Wine at Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchior said:
I was using “superior” in the same maneer the catechism uses “fuller” in this sense they are synonyms. A fuller symbol is always a superior symbol by definition. I mostly agree otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. And just to be clear what page I’m on, I rejoice in being able to receive Both.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No, not less important, certainly, but Christ left His Church authority to govern His Sacraments. And while there may have been practical considerations in the minds of the authorities, it really was the Ultraquist heresy that led to the Chalice being witheld.
Click to expand...
But, with all die respect, the Chalice was already being withheld the Hussites were just responding to what was already the norm. The reasons for this witholding of the chalice was a slow and obscure occurance that happened gradually over a cenrtury or two. It was only codified much later, with the Prague controversy. But that is neither here nor there in 2006.
 
Melchior said:
Hmmm. Seems Christ established the Eucharist with His Body and Blood. Receiving in both kinds is superior, if only for it’s fuller symbolic meaning whihc is still very important. Receiving in only one kind was unheard of for centuries and there is no good reason for it now other than to prove a point about only one being sufficient, true enough, but also juvenile and not how Jesus himself established it.
Click to expand...
Since Christ is fully present under both or either species I fail to see how it can be superior to receive under both. My own personal opinion is that many people, including some on this forum seem to believe that you must receive under both in order to receive the full benefits. That is clearly wrong.

By applying the same reasoning you just did, the Church should be using the Traditional Mass because it was used for hundreds of years and there is no good reason not to use it now except to prove a point… Yet I somehow doubt that you would support that position.
 
palmas85 said:
Since Christ is fully present under both or either species I fail to see how it can be superior to receive under both. My own personal opinion is that many people, including some on this forum seem to believe that you must receive under both in order to receive the full benefits. That is clearly wrong.

By applying the same reasoning you just did, the Church should be using the Traditional Mass because it was used for hundreds of years and there is no good reason not to use it now except to prove a point… Yet I somehow doubt that you would support that position.
Click to expand...
Per the Curch it is a “fuller sign”. I don’t believe one must receive under both kinds. But the experience of eating his flesh and actually drinking His blood is clearly a fuller experience of the Eucharist in the act if not the spirtual benefit. But there is a benefit none-the-less. Christ wants us to eat and drink that is why He commanded us too. We must not forget the “In rembemberance of Him” part. The Eucharist experienced in it’s fullness is beneficial. It should be obvious to one who want to experience Christ with all His senses and in all the richness of the sacrament. Not receiving in both kinds is a lesser experience the same way eating a meal without drinking is a lesser experience. You get the nourishment but you don’t enjoy the meal as much.
 
Melchior said:
Per the Curch it is a “fuller sign”. I don’t believe one must receive under both kinds. But the experience of eating his flesh and actually drinking His blood is clearly a fuller experience of the Eucharist in the act if not the spirtual benefit. But there is a benefit none-the-less. Christ wants us to eat and drink that is why He commanded us too. We must not forget the “In rembemberance of Him” part. The Eucharist experienced in it’s fullness is beneficial. It should be obvious to one who want to experience Christ with all His senses and in all the richness of the sacrament. Not receiving in both kinds is a lesser experience the same way eating a meal without drinking is a lesser experience. You get the nourishment but you don’t enjoy the meal as much.
Click to expand...
Right on! That’s exactly how I feel too.👍
 
I always recieve under one Species (Host) even though it is offered at our parish under both. The EMs, two on each side, offer four chalices total.

I cannot bring myself to drink from the chalice because my mildly OCD brain can’t stomach the thought of drinking after hundreds of people. (I am not clinicly diagnosed OCD, but I consider myself to be somewhat of a germaphobe). So I am grateful that the church teaches that Christ is present, whole and complete under both Species.

The only time I ever recieved the Precious Blood was when I was a child and the priest at the parish I grew up in would dip the Host in the Precious Blood before I would recieve on the tongue.

BTW why was that practice ever stopped? I think that is an ideal way to recieve both Species while skirting the issue that some may have to drinking from the chalice that hundreds of others have drank from.
 
marci said:
BTW why was that practice ever stopped? I think that is an ideal way to recieve both Species while skirting the issue that some may have to drinking from the chalice that hundreds of others have drank from.
Click to expand...
Intinction is still allowed in the Latin Rite, but I hardly see it any more, probably because it is incompatible (or at least: difficult) with Communion in the hand. It is the typical practice of the eastern rites, however – More than just dipping, the whole of the fractions of the Body are mixed into the Precious Blood and it is distributed via a golden spoon. (No Communion in the hand there at all)

There is one parish in my area which, in addition to other modes of distribution, includes one minister with what appears to be a set of vessels specifically made for intinction. It is like a gold cup and saucer (I’m not sure if it is 2 pieces or one piece). Anyone who wishes to receive via intinction simply makes his way to that minister, and it does not seem to cause confusion. (Actually, I’m not sure if they still do this – I’ve not attended Mass there since pouring was cracked down upon, though they could presumably do the pouring prior to the consecration)

tee
 
By some of what has been said here—and 10-20 yrs—the Church may be back to fighting the Utraquist heresy.
 
Melchior said:
Per the Curch it is a “fuller sign”. I don’t believe one must receive under both kinds. But the experience of eating his flesh and actually drinking His blood is clearly a fuller experience of the Eucharist in the act if not the spirtual benefit. But there is a benefit none-the-less. Christ wants us to eat and drink that is why He commanded us too. We must not forget the “In rembemberance of Him” part. The Eucharist experienced in it’s fullness is beneficial. It should be obvious to one who want to experience Christ with all His senses and in all the richness of the sacrament. Not receiving in both kinds is a lesser experience the same way eating a meal without drinking is a lesser experience. You get the nourishment but you don’t enjoy the meal as much.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not required but as our Lord said: Matthew 26, 26-28: Now as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Yes, I want to drink of it as commanded by Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top