Why was communion under both kinds suppressed for so long?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

6glargento

Guest
I am wondering why communion under both kinds was supressed so long in the catholic church and how should we respond to eastern orthodox christians who say that this is evidence for rome’s disention from tradition? I have also heard protestants critisize the church on this issue as well saying that communion under one kind is unbiblical? How should we respond?
 
6glargento said:
I am wondering why communion under both kinds was supressed so long in the catholic church and how should we respond to eastern orthodox christians who say that this is evidence for rome’s disention from tradition? I have also heard protestants critisize the church on this issue as well saying that communion under one kind is unbiblical? How should we respond?
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly …

It was a reaction to heresy. (The problems of tomorrow are often found in today’s solutions.) The heresy was that in order to receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist one had to receive under both species. A bad solution, perhaps, on the face of it, but it worked … and that error is gone.

I know if I remember wrong it will be corrected quickly
 
6glargento said:
I am wondering why communion under both kinds was supressed so long in the catholic church and how should we respond to eastern orthodox christians who say that this is evidence for rome’s disention from tradition? I have also heard protestants critisize the church on this issue as well saying that communion under one kind is unbiblical? How should we respond?
Click to expand...
Can you explain further? Do you mean communion as in Communion of Saints, or Holy Communion of the Blessed Sacrament?
 
6glargento said:
I am wondering why communion under both kinds was supressed so long in the catholic church and how should we respond to eastern orthodox christians who say that this is evidence for rome’s disention from tradition? I have also heard protestants critisize the church on this issue as well saying that communion under one kind is unbiblical? How should we respond?
Click to expand...
The reason is because in the West there was a heresy going around which stated that in order to receive the full Body, Blood Soul & Divinity of the Lord in the Eucharist that you had to receive the Host & Cup. This is wrong. When you receive even just a small particle of the Host, you receive Jesus Christ fully Body, Blood Soul & Divinity. Likewise if you receive just the Cup you receive the “full Communion”.
 
Semper_Fi said:
The reason is because in the West there was a heresy going around which stated that in order to receive the full Body, Blood Soul & Divinity of the Lord in the Eucharist that you had to receive the Host & Cup. This is wrong. When you receive even just a small particle of the Host, you receive Jesus Christ fully Body, Blood Soul & Divinity. Likewise if you receive just the Cup you receive the “full Communion”.
Click to expand...
this is always the responce that i give to non catholics but they always respond back “but jesus said to drink the wine…”
 
When you receive even just a small particle of the Host, you receive Jesus Christ fully Body, Blood Soul & Divinity. Likewise if you receive just the Cup you receive the “full Communion”.
Click to expand...
Yes, else people with coeliac disease (allergy to wheat gluten) could never partake of the Eucharist. Those with coeliac (aka celiac) partake of the cup, thereby receiving the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

My great-aunt was afflicted with this condition, and received her first communion (and every eucharist thereafter) from the cup at a time where reception under both species was very rare - the very early part of the 20th century.

God love you,
Paul
 
Am I right in believing the Host is gluten “free” now?
 
jack_hawkins said:
Am I right in believing the Host is gluten “free” now?
Click to expand...
No. In fact, since the host must be made of wheat flour, it must contain at least some gluten. They have special low-gluten hosts, but not any no-gluten hosts, to my knowledge.

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
No. In fact, since the host must be made of wheat flour, it must contain at least some gluten. They have special low-gluten hosts, but not any no-gluten hosts, to my knowledge.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
gluten-free in nearly all cases means low gluten (in foods that are normally gluten-containing to clarify), hence my use of the term 'gluten “free” ’
 
Jesus gave both his Precious Body and Precious Blood separately to the disciples at the Last Supper. As you hear from Scripture every day in Mass, He said twice "take this all of you…"He said it for both species and to everyone present.

Some might claim that these men were to become the Apostles and thus Priests only should or need to receive both species. However, as several have noted in previous posts, Church history does not support that claim. And what about women?

The fact that we receive both His Precious Body and Blood when we partake of one or the other is, for me, neither the issue nor at issue.

The Church has the right and freedom to change liturgy but, thankfully, not to change the words of scripture wherein clear instructions were given by Jesus Christ.

I think today it’s more about such things as

  1. *]shortage of Priests
    *]convenience/expedience
    *]how long the Holy Communion will take
    *]fear of accidents during distribution of the Precious Blood
    *]reaction against EMHCs
    Either CCC or Canon Law states the obvious: that administering under both species has better sign value. I agree; the way Jesus did it has better sign value. It’s also more authentic than innovative.
 
6glargento said:
this is always the responce that i give to non catholics but they always respond back “but jesus said to drink the wine…”
Click to expand...
You can always fire back Jesus also said " He who hears me and believes shall be saved", If they require specific physical actions, they they must also belive that deaf people can’t be saved.
 
AspireHigher said:
Either CCC or Canon Law states the obvious: that administering under both species has better sign value. I agree; the way Jesus did it has better sign value. It’s also more authentic than innovative.
Click to expand...
But the greatest ‘sign value’ is that of Intincted Eucharist, where the Body and Blood are united together in a Resurrected Christ.

The Eucharist is confected seperatlly as a sign of death. Body and Blood are seperate. This is where we are present at Calvary.

But, at the Great Amen, they are presented together and united. This is where we are present at the Resurrection.

What we then recieve in the Eucharist is the Risen, Ressurected Lord. And the greatest sign of what we are recieving is the Body and Blood presented together at the same time.

That is why Intinced Eucharist is the Universal mode of offering both Species.
 
AspireHigher said:
The Church has the right and freedom to change liturgy but, thankfully, not to change the words of scripture wherein clear instructions were given by Jesus Christ…
Click to expand...
Christ also said that " “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life”

If one held Christ’s words to their strictest physical meaning, deaf people could not enjoy eternal life…

Fortunatley, the Church understand fully what Christ means when He uses physical terms in His commandments. 😉

The physical sounds are not important, but rather than we hear His words with our hearts. Likewise, the physical act of drinking is unimportant to the command, but rather that the Substance of His Blood be consumed by us.
 
AspireHigher said:
Jesus gave both his Precious Body and Precious Blood separately to the disciples at the Last Supper. As you hear from Scripture every day in Mass, He said twice "take this all of you…"He said it for both species and to everyone present.

Some might claim that these men were to become the Apostles and thus Priests only should or need to receive both species. However, as several have noted in previous posts, Church history does not support that claim. And what about women?
Click to expand...
You’ll actually find that the Church teaches 1) that the celebrating priest must partake of both species in order to complete the sacrifice and 2) no one else needs to partake of both species. You can consult Mediator Dei for that.

Those who pointed out that the withdrawal of the cup was done in part in reaction to a heresy denying the fulness of either species (commonly referred to now as Ultraquism), and I would suggest, based on the number of people I have heard ask why some people don’t receive “full Communion” or “all of Jesus”, that the re-extension of cup to laity has allowed (I don’t claim caused) for a bit of a relapse into that faulty reasoning.
 
jack_hawkins said:
gluten-free in nearly all cases means low gluten (in foods that are normally gluten-containing to clarify), hence my use of the term 'gluten “free” ’
Click to expand...
I think it’s important to use the more accurate term “low-gluten” because there are those who would assume that if no-gluten hosts are allowed, non-wheat hosts must be allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top