• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Mass

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by Silverback, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. Silverback

    Silverback Well-Known Member

    774
    +441
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    My question concerns the Eucharist

    Are the laity ever able to receive the Body and the Blood? if no is that church policy? or can the Priest make his own decision?

    Thank you.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Romans 13:3

    Romans 13:3 Newbie

    +332
    Catholic
    All properly prepared members of the Church (and members of other church communities under certain special circumstance) may receive communion every day up to twice a day so long as one of the two was a mass.
     
  3. Fenwick

    Fenwick Faithful then, faithful now!

    +6,797
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    All Catholics in a state of sanctifying grace (i.e. no mortal sin on our souls) are invited to receive the Eucharist.

    Historically the laity only consumed the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood was consumed by the priest only. Today in the Novus Ordo both are available to the laity, though the Church teaches that when you consume one, you're consuming both because the body and blood of our Lord are both present in each species.

    Though if one attends a Latin Mass based on the 1962 missal then it would follow the same practices that the Church has always practiced historically and thus one would only receive the Body.

    If one is not Catholic, or is Catholic but is not in a state of sanctifying grace (and needs to go to confession), then that person can either remain kneeling in their pew or go forward with their arms crossed over their chest to receive a blessing from the priest.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Every day in my parish.
     
  5. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +23,996
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Both are offered at my parish. Although there are times during flu season the cup is withdrawn for health reasons. But both are embodied with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. We are all getting the same graces with just the consecrated bread or just the consecrated wine or both.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,623
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Some pretty comprehensive answers have already been posted.

    So I'll add that in Novus Ordo, the faithful are not obligated to receive both. The faithful can receive one or the other or both, whichever they wish. Thus, someone with a gluten intolerance may wish to receive only the precious blood.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. Stabat Mater

    Stabat Mater Jesus Christ conquers! Supporter

    +6,677
    Holy See (vatican City State)
    Traditional. Cath.
    Single
    Both the Trent council aswell as Vatican ii stresses the importance of offering the chalice to the faithful and both councils are daily ignored.
    The protestant reformation had this as one of their main theological objections to the celebration of the catholic eucharist.

    Besides its commanded in the new testament too. I cannot for the life of me understand this stupid reluctance of ours regarding lay participation in the consumption of the blood of our Lord.
     
  8. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +23,996
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I'm in. Take it everytime it's offered. :)
     
  9. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Actually the cup for the laity subsided during the Black Death in the Middle Ages.

    Here's what the Council of Trent actually had to say about it:
    "Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species
    It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people.

    In the next place, whereas the Holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid.

    Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove hurtful to the health of the body, it has been most prudently provided by the Church that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only.

    We may also further observe that in many countries wine is extremely scarce; nor can it, moreover, be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys.

    Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.

    There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors."
    - THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Sacraments - The Eucharist

    I am indeed happy that I can receive the Eucharist in both species. But the whole body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus was always considered to be present in the host or the cup. And the Council of Trent considered it quite normal not to have the Eucharist for the laity in both forms. That is why so many 'traditionalist' Catholics even today won't drink from the cup. The rest of us Catholics have gone back to an earlier practice from the Medieval period, although often in Flu season the laity are not offered the cup for good reason.

    So while I am happy to partake of both species I need to correct you about the Council of Trent. It saw communion under one species as normal enough, and as a result the Church continued the practice in the Latin Rite up until just after Vatican II. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 1390, doesn't compel communion under both species either.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  10. Stabat Mater

    Stabat Mater Jesus Christ conquers! Supporter

    +6,677
    Holy See (vatican City State)
    Traditional. Cath.
    Single
    Thanks, but what about the NT instructions of Christ? Theres really little or no room for withholding the cup based on scripture. I fail to see what prohibit the priests from dipping the host in the wine before administering it to the laity on their tongue.

    Its just utterly stupid that we continue to have this practice even after it was such a important topic during the reformation. From where I stand it comes of as stubbornness and pride, but what do I know...?
     
  11. Snoder

    Snoder Member

    180
    +92
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Priests can't dip the host into the wine, as the wine is only accidental properties. They are mingling a substance with itself.

    There are no additional graces, sanctifying or habitual, in receiving the Eucharist in both forms. In the same way, going to Mass ten times or more a day is permitted, but one may only receive communion twice.

    It's probably not a good idea to criticize the Church for stubbornness and pride and then rhetorically ask, "but what do I know...?"
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. Stabat Mater

    Stabat Mater Jesus Christ conquers! Supporter

    +6,677
    Holy See (vatican City State)
    Traditional. Cath.
    Single
    This is a aristotelian, scholastic argument. I'm currently not discussing within that box.



    Please address the issue of contradicting the new testament.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  13. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Lots of Catholic theologians would disagree on that. And an example of their basis for thinking this is found in of all places Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice'. Shylock is owed his 'pound of flesh' and the magistrate says he has an absolute right to it, but he cannot take one drop of blood from the victim in the process. He goes away stymied. We believe that the blood and the body are found in both the cup by itself and the host by itself. Vatican II said the imagery of it all was better with host AND cup, which is true, but it isn't like you get only half of Jesus if you only receive the host. Or those with rip-roaring celiac disease only get half of Jesus if they only receive from the cup. Or alcoholics only get half of Jesus.
    Intinction IS ALLOWED, if what is meant by it is that the priest dips the host into the chalice and then puts it directly on your tongue. It is not allowed that the laity dips the host into the cup and then consumes it. Those are the current rules.
    The stubbornness is over except among 'traditionalists' who view it as a badge of orthodoxy that they receive only the host.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  14. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +23,996
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes indiction was used several times by my priest when we were visiting at the nursing home.
     
  15. Anhelyna

    Anhelyna Handmaid of God Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +11,716
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    Remember also that most Eastern Catholic Churches [ as well as the Orthodox Churches ] administer the Holy Gifts [ the Eucharist ] by intinction as the Bread and Wine [ the Body and Blood ] are together in the Chalice and administered by the use of a golden spoon
     
  16. lecatholicpilgrim

    lecatholicpilgrim Member

    69
    +53
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    This is incorrect. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal no. 265 states:
    "The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon."

    The Instruction Redemtionis Sacramentum restates this possibility:
    "The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue."

    In the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, no. 49, it is consequently also accepted as a way to receive Communion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  17. Silverback

    Silverback Well-Known Member

    774
    +441
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    I'm Lutheran, we always take both kinds, could be the Chalice, intinction, but usually small cups. I have noticed that at times it taste like grape juice and at other times straight wine. But when I watch the mass on EWTN I have never seen anyone but the clergy receive both kinds.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. Snoder

    Snoder Member

    180
    +92
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You changed what I wrote.

    From: Priests can't dip the host into the wine, as the wine is only accidental properties."
    To: "Priests can't dip the host into the wine."

    Please quote an entire sentence if you are going to end it with a period. The second part of the sentence was important. I was reminding the poster of the fact that what was bread and wine are now the same things, except for a difference in accidental properties.
     
  19. Snoder

    Snoder Member

    180
    +92
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If there is another way you'd like to describe sacramental theology let me know. It doesn't matter how one describes the sacrament. Receiving one species, one 'thing' if you like is the same as receiving the other, or both. The reason both are offered is that it resembles more of the meal aspect. Dipping it and having it dropped it in your mouth, while a respectable practice, doesn't really have the same meal aspect as receiving a piece of bread and drinking from a chalice.

    I am not seeing any theological argument for why you need to receive both forms of the same thing. In what way does that benefit the faithful as a matter of theology?

    It's not contradicting the NT. Jesus took the bread and then passed the chalice, which have the same thing after consecration according to the Catholic Church. Jesus didn't dip the bread in the chalice and feed it to them. If your argument is you need to follow a precise set of instructions, intinction isn't it. Jesus said take and eat, and he also said take and drink. You aren't drinking it.
     
  20. Anhelyna

    Anhelyna Handmaid of God Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +11,716
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    I would like to remind all posters here that this thread is in OBOB - the 'safe haven' for Catholic [ meaning Roman/Latin and Eastern Catholic ] posters.

    Visitors are most welcome to post in fellowship , but they may not debate or teach against the Catholic Church's teaching.

    Anhelyna Senior Ambassador Member.
     
Loading...