Author Topic: Communion question  (Read 7814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Communion question
« on: May 05, 2009, 01:26:17 PM »
My Catholic friend in California was telling me about how they are not serving the blood right now because of the swine flu in the parishes in her area. BUT that isn't part of my question, although I find that interesting.

She said that not everyone partakes of the blood at communion each week anyway, most people just take the host/body. They have one chalice with a little host in it and some wine and once it is gone it is gone and there is not more for anyone else. Is this normal? Do regular practicing Catholics really not partake of body and blood each week? I asked her if maybe the bread offered was blessed bread like we have at our E. Orthodox liturgies- blessed but not the actual body. But she said that it IS the body. So I am more than a little confused by this practice. It seems to me that communion is supposed to be both parts- body and blood, otherwise is it really the eucharist?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 01:32:39 PM by Quinault »

Offline Orthodox11

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,999
Re: Communion question
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2009, 01:39:34 PM »
It is very normal in Catholic churches to only give out the Bread, while reserving the Wine for the clergy.

Since you receive the fullness of Christ in both the Body and the Blood, taking just one of the two is seen as sufficient.

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2009, 01:41:41 PM »
If the wine isn't necessary why serve it at all? Why have a limited supply so it is "first come first (and only) served?"

« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 01:42:42 PM by Quinault »

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2009, 01:46:02 PM »
I have to wonder if this is how the idea that the richer more privileged people sat in pews toward the front started? Because the closer you are to the front the more likely you are to be able to get the wine before it is all gone.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 01:50:24 PM by Quinault »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2009, 02:20:11 PM »
We believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist as two species to symbolize the separation of his body and blood as in his death on the cross. For this reason both species must be present at the mass and at least the priest must consume the sacred contents of the chalice.
However, Christ is not half present in one species and half present in the other. He is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the host as well as fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the contents of the chalice. For this reason it is not necessary that every person recieve under both kinds as he will recieve the whole Christ under either species. However, if you feel called to recieve under both kinds, that option is readily available in many parishes.
I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Communion question
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2009, 02:27:49 PM »
Thanks for this thread :)

I have always wondered why the Catholic clergy tend to deprive the laity of the holy chalice, confining the Lord's blood to themselves.

In addition, in the early days of my conversion (prior to my baptism) I thought that Christians received Jesus' body and blood prior to His resurrection.  :-[
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 02:30:43 PM by Theophilos78 »
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2009, 02:28:46 PM »
I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?

They are not separated into different chalices. Why do the Latins separate the Body and Blood?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2009, 02:33:30 PM »
I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?

They are not separated into different chalices. Why do the Latins separate the Body and Blood?
I am always weary of answering your posts because they seem like loaded question especially since you were Catholic and probably know the answer.

You have separate species. so do we. wether they are mixed in the same container is irrelevant. Now can you answer the question that I have posted above?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2009, 02:34:36 PM »
Thanks for this thread :)

I have always wondered why the Catholic clergy tend to deprive the laity of the holy chalice, confining the Lord's blood to themselves.

In addition, in the early days of my conversion (prior to my baptism) I thought that Christians received Jesus' body and blood prior to His resurrection.  :-[
The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Communion question
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2009, 02:39:09 PM »

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2009, 02:47:25 PM »
You have separate species. so do we.

For us, the body and blood is co-mingled. The Latins separate them. Why?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2009, 02:52:28 PM »
You have separate species. so do we.

For us, the body and blood is co-mingled. The Latins separate them. Why?
Jesus gave them to apostles seperately in the Gospels. The byzantines comingle them. Why?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2009, 02:53:31 PM »

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?
Because some one has to recieve it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to recieve it under both forms because he is fully present under both species.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2009, 02:54:38 PM »
Still no one has answered my question. Is Christ fully present under each species in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is he only half present (Body) in the "bread" and half present "Blood" in the wine?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Communion question
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2009, 02:59:01 PM »

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?
Because some one has to recieve it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to recieve it under both forms because he is fully present under both species.

This does not answer my question:

Why and by whom are the clergy "chosen" to consume the chalice? Who makes that distinction: The clergy are supposed to consume the chalice? Is this a kind of determined division? The laity will receive Jesus in the form of bread alone whereas the clergy in both ways? In order to be fair, you should not allow the clergy to partake of the Lord's body as they consume the chalice and Jesus is fully present in both ways.  ;)



« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 03:02:19 PM by Theophilos78 »
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2009, 03:01:02 PM »

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?
Because some one has to recieve it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to recieve it under both forms because he is fully present under both species.

This does not answer my question:

Why and by whom are the clergy "chosen" to consume the chalice? Who makes that distinction: The clergy are supposed to consume the chalice, not the laity?

We have always believed that because the Priest acts as the head of the community, and is the one offering the Holy Sacrifice (because offering a sacrifice is what a priest does) at least he must consume both sepcies.
Any one planning on answering my question?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Communion question
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2009, 03:05:15 PM »

We have always believed that because the Priest acts as the head of the community, and is the one offering the Holy Sacrifice (because offering a sacrifice is what a priest does) at least he must consume both sepcies.
Any one planning on answering my question?

Don't you also believe that the person who offers the sacrifice is actually Jesus and not the priest? Don't you believe that lay people participate in the offering of the sacrifice along with the priest through their universal priesthood?  ;)
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,429
Re: Communion question
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2009, 03:18:38 PM »
Still no one has answered my question. Is Christ fully present under each species in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is he only half present (Body) in the "bread" and half present "Blood" in the wine?

Holy Eucharist defies explanation. It's a mystery. The Eastern Orthodox believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but do NOT accept the Roman terminology.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,213
Re: Communion question
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2009, 03:23:53 PM »
You have separate species. so do we.

For us, the body and blood is co-mingled. The Latins separate them. Why?

I don't think co-mingling or not co-mingling has anything to do with the question at hand.  Ozgeorge has shown in an earlier post that the original practice was not to offer the laity communion on a spoon, but rather separately.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg313827.html#msg313827

  In fact, I know that for a time that the practice of offering communion on a spoon was frowned upon until it finally prevailed as being normative in the East.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 03:54:02 PM by Pravoslavbob »
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.

Offline Orthodox11

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,999
Re: Communion question
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2009, 03:30:40 PM »
The Latins separate them. Why?

It is the more ancient practice.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Communion question
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2009, 03:48:39 PM »
The Latins separate them. Why?

It is the more ancient practice.

Actually, the Latins do comingle.  A small particle of the Body is dropped into the chalice and the Priest prays: "May this mingling of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it."

You guys are talking about receiving Communion seperately, which is indeed the ancient practice but in the Orthodox Church only the Clergy now do so.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,213
Re: Communion question
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2009, 03:51:41 PM »
Actually, the Latins do comingle.  A small particle of the Body is dropped into the chalice and the Priest prays: "May this mingling of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it."

Good point. I forgot about that.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 04:06:46 PM by Pravoslavbob »
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2009, 03:54:55 PM »
You guys are talking about receiving Communion seperately, which is indeed the ancient practice but in the Orthodox Church only the Clergy now do so.

Interesting. I suppose I stand corrected (although I do not think that I said the Orthodox practice was the more ancient).  You are saying that the Orthodox are the innovators in this respect.  If the Latins hold to the more ancient tradition. Perhaps we should change?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 04:00:43 PM by Mickey »

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,213
Re: Communion question
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2009, 04:05:33 PM »
Still no one has answered my question. Is Christ fully present under each species in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is he only half present (Body) in the "bread" and half present "Blood" in the wine?

Holy Eucharist defies explanation. It's a mystery. The Eastern Orthodox believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but do NOT accept the Roman terminology.

I like your answer very much, except for some things that you may (perhaps unintentionally) be implying about the word "mystery."  It has to be said, IMHO, that In Orthodoxy the word "mystery" when applied to something concerning our salvation does not mean that we know nothing about this thing.  Rather, it seems to mean that we can grow in intuitive knowledge about the mystery until we hopefully achieve deification and are granted a fuller knowledge of the nature of the mystery.  We can also know things in an empirical way about the mystery that point us along the road to a fuller intuitive knowledge. 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 04:08:29 PM by Pravoslavbob »
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.

Offline rwprof

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
Re: Communion question
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2009, 04:11:59 PM »
Still no one has answered my question. Is Christ fully present under each species in the Eastern Orthodox Church

Yes.

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Communion question
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2009, 04:20:59 PM »
You are saying that the Orthodox are the innovators in this respect. 
Receeiving Communion as we do today is an "innovation" by definition, but, technically, so is any development in liturgical practice.

If the Latins hold to the more ancient tradition. Perhaps we should change?
There's no need to change, we have retained the ancient practice also, not only for clergy, but for laity as well. The Liturgy of St. James requires the reception of the Body seperately in the hand and the Blood directly from the Chalice. I have received Communion in several places this way.
If ancient practice is what determines correct practice in our time, then:
1) We should ordain Deaconesses (the Church of Greece has recently done so by the way)
2) Our monks should shave and wear their hair short in the wreath-like papalethra.
3) We should celebrate the Artoclasia (Breaking of the Bread) every evening (instead of just the eve of feast days).


If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: Communion question
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2009, 04:32:12 PM »
You guys are talking about receiving Communion seperately, which is indeed the ancient practice but in the Orthodox Church only the Clergy now do so.

In Cathedral in Varna (Bulgaria) I've seen the Holy Communion given separately to the laymen and it wasn't the DL of St. James.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2009, 04:34:45 PM »
You guys are talking about receiving Communion seperately, which is indeed the ancient practice but in the Orthodox Church only the Clergy now do so.

Interesting. I suppose I stand corrected (although I do not think that I said the Orthodox practice was the more ancient).  You are saying that the Orthodox are the innovators in this respect.  If the Latins hold to the more ancient tradition. Perhaps we should change?
Why would you want to change? I am sure there good reasons for the development of  your particular tradition.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2009, 04:36:33 PM »
Why offer the wine at all if there won't be enough for everyone?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2009, 04:37:12 PM »

We have always believed that because the Priest acts as the head of the community, and is the one offering the Holy Sacrifice (because offering a sacrifice is what a priest does) at least he must consume both sepcies.
Any one planning on answering my question?

Don't you also believe that the person who offers the sacrifice is actually Jesus and not the priest? Don't you believe that lay people participate in the offering of the sacrifice along with the priest through their universal priesthood?  ;)
The priest acts in persona christi. As for the lay person, we are participate by offering up our lives and our selves along with Christ in the Eucharist. But it is only the priest, in persona Christi, who offers the Holy Sacrifice that is the Eucharist.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2009, 04:38:15 PM »
Why offer the wine at all if there won't be enough for everyone?
To the congregation you mean?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2009, 04:49:43 PM »
Yes, it seems like a strange practice. I can understand that there is presence in both and that you aren't required to have both. But it seems odd and sort of "rude" for lack of a better term to offer only enough for a select few that are in line fast enough. Which as I stated before seems like how the idea that richer people sat at the front of churches started- those who are rich sit at the front and get first crack at the wine so that they get it first (or only).
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 05:07:27 PM by Quinault »

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Communion question
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2009, 05:07:55 PM »
Yes, it seems like a strange practice. I can understand that there is presence in both and that you aren't required to have both. But it seems odd and sort of "rude" for lack of a better term to offer only enough for a select few that are in line fast enough. Which as I stated before seems like how the idea that richer people sat at the front of churches- those who are rich sit at the front and get first crack at the wine so that they get it first.

It is only recently that Communion under two species was reintroduced in the Roman Catholic Church.  For hundreds of years, Communion under one species was the norm (to the laity).
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 05:08:16 PM by Nebelpfade »
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2009, 05:22:28 PM »
Well, they couldn't even let the chalice be used until it is empty could they? They need some leftover in the chalice to take themselves right? Or do the priests partake of the wine then bring it out to the laity?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 05:28:33 PM by Quinault »

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Communion question
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2009, 05:40:05 PM »
Well, they couldn't even let the chalice be used until it is empty could they? They need some leftover in the chalice to take themselves right? Or do the priests partake of the wine then bring it out to the laity?

Tridentine Mass - Priest consumes it all.

Mass of Pope Paul VI - Priest consumes a little, then it is offered to the laity, then Priest will consume the extra.
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2009, 06:07:10 PM »
So at a Tridentine mass no one receives the wine but the priest? So the non-Tridentine masses are are the ones where some can have the wine, but not all?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,364
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2009, 06:25:29 PM »
So at a Tridentine mass no one receives the wine but the priest? So the non-Tridentine masses are are the ones where some can have the wine, but not all?
Well in the modern mass it is offered until it runs out to the laity. Really though, they don't NEED to offer it to the laity because they recieve the whole Christ in the host as well. I personally think comunion under both kinds is silly for the laity. Its not like they get Jesus 2.0 in the chalice. The Eucharist doesn't work that way.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Communion question
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2009, 06:30:30 PM »
So at a Tridentine mass no one receives the wine but the priest? So the non-Tridentine masses are are the ones where some can have the wine, but not all?
Well in the modern mass it is offered until it runs out to the laity.

I have never seen it "run out".  Then of course, seeing more than an eighth of those present receiving the Blood would have been weird for me.  It was tradition to receive one specie and that tradition, in the minds of many Roman Catholics, remains.  For example, when I was Roman Catholic, I never received the Blood once.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 06:31:05 PM by Nebelpfade »
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2009, 06:38:15 PM »
Why Didn't Christ  just Offer The Bread Only as His Body And Blood in Stead of Bread and wine....I Guess The Catholic Church Knows More Than Christ it seems like it to me...
Why Not just do it the way Christ did it ,  and leave it at that...
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 06:40:06 PM by stashko »
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Communion question
« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2009, 06:44:44 PM »
Why Not just do it the way Christ showed how to do it all the time and leave it at that...

You mean receiving Communion separately, not co-mingled? ;)
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2009, 06:55:39 PM »
Why Not just do it the way Christ showed how to do it all the time and leave it at that...

You mean receiving Communion separately, not co-mingled? ;)


For the laity to recieve both species not just one  ....
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Communion question
« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2009, 06:56:00 PM »
Why Not just do it the way Christ did it ,  and leave it at that...

But the Orthodox Laity do not receive Communion the way Christ administered it to the Apostles. He gave them His Body and Blood separately, not mixed as we do.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2009, 06:58:59 PM »
Why Not just do it the way Christ did it ,  and leave it at that...

But the Orthodox Laity do not receive Communion the way Christ administered it to the Apostles. He gave them His Body and Blood separately, not mixed as we do.

I agree But they recieved Both ...
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Communion question
« Reply #43 on: May 05, 2009, 07:01:52 PM »
Why Not just do it the way Christ did it ,  and leave it at that...

But the Orthodox Laity do not receive Communion the way Christ administered it to the Apostles. He gave them His Body and Blood separately, not mixed as we do.

I agree But they recieved Both ...
Indeed they did. But who was it who received the dipped bread?

"Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." (John 13:26)


We must all be traitors. :)
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #44 on: May 05, 2009, 07:11:55 PM »
isn't he a saint on the Ethiopian Calendar  or a redeemed soul according to there belief...Evertime we sin i guess,we betray him, in one way or another...
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.