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

[otm]

Brendan:

otm:

The answer as to why one does not participate more fully …QUOTE]

And you have yet to answer as to how exactly we are not participating fully.

The Church authority says it is only a SIGN of fuller particiation, a symbol only. The Church Authority does not say those who only partake of one species are lacking participation. Only you are saying that.

You’ve talked about ‘minimalizm’ but have made no effort to show what we are being minimal about.

OTM,

Answer this question

How exactly

am I not fully participating in any aspect of the Eucharist?

I’ll try it again. No one, that I can see, in this thread is denying that Christ is fully present, Body, Blood, soul and Divinity under either species.

Christ gave us the Eucharist, which is both Sacrifice and Sacred Meal. The reception of the Eucharistic Meal inherently implies both Food and Drink; that is the form that Christ gave it to us. I’ve tried to explain what a meal is, and you can only seem to understand that the Eucharist is reception of Christ, Trent said we receive all of Him by reception of the Host, and that’s all we need to do. Go study the Greek, and I think you will find that Christ’s word useage was in command form, rather than suggestion form: “Do this” was a command.

You refer to symbols as if they were “mere” symbols, something that is in the essence of Protestant thought of Sacraments. Symbols are signs that do something, according to Catholic Sacramental Theology. You might want to acquaint yourself with Old Testament typology of the Eucharist, which involves both wheat and wine; particularly the Passover.

And by the way, our jewish brethren who celebrate the Passover believe that when theyt do so, they are participating in the flight from Egypt; the Passover Meal to them is more than a mere symbol.

As I tried to explain in a prior post, you can say that you ate at my house if you ate the lamb, but I would deny that you had a meal at my house if you did not participate fully.

You are short stopping on the term “participate fully” in a minimalist attitude that you have received Christ, and there is nothing more that needs doing; but you have no explanation of why Christ gave us the Eucharsit under both species with the command “Do this”, except to say that the priest has to do it and that suffices. He invites us to eat His Body and Drink His blood. The technical answer that you do so by consuming one species seems to me to border on saying that there is no meaning, no content in two species; they (or at least one of them) suddenly becomes a mere symbol.

To try another analogy: marriage is something more than just existing in the same house, making money available to your spouse, and not committing adultery.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

As I tried to explain in a prior post, you can say that you ate at my house if you ate the lamb, but I would deny that you had a meal at my house if you did not participate fully.

Correct, Yet we both agree that I ate ‘everything on the menu’ fully and completely. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

What you are trying to say is that it’s only when I eat the same things all over again (but with a different color this time) will you truly say I had a meal at your house

but you have no explanation of why Christ gave us the Eucharsit under both species with the command “Do this”, except to say that the priest has to do it and that suffices.

Correct. By definition, the command at the Last Supper are mostly for the Clergy. Does Christ command to you to “Do this in memory of me” mean that you get to Confect the Sacrament??

The Priest, consecrates both elements as re-presentation of the Sacrafice of Calvary. The elements are seperated as a sign of Christ’s death. But they are consecrated together as a sign of the Resurrection. The Body and Blood of Christ cannot ever be seperated, nor should they be presented as such.

Again. I have no objection to both species being offered. I do hold that it is a truer sign. But they should be presented TOGETHER. By intinction or in the Eastern Fashion.

The absolute most complete sign is when they are done together, when they signify a complete Resurected Christ.

To try another analogy: marriage is something more than just existing in the same house, making money available to your spouse, and not committing adultery.

 

[TNT]

Podo2004:

The Church also teaches that it is a more complete sign under both species so why do we all just deny that fact and refuse to recieve that gift that he’s offering us? Sad…

Podo:
Replace also with always. Then tell me if that is true.

1. The both species program has at its roots, protestant protest against the Church. The VAT II church wanted to remove this difference in order to attract the prot. by removing a “stumbling block”.
2. The time it takes to receive Communion takes twice as long and involves an unecessary burden on the priest, so lay ministers get justified, which is another certification of protestant protest against the Church on the Ordained priesthood.
3. The Old KJV of the bible stated in 1 Cor 11:27:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The New KJV of the bible stated in 1 Cor 11:27:

Therefore whoever eats this bread** or** drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

In the Old KJV, that 1st AND was not a hapless error. They did it to refute Catholic Teaching.
Many Prot’s. still use the Old KJV which is not accurate on this verse by it’s own admission in the later corrected version.
4. The priest was the only one who received under both kinds, as he is the one who confects the sacrifice. The prot believed ONLY in the priesthood of all members (egalitarianism). So, they demanded both species to deny the ordained priesthood privilege. Their worship service was also a catechesis of their members.
4. The receiving under one species is an affirmation of what the Church has ALWAYS taught, Christ whole and entire under either species, and the Mass includes catechesis of the faithful.
Also, those few who cannot tolerate gluten (wheat) may receive only the chalice, not the Host.

So, do not be sad.
Love ya,
God Bless

 

[CatholicCrusade]

I receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ at Mass.

I do NOT receive, however, from the Chalice, and the following are the reasons (I chose the last one, since I fit under two categorites):

“I don’t receive the blood because Christ is fully present in his body, and it complicates the Mass uneccessarily”

and

“I don’t receive the blood because it’s not offered at my Parish” (Traditional Latin Mass)

and one could be added: I don’t in obedience to the Council of Trent

 

[TNT]

For PODO:
Or anyone who can give a certain answer:

Do you know if the children of Fatima, when they received Communion from the Angel:
Did the children testify that they each received under both species? Or did Lucy just receive the Host?
And Francisco, just the Chalice?

 

[larsont7]

otm:

It is also not what anyone is saying in this thread. Can you understand the difference between not receiving Christ completely (which has not been said), and not receiving the Eucharistic Meal completely? The Euchristic Meal as set by Christ is the Host and the Cup.

That IS what some are saying in this thread, that one receives Christ MORE completely when receiving both, which is not correct. You may not be saying that, but if you read back through the threads, some do clearly say so.

As to the distinction you make between receiving Christ completely or the Eucharistic Meal completely, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. It is not up to the laity to receive the Eucharistic Meal completely because there is no reason to do so according to the Church. We do not gain any additional graces or benefit from doing so, other than satisfying our personal feelings and desires. That seems to be the underlying difference between your opinion and that of the Church. Though you may feel you are getting more by receiving the entire “Eucharistic Meal”, in truth you are receiving the exact same as one who is receiving only the Sacred Host - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

To think that those of us who do not receive the “Eucharistic Meal” as you think we should means you have a clear misunderstanding of Church teaching regarding the matter. And your minimalist response to my earlier thread also shows your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, for it is NOT minimalist to receive only the Sacred Host.

I’m happy that you are able to receive Holy Communion under both species, and that you feel you are more completely following Jesus by doing so. You are entitled to your opinions and your feelings. Just don’t try to make those of us who don’t share your opinions out to be minimalists and incomplete followers of Our Lord. To be quite honest, it is offensive and clearly in opposition to Church teaching.

 

[system]

I dont receive, because like communion in the hand, I feel that it is a sacrilige, and that by taking communion in the hand, or drinking the precious blood, the particles or drops of the sacred species are being left on the floor, being wiped away by a well intentioned minister (sort of like the Protestants who do not believe in Transubstantiation). And I know that some one on this board copied something off of a website about St Cyril and communion in the hand in the year 326, which is actually false, the real reason why no good intentioned Catholic should receive it is because Luther and his heretics made it a point to receive communion in the hand to DENY that there is any presence of our Lord and it is merely symbolic. So if you want to continue to go along with Protestant symbolisms and heretical practices, please do, I am nobody’s judge, but not me.

 

[manualman]

You’re all right… and wrong!

Both species contain the fullness of the Eucharist.

But I see something subtle here that bothers me. Underneath all the talk of germs and wanting to emphasize that each contains the fullness lies a perhaps unconscious attitude that pre-Vatican2 practices were superior and “I’m stickin’ with 'em.”

The pre-Vatican2 church had a very high Christology and emphasized the transcendence of God. We have certainly lost too much of that in today’s culture. One point for the host-only folks.

But when I listen to some of the things said about fear of spills and such I wonder if there isn’t also a danger in too much emphasis on transcendence. Jesus is God and worthy of appropriate worship and reverence. But don’t forget about the Incarnation. He was born in a filthy stable. He spoke to prostitutes! His blood poured out on the ground. Surely He got sweaty and had BO sometimes. Point is, He knew that instituting the Eucharist the way he did with bread AND wine had the potential to be messy, to suffer accidents, abuse and neglect. He could have chosen a means of being Incarnated that avoided these messy irreverent realities of human life. But He did it the way He did it.

I don’t fool myself by saying that I fully understand everything Jesus intended. To me, if the Church says it’s OK to receive under both species AND Jesus did it that way himself, then MAYBE, just MAYBE there is a reason that I, we, NOBODY quite knows that that is USUALLY the best way. Certainly the Church has demonstrated that it is appropriate to restrict reception to one species in response to specific threats, but she has not done so AT THIS TIME. And I understand the fullness of each.

So I receive both.

 

[system]

You are also correct, in that I do prefer the pre-V2 church, but I think that you are also wrong in saying that we can put to much emphasis on the transendence (sp?). We can never do that, as that, along with the resurrection of our Lord, is the cornerstones of our faith, which has been lost. It is also church teachings from Saints on down the “unconsecrated hands should never touch the sacred species” and by allowing the little old lady from Pasedena hand out the body of Christ as some eucharistic minister because in her old age she thinks it is going to get her to heaven faster than some of us sitting in the pews, I think that has taken the reverence and belief that this species is truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

manualman:

You’re all right… and wrong!

Both species contain the fullness of the Eucharist.

But I see something subtle here that bothers me. Underneath all the talk of germs and wanting to emphasize that each contains the fullness lies a perhaps unconscious attitude that pre-Vatican2 practices were superior and “I’m stickin’ with 'em.”

The pre-Vatican2 church had a very high Christology and emphasized the transcendence of God. We have certainly lost too much of that in today’s culture. One point for the host-only folks.

But when I listen to some of the things said about fear of spills and such I wonder if there isn’t also a danger in too much emphasis on transcendence. Jesus is God and worthy of appropriate worship and reverence. But don’t forget about the Incarnation. He was born in a filthy stable. He spoke to prostitutes! His blood poured out on the ground. Surely He got sweaty and had BO sometimes. Point is, He knew that instituting the Eucharist the way he did with bread AND wine had the potential to be messy, to suffer accidents, abuse and neglect. He could have chosen a means of being Incarnated that avoided these messy irreverent realities of human life. But He did it the way He did it.

I don’t fool myself by saying that I fully understand everything Jesus intended. To me, if the Church says it’s OK to receive under both species AND Jesus did it that way himself, then MAYBE, just MAYBE there is a reason that I, we, NOBODY quite knows that that is USUALLY the best way. Certainly the Church has demonstrated that it is appropriate to restrict reception to one species in response to specific threats, but she has not done so AT THIS TIME. And I understand the fullness of each.

So I receive both.

 

[Rara_Avis]

AH HA!

jtnova got suspended!!!

I was wondering how long it would take …tsk tsk tsk

everyone knows there is no room for Catholicism talk that doesn’t involve the direction of the moderator!

jtnova … you should have known better. It is just plain and simply not allowed!

To hard to fight … I guess!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Rara Avis:

AH HA!

jtnova got suspended!!!

I was wondering how long it would take …tsk tsk tsk

everyone knows there is no room for Catholicism talk that doesn’t involve the direction of the moderator!

jtnova … you should have known better. It is just plain and simply not allowed!

To hard to fight … I guess!

Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that jtnova was pushing his brand of catholicism of what the Catholic Church acutally Teaches.

 

[otm]

jtnova:

I dont receive, because like communion in the hand, I feel that it is a sacrilige, and that by taking communion in the hand, or drinking the precious blood, the particles or drops of the sacred species are being left on the floor, being wiped away by a well intentioned minister (sort of like the Protestants who do not believe in Transubstantiation). And I know that some one on this board copied something off of a website about St Cyril and communion in the hand in the year 326, which is actually false, the real reason why no good intentioned Catholic should receive it is because Luther and his heretics made it a point to receive communion in the hand to DENY that there is any presence of our Lord and it is merely symbolic. So if you want to continue to go along with Protestant symbolisms and heretical practices, please do, I am nobody’s judge, but not me.

You might want to delve a little deeper into the history of the sacrament of Eucharist. I have yet to see any drops spilled on the floor, but I have seen the Host dropped; in fact, I saw more dropped when it was received only on the tongue than when it was put in the hand.

 

[manualman]

jtnova, I understand you can’t respond, but I appreciated part of your last post. I am but a semi-educated layman, but I DO know that you CAN overemphasize the transcendence of Christ. One of the early heresies denied that Christ was BOTH fully man and fully God. It taught that His human nature was but an illusion, because God could never be so profaned as to truly become a real man!

Your statements, though not quite so extreme, betray an attitude that tends in that direction! Perhaps one of our more learned members can provide the name of that heresy so that you may read up on your peril.

 

[cyprian]

otm:

Well, if it is so perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal by receiving only under one species, then the Church is wrong in saying that it is more clear when received under both species.

You are confusing two issues. There was an issue, at the time of Trent, that one had to receive under both species (or, to state the reverse, that Christ was not present completely, Body Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species). Trent issued a definition, and decided that the Roman rite would receive only under one species, the Host, to reinforce their teaching.

As we are well beyond that heresy, the Church has relaxed the rule and returned to the practice of the early Church, allowing us, with some encouragement, to receive under both species. And the Church has seen fit to say that reception, although not required, is a fuller sign of the Sacred Meal when done with both species than when done under one alone.

Understanding the Eucharist not only through the Gospels, but also through the Old Testament, and in particular (but not isolated to) the Passover Meal, only reinforces that.

Sadly, however, many of us are stuck in being technically right and technically minimalists. I disagree with you that by receivingf under one species, you are making (for yourself or anyone else) it perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal. I am not trying to offend you. However, were I to invite you to Sunday dinner, with hors d’oeuvres, a shrimp cocktail, roast leg of lamb and roasted red-skinned potatoes, fresh green beans with balsamic vinegar, a three bean salad, one of Oregon’s better Pinots, and Baked Alaska and espresso for dessert, and you ate nothing but the lamb, passing on the rest, you might say that you have had a meal at my house, and I would say that you have ignored what I served, and have a rather narrow view of what a meal is. In addition, I would say that you have been rude to your host, and I would be offended. and if you told others that you had a meal at my house, I would think that you have a rather odd idea of what a meal consists of. I would agree that you had eaten at my house, but I would not agree that you had a meal there. It would not be “perfectly clear” to me.

CCC1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone make it possible to recieve all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reason’s, this manner of recieving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin Rite. 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. This is the usual form of recieving in the Eastern rite. (It does not say the sign is more complete when recieved under both but given. However this is the usual way of recieving in the Eastern rite.We are not recieving any more of Christ under both species or one.

peace and love

 

[Teresita]

I don’t receive from the Chalice as a rule because I’m a convert from Protestantism, where the bread and the wine are just that. I am making a statement not only about the Real Presence, but about my total acceptance of the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the whole Jesus is received under either kind. To receive both is to emphasise the symbolism; while I think this is perfectly justified (I have to say that, or I’m disagreeing with the Catechism), I spent 28 years with the symbolism, and now I want the reality.

However, Sundays and Holydays I do receive from the Chalice, to symbolise feasting.

Sue (never pretended to be totally logical…)

 

[cyprian]

Teresita:

I don’t receive from the Chalice as a rule **because I’m a convert from Protestantism, where the bread and the wine are just that. I am making a statement not only about the Real Presence, but about my total acceptance of the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the whole Jesus is received under either kind. ** To receive both is to emphasise the symbolism; while I think this is perfectly justified (I have to say that, or I’m disagreeing with the Catechism), I spent 28 years with the symbolism, and now I want the reality.

However, Sundays and Holydays I do receive from the Chalice, to symbolise feasting.

Sue (never pretended to be totally logical…)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that you have to believe it because the Church teaches it yet you say it’s emphatic to symbolism, and so you don’t do it. It seems to me that recieving both would allow one who is persuing deeper his or her Cath faith to enter into the mystery deeper.(like meditating on the mysteries during the Rosary) Also, what if by chance a protestant came to Catholicism and was disapointed in not being able to recieve the Precious Blood (protestants do refer to it as such,even having ministers of the aforementioned)
Early Christianity allowed for certain pagan rituals to be included so as to make more converts realize that their “sacramentals” could now be directed to the One True God. A deeper sign to get you down the path of conversion, yes…merely a symbol, no. For the sake of conversation, I don’t recieve both, for no reason really.

Peace and Love

 

[miguel]

manualman:

jtnova, I understand you can’t respond, but I appreciated part of your last post. I am but a semi-educated layman, but I DO know that you CAN overemphasize the transcendence of Christ. One of the early heresies denied that Christ was BOTH fully man and fully God. It taught that His human nature was but an illusion, because God could never be so profaned as to truly become a real man!

Your statements, though not quite so extreme, betray an attitude that tends in that direction! Perhaps one of our more learned members can provide the name of that heresy so that you may read up on your peril.

I think the monophysite heresy denied Christ’s humanity but not his divinity.

 

[Robert_Simmons]

Even when I only receive the Host, I am receiving both the Body and Blood of Christ, as He is entirely present under either species. At my parish, we have been banned by the bishop from receiving from the chalice due to concerns about the flu. Our pastor feels that it is very important for people to be able to receive under both forms so he has implemented the practice of intinction, where the priest, deacon, or e.m.e. dips the Host in the Precious Blood and places it on the communicant’s tongue. People have the option of receiving only the Host by putting their hands out. Most people now receive on the tongue. This has had the effect, in my opinion, of increasing reverence for the Eucharist

 

[Brendan]

Robert Simmons:

Our pastor feels that it is very important for people to be able to receive under both forms so he has implemented the practice of intinction, where the priest, deacon, or e.m.e. dips the Host in the Precious Blood and places it on the communicant’s tongue. …

Major kudos to your Pastor.

Intinction and the Eastern Practice really do promote an increased reverence for the Eucharist. The Symbolism in those practices is the most complete that we can have on Earth.

I would really like to see a much greater use these methods over the use of a Chalice.

 

[cyprian]

What a great God we have, the One, The All, Who CANNOT BE SEPARATED

BEHOLD, THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD, HAPPY ARE THEY WHO ARE CALLED TO HIS SUPPER!

WE KNOW THE REST

LOVE AND PEACE