Those in a church that consecrates both species of Communion, Do you receive the Precious Blood? - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: Do you receive the Precious Blood of Christ?
Yes, always when it is offered 17 51.52%
No, never 6 18.18%
Sometimes 7 21.21%
Other 3 9.09%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-26-2010, 06:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species.  I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege.  It's also indicated in Scripture.  If you don't, I'm curious why.

 

I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-26-2010, 06:30 AM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't. Two reasons: I'm a major germophobe and I don't drink alcohol because I hate the taste of it. I think my horrible wretched face at taking a sip from the chalice would possibly offend some people and would definitely take away from the reverence of the moment for me...so I don't. Also, saying I'm a germophobe is a euphemistic and casual way of saying that I have had and continue to have severe anxiety around illness/germs, not just me saying "oh, ew, germs", but a major impediment to my mental health.

Oh, I'm Catholic too, for the record, so I also believe in transubstantiation and that both are present in either species. I just found this The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for anyone who wants to know more about the RC position on this.

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:14 AM
 
Katala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by la mamita View Post

I don't. Two reasons: I'm a major germophobe and I don't drink alcohol because I hate the taste of it. I think my horrible wretched face at taking a sip from the chalice would possibly offend some people and would definitely take away from the reverence of the moment for me...so I don't. Also, saying I'm a germophobe is a euphemistic and casual way of saying that I have had and continue to have severe anxiety around illness/germs, not just me saying "oh, ew, germs", but a major impediment to my mental health.

Oh, I'm Catholic too, for the record, so I also believe in transubstantiation and that both are present in either species. I just found this The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for anyone who wants to know more about the RC position on this.


I mentioned this in the other thread, but this is how my mother feels as well (additionally, she actually is very allergic to wine). My mother is an extremely devout Catholic (I don't think she's ever missed a Sunday mass or holy day of obligation  in her entire life). I've never met anyone else who refrains from taking the wine for this reason (though a communal cup doesn't really bother me, I think it's a perfectly sound reason to abstain).

Katala is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 11:19 AM
 
frugalmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,146
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

I don't take the wine and never have since I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I'm not comfortable with the sharing cup since I have a suppressed immune system, and normally the wine here is done by a helper, not the priest. I prefer to receive from a priest when at all possible.

 

Traditionally only the priest received the wine until Vatican II, and I think that if it was good enough for 1960 or so years, it should be good enough for now. I don't understand, even after study, why they switched to communion under both forms for all. But then again there is a lot of things they did in Vatican II I don't understand their reasons for.


Me, 29, Muslim hijab.gif single mama to T age 7 energy.gif We homeschool.gif saynovax.giffambedsingle1.gif and Love it!
frugalmama is online now  
Old 12-26-2010, 01:52 PM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species.  I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege.  It's also indicated in Scripture.  If you don't, I'm curious why.

 

I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.


That is interesting.  I never heard the bread and wine called "species".  I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both.  Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal.  We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both.  I did not know that some people just have one or the other.  Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
 

christianmomof3 is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 02:21 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I am Orthodox and we always take both.  There is no option of just one.  The only exception would be if you had a severe gluten intolerance (the kind where even the tiny amount received in communion would mess you up for days) then they would give you just the wine but it would still have been mixed with the bread.  Honestly, everyone I know who has severe issues with gluten just takes communion once or twice a year and suffers through it.  

 

We use real wine (its mixed with water and is quite sweet and good.  My children were surprised at the taste of red wine :lol they expected it to taste like communion and were very disappointed ) and a very specific bread, mix the bread in the cup with the wine, and everyone who has been baptized and has properly prepared may receive.  So children as young as 41 days may receive if they have been baptized.  It is a communal cup but only the priests drink from it.  Then the Eucharist is spoon fed to everyone from the same spoon.  Since we believe in the real presence in the Eucharist there is no fear of germs.  Also, between the alcohol and the silver cup and spoon (its not just fancy, it kills germs), you are pretty safe even from a scientific perspective.  


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 06:13 PM
 
Nitenites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I voted "sometimes." If I don't have a child in my arms (rare) then I receive under both species. That is, if I have two hands with which to hold the vessel, then I choose to receive. If I'm holding a toddler or a baby, then I abstain. It's the same reason that I receive the consecrated host on the tongue when I'm holding a baby/toddler, but in the hand when I have my hands free: I don't want to risk any dropping or spilling. 


Proud Catholic, homeschooling, RN-student mama of
DS 10 reading.gif  DS 8 fencing.gif DS 5, DD 3 energy.gif and a new DS  belly.gif 3/2011
Nitenites is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 06:16 PM
 
Nitenites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Post


That is interesting.  I never heard the bread and wine called "species".  I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both.  Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal.  We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both.  I did not know that some people just have one or the other.  Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
 

Why would you think it's symbolic when Our Lord never said so? wink1.gif
 


Proud Catholic, homeschooling, RN-student mama of
DS 10 reading.gif  DS 8 fencing.gif DS 5, DD 3 energy.gif and a new DS  belly.gif 3/2011
Nitenites is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 07:16 PM
 
indie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I can understand those that think it is gross. I used to feel that way when I was in a church which held to a purely memorial theology of communion. But at some point I just knew that there was more to it than that. And I love the way that the unity of Christ's Body (the Church) is communicated through the sharing of the chalice amoungst everyone.

 

So I marked "Yes, always..." though it is actually almost always. There have been a few occasions when I've avoided simply because I had a cough and didn't want to freak out those receiving next to me. I serve as a chalice bearer and am at the altar with the priest. So I end up helping out in consuming the left over wine at the end anyway. I haven't been more sick since I started serving nor am I or any server or priest I know more sick than anyone else. Between the germ killing properties of the silver (as was mentioned above) and the purificator which we use to wipe between people (I'm always careful to wipe the inside and outside of the chalice and to rotate the section of the cloth I'm using though I'm sure some are not so careful), the alcohol content in the wine, and the rotating of the chalice, the chances of passing germs via the chalice are small. Much smaller, I'd say, than during the passing of the peace. And at our church, people tend to intinct when something nasty is going around. But it seems a waste of time for me for those who are still shaking dirty hands.

 

I should mention that I am in the Episcopal Church. While we don't believe in transubstantiation like the Roman Catholics, we do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We also teach that Christ is present in both species so one may receive one or the other. Our churches are ok with using a gluten free host and I suspect that most priest would make it available if requested. Pieces of the host often get in the wine (sometimes intentionally and sometimes just because it is broken over it). I think most of our priest would be willing to accommodate someone celiac in this as well. Someone above mentioned that the wine is sweet. We use a tawny Port which is pretty sweet and the kids don't mind it at all.

indie is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 08:17 PM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes. I'm Orthodox, as Lilyka is, and as she said, there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You take it, period - no choice. The priest gives you Communion via a big ornate spoon from the chalice - you get the Blood of Christ with a small piece of His Body (leavened bread among the Orthodox).


lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 08:32 PM
 
springmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I voted sometimes. I am a convert and I have to tell you that at first it really freaked me out to see everyone receiving from the same chalice! I really hate to drink after anyone, even my dh so it is hard for me to do it sometimes. I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up! greensad.gif

 

I feel like Christ called us to do both so I struggle with skipping the precious blood but all the while accepting the Church's teaching that the body and blood of Christ is present in both species. So now I receive it when I feel led by the Holy Spirit to do so and I try to really focus on the fact that it is the blood of Christ and what a privlige that I am called to His table to receive Him.

springmama is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:08 PM
 
indie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by springmama View Post I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up! greensad.gif


 

The only time I've thought twice about it in recent years was a couple years ago on Easter (church was packed) when I was chalice bearing and I saw one man dribble chewed up wafer mixed with saliva back into the chalice. I wiped off as much as I could before it slid down the side of the chalice and into the wine, but I'm sure I didn't get it all. And by the time we were done serving everyone there were literal chunky dregs at the bottom of the cup. It was my job at that point to drink it. I had to take a deep breath first, but I did it.

indie is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 11:21 PM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

ick - I would not want to drink out of the same cup as other people.  We have a little pitcher that is blessed and passed around and we all have little cups to pour our own into - much more sanitary.

 

As far as the symbolism - Jesus and His diciples were eating a meal the night before Passover or on Passover in which most of the foods are symbolic when He instituted the symbolic eating and drinking of the bread and wine in rememberance of Himself.  At the Passover meal, we say  things like - this salt water is the tears that our ancestors shed in Egypt and we call the food what it symbolises and it is eaten in rememberance of the Jewish people being freed from Egypt. You might want to look at a Passover Haggaddah to see how it is worded.  So, for Jesus, who was a Jew, to be at a meal the night before Passover and say this wine is my blood and this bread is my body - eat this in rememberance of me - which He did say - is just like the symbolic foods of the Passover meal. 

see 1 Cor. 11:23-26

christianmomof3 is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:56 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, I receive in both kinds.  I attend an Anglican church, so we are offered a small host and the common cup.  I don't worry about the germs; touching the door-nob or shaking hands is a much better way to pass them.  (Our Bishop has banned intinction as being unsanitary.) 

 

If I had some reason to I wouldn't have a problem with just one kind.  Some days when dd2 is being really bad I have considered not taking the Blood, as I worry she will kick it out of the hands of the person distributing it.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:12 AM
 
KempsMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I receive both whenever possible.  Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both.  Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 


Heathyr hang.gifBlessed Catholic Wife to DHwheelchair.gif Devoted Mama to DS1 biglaugh.gif(3/17/08) and DS2blowkiss.gif (8/5/2010)familybed1.gifcd.giflactivist.gifribboncesarean.gifx2 
KempsMama is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:44 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by KempsMama View Post

I receive both whenever possible.  Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both.  Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 



Goodness!  People actually consider that controversial?  I guess sherry hour is out for sure then!


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by frugalmama View Post

I don't take the wine and never have since I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I'm not comfortable with the sharing cup since I have a suppressed immune system, and normally the wine here is done by a helper, not the priest. I prefer to receive from a priest when at all possible.

 

Traditionally only the priest received the wine until Vatican II, and I think that if it was good enough for 1960 or so years, it should be good enough for now. I don't understand, even after study, why they switched to communion under both forms for all. But then again there is a lot of things they did in Vatican II I don't understand their reasons for.


I just want to reiterate that - by the time it is received, we are no longer speaking of "wine". winky.gif

 

Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are more than mere "helpers", in my personal opinion.  It is a great honor and privilege to be called to that ministry, and Eucharist is no "less" of the full presence of Christ just because you don't receive it from a priest.  Sorry but this is something that really irks me - I've seen people "jump the line" when they realized that they would be receiving a Host from an EM rather than a priest and I just makes me :splat:

 

Vatican II reforms were instituted to make the rituals and Sacraments more open & accessible to the Communicants/the Body of the Church (i.e., the congregation).  Prior to that, Mass was more like a "priest's performance" and there wasn't a lot of active participation from the congregation ... the priest even celebrated Mass with his back to the community.

 

Jesus didn't celebrate the Last Supper above and beyond His disciples, turning His back to them.  He literally surrounded Himself with them, washed their feet, and then fed them - spiritually as well as physically.  He was their humble servant.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species.  I do, because I think it's spiritually significant and a great privilege.  It's also indicated in Scripture.  If you don't, I'm curious why.

 

I want to note that I do realize that the RC church believes that the Body and the Blood of Christ are fully present in each of the consecrated species.


That is interesting.  I never heard the bread and wine called "species".  I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both.  Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal.  We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both.  I did not know that some people just have one or the other.  Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
 


The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received under the species of unleavened bread and wine so that they may be physically consumed.  Although they retain the properties of grapes/wine and wheat/bread, we believe that, through consecration (which involves prayer and the faith of the gathered believers), they are physically changed to become the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
 

The symbolism vs. Real Presence question is a key Reformation issue, which endures to this day.  Most Protestant denoms reject the idea of Real Presence in Communion.  



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitenites View Post

I voted "sometimes." If I don't have a child in my arms (rare) then I receive under both species. That is, if I have two hands with which to hold the vessel, then I choose to receive. If I'm holding a toddler or a baby, then I abstain. It's the same reason that I receive the consecrated host on the tongue when I'm holding a baby/toddler, but in the hand when I have my hands free: I don't want to risk any dropping or spilling. 


You reminded me of the time a woman (a visitor to the parish, I'd never seen her before) approached me when I was ministering the Precious Blood, and then stood in front of me with her mouth open, waiting for me to pour it in her mouth. yikes.gif  We also have a little old woman in her nineties, who can barely hold the chalice herself and requires an extra pair of hands to help her out.  I'm also super careful with the young kids who receive, just because they tend to be more distracted.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitenites View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Post


That is interesting.  I never heard the bread and wine called "species".  I also have never heard a concept that both Body and Blood are in both.  Our church sees taking the bread and wine as being symbolic - just as the bread and wine (and other foods) were used symbolically at the Passover meal.  We use grape juice instead of wine and we always have both.  I did not know that some people just have one or the other.  Why would you only have bread or only wine when the Lord said to have both in rememberance of Him?
 

Why would you think it's symbolic when Our Lord never said so? wink1.gif
 


Opinion on this subject - and interpretation of the Scripture - varies.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by indie View Post

I can understand those that think it is gross. I used to feel that way when I was in a church which held to a purely memorial theology of communion. But at some point I just knew that there was more to it than that. And I love the way that the unity of Christ's Body (the Church) is communicated through the sharing of the chalice amoungst everyone.

 

Our churches are ok with using a gluten free host and I suspect that most priest would make it available if requested. Pieces of the host often get in the wine (sometimes intentionally and sometimes just because it is broken over it). I think most of our priest would be willing to accommodate someone celiac in this as well. Someone above mentioned that the wine is sweet. We use a tawny Port which is pretty sweet and the kids don't mind it at all.


The above bolded is precisely why I have no trouble sharing the chalice.

 

I wish the Catholic Church would get solidly on board with the gluten-free Host.  Most smaller churches in our area don't incense anymore to accomodate those with allergies/asthma.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by springmama View Post

I voted sometimes. I am a convert and I have to tell you that at first it really freaked me out to see everyone receiving from the same chalice! I really hate to drink after anyone, even my dh so it is hard for me to do it sometimes. I was doing it pretty regularly after my conversion until one time I drank a small piece of the host floating in the chalice, I'm RC so there is no intinction done by fellow parishioners and I just assumed it had come out of someone else's mouth. I almost threw up! greensad.gif

 

I feel like Christ called us to do both so I struggle with skipping the precious blood but all the while accepting the Church's teaching that the body and blood of Christ is present in both species. So now I receive it when I feel led by the Holy Spirit to do so and I try to really focus on the fact that it is the blood of Christ and what a privlige that I am called to His table to receive Him.


The Roman Catholic church doesn't forbid intinction.  I've done it, at a wedding Mass; and I know that there are other RC churches who do it regularly.  I find it a quite beautiful way to receive, actually.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Post

ick - I would not want to drink out of the same cup as other people.  We have a little pitcher that is blessed and passed around and we all have little cups to pour our own into - much more sanitary.

 

As far as the symbolism - Jesus and His diciples were eating a meal the night before Passover or on Passover in which most of the foods are symbolic when He instituted the symbolic eating and drinking of the bread and wine in rememberance of Himself.  At the Passover meal, we say  things like - this salt water is the tears that our ancestors shed in Egypt and we call the food what it symbolises and it is eaten in rememberance of the Jewish people being freed from Egypt. You might want to look at a Passover Haggaddah to see how it is worded.  So, for Jesus, who was a Jew, to be at a meal the night before Passover and say this wine is my blood and this bread is my body - eat this in rememberance of me - which He did say - is just like the symbolic foods of the Passover meal.

see 1 Cor. 11:23-26


Again, they call it "Communion" for a reason!
 

And again - the nuances of that Scripture are debated by different denominations.  You can read it as symbolism, while others will read it differently.  It's one of the conundrums of faith, but it's also one of the beauties/mysteries of faith.  As long as it's real "faith", I think that's the important thing.



I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:11 AM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:


The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received under the species of unleavened bread and wine so that they may be physically consumed.  Although they retain the properties of grapes/wine and wheat/bread, we believe that, through consecration (which involves prayer and the faith of the gathered believers), they are physically changed to become the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
 

 

And again - the nuances of that Scripture are debated by different denominations.  You can read it as symbolism, while others will read it differently.  It's one of the conundrums of faith, but it's also one of the beauties/mysteries of faith.  As long as it's real "faith", I think that's the important thing.

I understand that some groups believe that the bread and wine are actually changed into Christ somehow and I realize that they are not likely to change their minds on that and that is ok.  To me, people can believe either way about that and still all be brothers and sisters in Christ. 

 

My understanding comes both from meeting with a group that believes it is symbolic and even more so from the fact that I grew up in a Jewish household and reading those verses in the Bible from a Jewish point of view (and again - Jesus and His disciples were Jewish) seems totally just like the symbolism in the Passover meal.
 


 

christianmomof3 is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by KempsMama View Post

I receive both whenever possible.  Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both.  Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 



Goodness!  People actually consider that controversial?  I guess sherry hour is out for sure then!


Right?!  Controversial?  Wow ... I received my first Eucharist (at my Confirmation) when I was about five months pregnant.
 

I worked hard to assure an alcoholic friend (in recovery for over 20 years) that receiving the Precious Blood would not make him fall off the wagon. 



Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Postat and still all be brothers and sisters in Christ. 

 

My understanding comes both from meeting with a group that believes it is symbolic and even more so from the fact that I grew up in a Jewish household and reading those verses in the Bible from a Jewish point of view (and again - Jesus and His disciples were Jewish) seems totally just like the symbolism in the Passover meal. 


Understandable - and yes, they were definitely Jews - but Jesus brought a "new twist", so to speak, to the Jewish traditions.  He was always being called out by the Pharisees for "bending" the Jewish laws ....
 


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 11:53 AM
 
Lollybrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm Catholic as well. I always receive communion under both species when available. I do belive that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is present in each species, but I feel like it is a richer, fuller spiritual experience to receive both.


Lolly
Mom to an amazing little guy, age 9 (Autism, Hyperlexia, Dyspraxia, Albinism, Chromosome Microdeletion)

Lollybrat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:52 PM
 
kgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

 

Without opening a can of worms...unless I just did =) ... I must respectfully correct Trigger in her statement:

 

Quote:
 

Vatican II reforms were instituted to make the rituals and Sacraments more open & accessible to the Communicants/the Body of the Church (i.e., the congregation).  Prior to that, Mass was more like a "priest's performance" and there wasn't a lot of active participation from the congregation ... the priest even celebrated Mass with his back to the community.

 

Jesus didn't celebrate the Last Supper above and beyond His disciples, turning His back to them.  He literally surrounded Himself with them, washed their feet, and then fed them - spiritually as well as physically.  He was their humble servant.

 

 

I am not too good with words or apologetics. But, I know what is true. Please read this brief info about the WHYs of our faith. The more you can know about the Catholic faith and its origins, the richer your faith life will be. I have pasted this info below but, also, here is the link: http://frcoulter.com/presentations/ad-orientem.html

 


Besides the change in the Mass after the Second Vatican Council, we have learned that Latin is still used by the Church and has a proper place in our worship. Therefore I want to discuss a second change made after 1965, the direction which the priest faces during Mass. We will examine three points: one, what is the teaching of the Church about the orientation of the priest at Mass; two, what is some of the history and tradition of the priest facing toward the East; three, what can the priest's position teach us about the Mass and our participation in it.

What does the Church teach about the priest's orientation at Mass? After the Second Vatican Council, one most evident change was the construction of freestanding altars. The celebration versus populum (towards the people) was adopted throughout the Latin Church, and it became the prevailing practice during Mass for the celebrant to stand behind the altar facing the congregation. This has led to a widespread misunderstanding that the priest's "turning his back on the people" is characteristic of the Tridentine rite, the old Latin Mass of Pope Saint Pius V; whereas the priest's "turning towards the people" belongs to the New Mass of Pope Paul VI. It is also widely thought that the celebration of Mass "facing the people" was required, even imposed, by the liturgical reform of Vatican II.

In reality, the Council did not even mention the issue, only an instruction afterwards said it was desirable to set up a main altar separate from the back wall, so that the priest can walk around it and a celebration facing the people is possible. Contrary to what often took place, the Church never instructed that the old high altars should be torn down, rather that a freestanding altar should be present in the sanctuary - perhaps in addition to the high altar.

The Sacramentary we use, the Missal of the renewed Mass, it gives the instruction at several points during Mass that the priest should turn towards the people.* In order for the priest to turn towards the people, this implies that beforehand the priest and people were facing a common direction, that is, towards the altar for the core of the Eucharistic liturgy.

 

So why did the priest used to always celebrate Mass facing the other direction? What is the reason for this orientation?

The first thing to remember is that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, just as all Christian prayer is an act of worshipping God. So how this can be communicated most fittingly in liturgical gesture? When we speak to someone, we obviously face that person. Accordingly, if whole liturgical assembly, priest and people, face the same way, they turn towards God to whom prayers and offerings are addressed in this common act of worship. It is a mistaken idea that in this case the celebrating priest is facing "towards the altar", "towards the tabernacle", or even "towards the wall". (cf. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgyir?t=frgarycoulsho-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0898700566 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 139-143)

 

I have often heard the phrase that Mass is being celebrated with the priest "turning his back on the people". This is confusing theology with physical position. The crucial point is that the Mass is a common act of worship where priest and people together, representing the pilgrim Church, reach out for the transcendent God. The priest isn't turning his back on the people; he is joining the people in prayer. At Mass, all of us are praying together to God through Jesus Christ. Whether the priest celebrates towards the people or not, all of us - both you and me - are turned towards God as our first spiritual movement in prayer.

The physical position must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is towards the community. (CDW, 25 September 2000, Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez)

 

Notice that during the Eucharistic prayer, the prayers are not addressed towards you - but to the Father. At that moment in the Mass, the priest is not speaking to the faithful; he is offering prayer to the Father as a representative of the entire Church.

 

This is why, since the earliest times, Mass has been celebrated with both the people and priest facing the same direction, ad orientem, toward the East. Even after Churches were built where it was not literally possible to face East, then at least symbolically the priest and people were turned toward the Lord. It had nothing to do with trying to obstruct people's view of what is happening, or of the priest turning his back on the people. Nor is it even primarily for the sake of facing the altar or tabernacle. Rather, when the priest and faithful together face the same way, it manifests our common act of worship; it symbolizes our common pilgrimage toward the returning Lord, the Sun of Justice and our hope in the resurrection and the world beyond the here-and-now, our pilgrimage to the Promised Land.

 

Furthermore, it is with a heart of charity that I point you toward more information about our beautiful faith. I wish someone had told me 20 years ago (or more!) what I have just come to know in the last 3 or 4 years. I don't want to derail this thread. But, if you are serious about your Catholic faith, please read more at the links below:

 

1) This site is my favorite and has almost EVERYTHING you need to know about Catholicism, not base on opinions, but on fact, history, tradition and the Magesterium.

http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html 

 

2) This link gives you a quick overview of the Traditional Mass vs. the Novus Ordo mass

http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml

 

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 

kgreen is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:10 PM
 
kgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Another note to be aware of about those other than the priest even touching the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord...

 

St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."

 

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

 

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

 

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

 

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

 

The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

 

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274),br> "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

 

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

 

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

 

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

kgreen is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 05:06 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"


Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 08:54 AM
 
LessTraveledBy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. 



Sorry if someone already mentioned this.... We are definitely not "encouraged" to receive under both. In some parts of the world, the people are allowed. The local Bishops' Conference has the right to make this decision. However, under both kinds is not the norm. A good example was give at the papal Mass on Christmas Eve: The only way the faithful could receive was on their knees, on the tongue, and only the Body of Christ.


Mama to a little lady and always praying for more.
LessTraveledBy is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

 

 

 

 

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 


With all due respect kgreen, your sources and their opinions are extreme and, and, as noted, perhaps not even valid in some cases.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"


Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.


I've been educated in the Catholic faith as well (2 years of specialized diocesan education to become a commissioned lay ecclesial minister), and I could cite valid sources in bold favor/defense of VII reforms, receiving under both species, and receiving in the hand.  I have a mini library of books on [USCCB-sanctioned] Catholic teaching (and in particular, the HISTORY of our Church - which, incidentally, did not start with the Council of Trent!) and related topics.

 

This is purely an issue of Trent vs. VII reforms, which we can debate til we are blue in the face (or fingers, as it were) and we will likely never agree.  You are obviously comfortable believing that your salvation is a given, because you hold fast to "the sure way".  Likewise, I am assured of my own salvation because I hold fast to "The Way" - Jesus Christ.  So I guess we're all good. 




I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:32 AM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by KempsMama View Post

I receive both whenever possible.  Where we sit, often times the chalice is empty before my turn, but if it isn't I always receive both.  Even when pregnant, which cause some controversy, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 



oh good heavens!!!  People need to get a life.  I was actually reading an article the other day about fasting restrictions in the early church (and how much they have relaxed these days) but it said that "pregnant women should consume as much wine as their condition necessitates." it made me laugh.  I can't believe people would get all huffy over a pregnant woman receiving the Eucharist..  


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by LessTraveledBy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

I'm Roman Catholic, and we are encouraged to receive under both species. 



Sorry if someone already mentioned this.... We are definitely not "encouraged" to receive under both. In some parts of the world, the people are allowed. The local Bishops' Conference has the right to make this decision. However, under both kinds is not the norm. A good example was give at the papal Mass on Christmas Eve: The only way the faithful could receive was on their knees, on the tongue, and only the Body of Christ.


 

I had to edit these for the quotation guidelines, sorry.

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm 
 

 

Quote:
 

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. ...

Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."226  

 

Quote:
 

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." ...

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.230 

 

 

Quote:
 1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, ... 

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:44 AM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3 View Post

 So, for Jesus, who was a Jew, to be at a meal the night before Passover and say this wine is my blood and this bread is my body - eat this in rememberance of me - which He did say - is just like the symbolic foods of the Passover meal. 

see 1 Cor. 11:23-26


 

This is a poor translation at best.  The words translated in remembrance   are the same ones used to refer to the Passover.  It is my understanding that it is not just a remembering but that they are actually, mystically participating in the events of the passover.  There with the released captives.  not merely reliving or remembering.  It would make sense that since Christ was participating in the passover that this is what he would be talking about that we are not to do this in remembrance of him but to be mystically present with Him.

 

Yhe early church taught a real presence.  People called them cannibals.  people left the faith over this teaching.  It is referred to as a hard teaching to follow.  Its one of the reasons Christians were so harshly persecuted.  None of this really points me towards thinking it was just a chance to reflect and remember.


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 12:14 AM
 
kgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

I voted never. It's not that I never have. It's just that I never will. I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass after SOOOO many years of the Novus Ordo Mass (post-Vatican 2 Mass). It's is a long story about how I got to the point of being a (as they say) Traditional Catholic. But, it is the sure way.

 

 

 

 

Again, I don't mean to open a big discussion but want to direct you to further reading. It is very valuable, not just for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of your immortal soul. If I sound dramatic, it is because it is somewhat of a dramatic subject. =) 


With all due respect kgreen, your sources and their opinions are extreme and, and, as noted, perhaps not even valid in some cases.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

 

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"


Do be careful of your sources.  It is a myth that Mother Teresa said this.


I've been educated in the Catholic faith as well (2 years of specialized diocesan education to become a commissioned lay ecclesial minister), and I could cite valid sources in bold favor/defense of VII reforms, receiving under both species, and receiving in the hand.  I have a mini library of books on [USCCB-sanctioned] Catholic teaching (and in particular, the HISTORY of our Church - which, incidentally, did not start with the Council of Trent!) and related topics.

 

This is purely an issue of Trent vs. VII reforms, which we can debate til we are blue in the face (or fingers, as it were) and we will likely never agree.  You are obviously comfortable believing that your salvation is a given, because you hold fast to "the sure way".  Likewise, I am assured of my own salvation because I hold fast to "The Way" - Jesus Christ.  So I guess we're all good. 


 



Trigger, I agree with you that we may not agree and I surely do not want to debate. If one can step outside of the issues of Church Councils, etc and simply look at the issue through the eyes of love and reverence to Our Lord, why in the world would a lay person even want to touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands? It is quite a sacrilege. You will undoubtedly accumulate minute particles of the sacred host on your fingers, hands, the chalice, and unfortunately anywhere else. This, as we both know, believe and agree, IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. The utmost reverence is required in receiving (and thus distributing) Holy Communion.

 

Although you may have a lot of books and a sincere heart, I encourage you to look within and pray to Our Lord for guidance. I have spoken to many good, holy and pious priests about this very issue. We cannot rely on our own interpretations, opinions, education or "feelings". We must follow what Holy Mother Church tells us. It is for our own good. This was quite an issue for me at one point and it all boiled down to my own pride...thinking I knew better. I don't. None of us do. We must protect the Faith that has been guarded and cherished and handed down to us for centuries.

 

Please also note that my sources are Popes, synods, councils, and holy saints. This are hardly what anyone would consider "extreme sources" as you state. On the contrary, they are holy and reliable sources.

kgreen is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 07:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kgreen View Post

 If one can step outside of the issues of Church Councils, etc and simply look at the issue through the eyes of love and reverence to Our Lord, why in the world would a lay person even want to touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands? It is quite a sacrilege. You will undoubtedly accumulate minute particles of the sacred host on your fingers, hands, the chalice, and unfortunately anywhere else. This, as we both know, believe and agree, IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. The utmost reverence is required in receiving (and thus distributing) Holy Communion.

 

And - by your own reasoning, why WOULDN'T I?  I'm receiving Christ into my own body, what is wrong with touching Him first exactly?  To me it is a great honor and privilege! 

 

I ministered the Host to others on Christmas Eve, with great reverence and joy.

 

I disagree with just about every other condescending thing you wrote, so I'll leave it at that and continue to be thankful for a Catholic community that nurtures my faith. 


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off