Withholding the cup

[The Grouch]

Yes, actually there is. The prophet Hosea instructed that "the words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." This is why when we were in captivity in Babylon, we prayed during the times of the day that the Temple sacrifices were made -- it's why Daniel prayed three times a day. It's why Rabbinical Judaism fulfills the sacrificial requirements of the Torah.

No, no... sorry u misunderstood.. is there any equivelent of the precious blood... like a wine offering.. i assume there will be... but dis the faithful recieve or just the priest?

 

[stone]

stone, by denied, we mean that no cup is even brought down to the laity. It used to be the standard practice before Vatican II, and is still the way of things at Latin Masses.

I guess I've never been to a latin mass? I've never seen the wine not brought out.

 

[The Grouch]

I guess I've never been to a latin mass? I've never seen the wine not brought out.

The wine is still part of the sacrafice its just the faithfull are not offered it because in recieving the eucharist we recieve the precious blood automatically so there is no real need to recieve a 2nd time

 

[stone]

The wine is still part of the sacrafice its just the faithfull are not offered it because in recieving the eucharist we recieve the precious blood automatically so there is no real need to recieve a 2nd time

ok, if that's what they say, then that's what they teach, but i hear in the back of my head and remember the writings that Jesus says take this and eat followed by take this and drink. but hey, who am I to argue. I wouldn't argue. I just say, ok.

 

[The Grouch]

ok, if that's what they say, then that's what they teach, but i hear in the back of my head and remember the writings that Jesus says take this and eat followed by take this and drink. but hey, who am I to argue. I wouldn't argue. I just say, ok.

Yes i agree but in recieving the eucharist we are already recieving both his flesh and his blood.. i dont think its the cup itself that matters and fullfills our lords command but that we recieve his blood

 

[stone]

Yes i agree but in recieving the eucharist we are already recieving both his flesh and his blood.. i dont think its the cup itself that matters and fullfills our lords command but that we recieve his blood

it makes sense. the blood would be within the body. I've never seen it done like that. Someday, if I do see this, then I'll know what's up. Less confusion is good.

 

[Meowzltov]

I guess I've never been to a latin mass? I've never seen the wine not brought out.

You would know if you've been to a Latin Mass. Only Latin is spoken.

 

[Meowzltov]

No, no... sorry u misunderstood.. is there any equivelent of the precious blood... like a wine offering.. i assume there will be... but dis the faithful recieve or just the priest?

No there is no equivalent of a wine offering.

There is something called kiddush, the blessing over wine at a meal on the sabbath or a holy day, but it is nothing like an offering. Jesus was saying this blessing when he instituted the Eucharist.

 

[stone]

You would know if you've been to a Latin Mass. Only Latin is spoken.

I can't understand anything said at mass now, so latin shouldn't be too difficult to follow.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can't understand anything said at mass now, so latin shouldn't be too difficult to follow.

Could you explain

 

[stone]

Could you explain

It's not english, definately not latin.

 

[Meowzltov]

It's not english, definately not latin.

Why are you attending Mass in a language that you don't understand? Are you outside the country? On vacation?

 

[stone]

Why are you attending Mass in a language that you don't understand? Are you outside the country? On vacation?

something like that. I'm on the southern border.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I guess I've never been to a latin mass? I've never seen the wine not brought out.

In the Latin Mass (usually people are talking about the Tridentine Mass) the laity receive on the tongue, at the communion rail, and only the body is received. Also everything except the homily is spoken in Latin, consistent with how the Mass has been offered for centuries.

Unfortunately I can't go to a Latin Mass because the nearest one is a 90+ minute commute away, but I still commit to the practice of only receiving the body. In fact, I don't think I've received from the chalice since I was confirmed.

Part of it's just my wanting to get myself accustomed for the eventuality of attending a Tridentine Mass, the rest is my preference to receive from ordinary ministers only.

 

[The Grouch]

In the Latin Mass (usually people are talking about the Tridentine Mass) the laity receive on the tongue, at the communion rail, and only the body is received. Also everything except the homily is spoken in Latin, consistent with how the Mass has been offered for centuries.

Unfortunately I can't go to a Latin Mass because the nearest one is a 90+ minute commute away, but I still commit to the practice of only receiving the body. In fact, I don't think I've received from the chalice since I was confirmed.

Part of it's just my wanting to get myself accustomed for the eventuality of attending a Tridentine Mass, the rest is my preference to receive from ordinary ministers only.

What i love specifically about the latin mass i attend to other latin masses i have attended is that at the begining of the homily our priest says the readings a second time but this time in english. I like this because i feel the latin speaks directly to the soul but the english allows the mind to digest it also. There are other latin masses i have attended where this also occurs but other i have been to have not done so. It happend naturally at our parish the priest always read the readings in english instead of the latin but one day he was unable to do so for some reason and read then in english at the homily but was going to return to the practice of saying the readings in english but there were so many of the faithfull who said they loved the readings in latin as part of the continuity of the mass itself yet the english readings at the homily allowed us to hear the word of God in our own language enabling us to have our cake and eat it so to speak

 

[chevyontheriver]

it makes sense. the blood would be within the body. I've never seen it done like that. Someday, if I do see this, then I'll know what's up. Less confusion is good.

Remember Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice? When a pound of flesh was owed for a debt. And the magistrate allowed the collection of that pound of flesh. With the proviso that not a drop of blood be included in that pound of flesh. So the debt was uncollectible. That was Shakespeare referring to how the blood is in the body in the Eucharist and there is no real separation possible. One receives the whole body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in any portion of the Eucharist.

It is nice to receive the host and from the cup, but it is not necessary to receive both for validity. I vastly prefer it, but am not bent out of shape if I cannot.