to us sense-addicted humans with the real presence that is present in any one species.

Sense addicted? Now that’s a new one. God gave me the senses that I have; they are part of His design, not mine. And he insituted the Eucharist in a fashion that works with the senses He gave me. Sense addicted?

I am not, have not, and never will confuse the two.But you appear to be stuck on something (which I do not deny) to the point of, it seems, rejecting what Christ Himself gave us, and the Church has seen fit to give us again. And it just baffles me why people would not be delighted. When I am given a gift, I do not say to the giver “No thanks, I don’t need it”. And it strikes me that is what we are saying, in essence, when we start using Trent as the reason to turn down the cup.
shannon e:

Then “I am not sure what you mean by that” is what you ought to have said in the first place. You’re right, you don’t know, and I don’t wish to clarify.

You sound angry. I did not understand what you said, and found ( and still find) it very curious.

I don’t associate Juses with alcohol. But I do associate Him with wine, and with bread, and with wheat, and with eating and drinking. I also associate Him with a lot of other things.

Peace.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

The Church says it does this for “pastoral reasons” NOT for theological symbolism.

If anything, the CCC agrees with me, saying in only APPEARS to be more complete.

I, for, one, don’t need to fall for appearances when the Eucharist is presented.

I don’t “fall” for appearances. I participate in them. And if it is not a theological symbolism, then what is meant by “in that form, the sign of the Eucharistic Meal appears more clearly”? Sounds like theology to me. It doesn’t say that it appears to be more complete. It says it appears more clearly.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t “fall” for appearances. I participate in them.

I prefer to participate in the Substance, not the appearances.

“in that form, the sign of the Eucharistic Meal appears more clearly”? Sounds like theology to me.

It’s not; it’s Symbology: the study of Symbols. It deal with the appeances only.

Much like how Patrick used a shamrock to explain the Trinity for those who could not comprehend it.

But once they did, they moved past the symbol to discuss the Theology.

And it just baffles me why people would not be delighted. When I am given a gift, I do not say to the giver “No thanks, I don’t need it”.

And why can’t you see that we have already recieved the Gift fully and completely?

When has anyone here said we do not need the Gift Christ has offered?

Why do you persist in thinking you are somehow getting a greater Gift or an additional Gift by recieveing from the Chalice?

What, pray tell, is this additional Gift we are passing up?

 

[otm]

Brendan:

I prefer to participate in the Substance, not the appearances.

and you are implying that I don’t?

Brendan:

It’s not; it’s Symbology: the study of Symbols. It deal with the appeances only.{/QUOTE]Your knowledge of theology, or lack thereof, is showing. It is not a sign, as in a road sign, that merely signals something; it is a sign that does something. Go back to the Baltimore Catechism: “A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, that gives grace.”, which meant that the sign notonly show, but does, something. Sorry, the Church says differently; and you are so stuck on the issue that Trent was speaking of that you have become blind to what’s right in front of you. No one is denying that Christ is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in either form of the Eucharist. But it is more than just some throw-away symbol. It is His gift of himself to us in the format He chose. I don’t recall anything in the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistles that indicates that anyone was receiving under only one species. They got it. Why can’t you?

[QUOPTE=Brendan]
And why can’t you see that we have already recieved the Gift fully and completely?

When has anyone here said we do not need the Gift Christ has offered?

Why do you persist in thinking you are somehow getting a greater Gift or an additional Gift by recieveing from the Chalice?

What, pray tell, is this additional Gift we are passing up?

What Christ gave us. I am not one to presume that Christ did not intend us to receive under both species; otherwise, one would have to say that Christ did something unnecessary. I see nothing else in the Gospels that shows Him doing anything else unnecessary; in fact, everything He did was very deliberate.

Again, you are so stuck on Trent’s answer to a heresy at that time, that you can’t get past it. And you have yet to give any answer of why Christ gave us the Eucharist as both the Bread and the Cup, other than to imply that the Cup is bordering on completely unnecessary, which, in turn, implies that Christ did something almost completely unnecessary.

 

[shannon_e]

otm:

I am not bugging you. I am asking a question.

Sense addicted? Now that’s a new one. God gave me the senses that I have; they are part of His design, not mine. And he insituted the Eucharist in a fashion that works with the senses He gave me. Sense addicted?

I am not, have not, and never will confuse the two.But you appear to be stuck on something (which I do not deny) to the point of, it seems, rejecting what Christ Himself gave us, and the Church has seen fit to give us again. And it just baffles me why people would not be delighted. When I am given a gift, I do not say to the giver “No thanks, I don’t need it”. And it strikes me that is what we are saying, in essence, when we start using Trent as the reason to turn down the cup.

You sound angry. I did not understand what you said, and found ( and still find) it very curious.

I don’t associate Juses with alcohol. But I do associate Him with wine, and with bread, and with wheat, and with eating and drinking. I also associate Him with a lot of other things.

Peace.

otm,
I have never stated that Trent was any part of my reasons. I told you my reasons. Any add-ons are your doing.

I was angry because I think you believe that I reject Jesus at every Mass. If you believe that you are dead wrong.
[You say I reject the gift that Jesus gave.
The gift **is Jesus.
Therefore you say I reject Jesus.]

I understand that Jesus himself instituted the Bread and the Wine during the Last Supper, and I assure you that I do not take that lightly. I understand that for some persons–“For pastoral reasons” either doesn’t apply at all or is a far cry less weighty/important/paramount.

Do you think that “pastoral reasons” are only the domain of the Church/Bishop/Priest? I believe that pastoral reasons go in both directions. IOW, the members of the Church can have very valid pastoral reasons as to why they receive only the Bread, or only the Wine. Do you agree or disagree?

My reasons don’t have to pass your muster. But I will say you have given me much food for thought (no pun intended) ah, who am I kidding-- pun always intended.

There are others who have much more noble reasons than mine. There are others who may have less noble reasons than mine. All of us will receive from the Mass what graces we are disposed to receive.
I have not lacked. I take this to indicate that either my “reasons” pass Jesus’ muster, or He has not as yet chosen to heal me of what I am “stuck” on. “Stuck” is your term from your quote above. Maybe I don’t completely disagree…

My heart will be open if Jesus decides to change/heal or in some way use this aspect of myself.

[this world **is sense-addicted, but that’s prolly another thread]

Peace to you.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Chris Jacobsen:

When we receive Communion under either species, we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

When we receive Jesus under the appearance of bread, we are receiving both the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

When we receive Jesus under the appearance of wine, we are receiving both the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
This is because when we receive Communion under either species, we are receiving Jesus whole and complete. We are receiving His Body, His Blood, His Soul, and His Divinity.

:yup:

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

I find it remarkable that over a quarter of the posters (28.83%) say that they receive from the Chalice because it makes them feel that they’ve received more** completely**!

This must mean that if they were to receive only the Host, they would feel It rather incomplete.

Now, that is a heretical view…
Our senses, in this sense, can be deceiving…

 

[otm]

shannon e:

otm,
I have never stated that Trent was any part of my reasons. I told you my reasons. Any add-ons are your doing.

I was angry because I think you believe that I reject Jesus at every Mass. If you believe that you are dead wrong.
[You say I reject the gift that Jesus gave.
The gift **is

Jesus.
Therefore you say I reject Jesus.]
Don’t be silly. I said no such thing, nor did I imply that you reject Jesus. His gift was the Eucharist, and the gift was given in a specific format; the Bread and the Cup. He is present in either, and therefore, in both. He gave us a command, and I don’t read anywhere the command being “Do (one of these) in My name.” The Church says that it is a more complete sign of the Eucharistic Meal to receive under both species. I partake of the Sacred Meal as Christ gave it, i.e. under both species.
shannon e:

Do you think that “pastoral reasons” are only the domain of the Church/Bishop/Priest? I believe that pastoral reasons go in both directions. IOW, the members of the Church can have very valid pastoral reasons as to why they receive only the Bread, or only the Wine. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.
shannon e:

My reasons don’t have to pass your muster. But I will say you have given me much food for thought (no pun intended) ah, who am I kidding-- pun always intended.

Phew! At least you have a sense of humor…

It was not my intent to attack you, but to inquire. I get the distinct impression that you not only felt attacked, but also felt that you got stuck by a sharp point.

At the bottom of this is my puzzelment as to why people refuse the Cup. I can understand someone who is immune depressed; I can also understand some who is allergic to wine, and someone who is an alcoholic.

I have a problem with germ phobias and hypochondriacs, as the logice would preclude them pretty much from receiving in any fashion under either form.

I also have a problem with thinking that is either outright minimalist, or fast approaching it.
shannon e:

There are others who have much more noble reasons than mine. There are others who may have less noble reasons than mine. All of us will receive from the Mass what graces we are disposed to receive.
I have not lacked. I take this to indicate that either my “reasons” pass Jesus’ muster, or He has not as yet chosen to heal me of what I am “stuck” on. “Stuck” is your term from your quote above. Maybe I don’t completely disagree…

My heart will be open if Jesus decides to change/heal or in some way use this aspect of myself.

[this world **is

sense-addicted, but that’s prolly another thread]

Peace to you.

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

I find it remarkable that over a quarter of the posters (28.83%) say that they receive from the Chalice because it makes them feel that they’ve received more** completely**!

This must mean that if they were to receive only the Host, they would feel It rather incomplete.

Now, that is a heretical view…
Our senses, in this sense, can be deceiving…

Not necessarily. The church says that reception under both species is a more complete sign of the Sacred Meal. So more completely does nto mean that we “receive Jesus more completely”, but that we participate more completely in the aspect of the Sacred Meal.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

Again, you are so stuck on Trent’s answer to a heresy at that time, that you can’t get past it. And you have yet to give any answer of why Christ gave us the Eucharist as both the Bread and the Cup,

Wrong, read post #58. I gave the reason.

other than to imply that the Cup is bordering on completely unnecessary, which, in turn, implies that Christ did something almost completely unnecessary.

No, Christ symbolized His death, and that is what happens on the Altar. And the priest uses that symbol to re-present Cavalry to us.

Do you note when a piece of the Host is dropped into the Chalice? That is the symbol of the Resurrection.

That is what we recieve, the Resurrection! Where Body and Blood are united.

That is why Intinction or the Eastern Practice are far superior to what we do. The symbolism is much clearer and much, much more correct.

Far too many people view the two as being seperate and distinct, and that is 100% heretical.

And as far as Trent, like all the Councils, everything from there is still the infallible doctrine of the Church. Do you have an objection to that? Why would you object to me holding an infallible teaching?

 

[shannon_e]

otm:

Don’t be silly. I said no such thing, nor did I imply that you reject Jesus. His gift was the Eucharist, and the gift was given in a specific format; the Bread and the Cup. He is present in either, and therefore, in both. He gave us a command, and I don’t read anywhere the command being “Do (one of these) in My name.” The Church says that it is a more complete sign of the Eucharistic Meal to receive under both species. I partake of the Sacred Meal as Christ gave it, i.e. under both species.

otm,
I’m glad you realize that I don’t reject Jesus.

I disagree that Jesus gave a “command”. A gift is never a command. In addition, if it had been a command, I don’t think He would have let the ones who walked away from that Passover meal go unchallenged.

And even if you mean that only the form of the gift was a command, then I’m still not convinced. I think if you were right the Magesterium and the CCC would reflect it. They don’t.

Recieving both species appeals to our senses. It appeals symbologically to our love and appreciation of the Passover Meal which Christ instituted. It is not a commanded form.

And I in no way mean or wish to downplay the importance of the sensory richness of our Church. It is important. But not required.

Phew! At least you have a sense of humor…

I’m so glad you didn’t have to strain too hard to find the one good thing about me…

At the bottom of this is my puzzelment as to why people refuse the Cup.

Your wording is suspect-- I mean interesting. I do not refuse (or reject) the Cup. (It’s a non-issue.)
I respectfully don’t approach. There is a difference.

I am delighted and grateful to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Has anyone ever called you stubborn?
I am not an alcoholic but only by the Grace of God. Others in my family aren’t so lucky. For now, I can’t associate Jesus with alcohol. For now, I can’t get past that association.

Peace.

 

[Kielbasi]

I wasn’t catechized to receive it, back in the day.

Just seems too protestant of a practice for me.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

Far too many people view the two as being seperate and distinct, and that is 100% heretical.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could expand?

Brendan:

And as far as Trent, like all the Councils, everything from there is still the infallible doctrine of the Church. Do you have an objection to that? Why would you object to me holding an infallible teaching?

I am not objecting to you holding an infallible teaching. I am saying that from the start of the Church and for quite some time, the Eucharist was received under both species, and as far as I can tell, it has been continually received under both species in the Eastern rites; some by intinction, some not. Because of particular problems, Trent drove home the point of the theological response by limiting reception in the Roman rite to the Host.

There seems to be a streak among more conservative individuals to be somewhere between wary, and something approaching and/or bordering on denial that the Eucharist is also a sacred meal. It is not either/or, but both/and sacrifice and sacred meal. The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is not hidden or minimized by reception under both species, but the aspect of sacred meal is more clear by reception of both.

No, I do not accuse you of denying the aspect of sacred meal. And I will agree that some liberals have taken it to the point of at least appearing to deny the aspect of sacrifice. But the response to that is not to deny the aspect of sacred meal, and I find some at best minimalizing it to a very great degree; that minimalization seems to resound in Trent’s definition. I don’t think much of minimalization.

 

[miguel]

Seven Sorrows:

Alright!!! I got some evidence about the “germ” thing.

Just found it in the newspaper yesterday!

“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opinion that liturgical practices such as sharing a commmon Communion cup and shaking hands or holding hands offer only tiny risks of transmitting disease.”

a little later… "the chances of passing the flu or cold with the common cup or through a handshake appear miniscule at best, said CDC spokesman LLelwyn Grant.

“There’s no firm science that suggests any disease could be transmitted through a common Communion cup,” he said."

The same people tell us that using condoms prevents the spread of AIDS.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

There seems to be a streak among more conservative individuals to be somewhere between wary, and something approaching and/or bordering on denial that the Eucharist is also a sacred meal. It is not either/or, but both/and sacrifice and sacred meal. The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is not hidden or minimized by reception under both species, but the aspect of sacred meal is more clear by reception of both.

No, I do not accuse you of denying the aspect of sacred meal. And I will agree that some liberals have taken it to the point of at least appearing to deny the aspect of sacrifice. But the response to that is not to deny the aspect of sacred meal, and I find some at best minimalizing it to a very great degree; that minimalization seems to resound in Trent’s definition. I don’t think much of minimalization.

Otm,

I can assure you, I most assuradly view the Eucharist as a Sacred Meal. And I recieve the Sacred Meal in it’s entirety in any single species.

It might appear to you to be more clear, but I take great offense when you make claims that I am some how ‘passing up’ something. All you seem to be saying is that I ‘pass up’ a chance to make clear what is already perfectly clear.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

miguel:

The same people tell us that using condoms prevents the spread of AIDS.

No they don’t, but I would like to see where you say they do.

They may say that it “helps” to prevent, or minimize chances of getting it…which is does.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

I have been away from this post for a while and I am tired and feeling kinda sick (must have been from receiving the blood… ).

Just think…Jesus did it for a reason…and I am sure none of his apostles at the last supper skipped it, and I’m sure if they would have, they would have at least gotten some weird looks.

and what if Jesus REALLY did want you to receive it and you have to try to justify your actions at the pearly gates…what are you going to say???

 

[miguel]

Seven Sorrows:

I have been away from this post for a while and I am tired and feeling kinda sick (must have been from receiving the blood… ).

Just think…Jesus did it for a reason…and I am sure none of his apostles at the last supper skipped it, and I’m sure if they would have, they would have at least gotten some weird looks.

and what if Jesus REALLY did want you to receive it and you have to try to justify your actions at the pearly gates…what are you going to say???

So now you’re saying he’s going to send me to hell because I didn’t receive from the cup. Why does it bother you so much if I’m not exactly like you? I’m not trying to talk you out of receiving from the cup. You seem to take it as an insult if I don’t want your germs. I find this very amusing.

 

[WhiteDove]

LOL, yes I don’t think that receiving the blood or not would be a big issue at the pearly gates. That sort of statement sounds, well, a bit preposterous.

Basically, we have a choice. Different strokes for different folks, don’t ya think? We all have different personalities, which is maybe why the Church gives us a choice! So, lets not get all hung up on this one, okay???