Author Topic: Communion question  (Read 7515 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 22,589
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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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: 13,293
  • 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.

Offline Orthodox11

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,999
Re: Communion question
« Reply #45 on: May 05, 2009, 07:12:25 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...

Pontius Pilate is a saint in the Ethiopian Church, not Judas.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #46 on: May 05, 2009, 07:18:25 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...

Pontius Pilate is a saint in the Ethiopian Church, not Judas.

Thank You! My personal belief is that he is a saved soul..
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2009, 08:15:53 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.


Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Communion question
« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2009, 10:11:56 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.
Apparently the blood of God can become diseased. Interesting. :(

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Communion question
« Reply #49 on: May 06, 2009, 10:47:46 AM »
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?




Papist, yes, Christ is fully present under both species.

When newly baptized infants receive their first Communion, often times they'll just receive a tiny drop of wine from the chalice for obvious practical reasons. (although I've seen infants receive both as well). People with severe forms of Celiac disease also receive "only" the wine from the chalice. (at least I've seen it that way, I'm sure some with Celiac receive both) I've been an Altar server for 6 years, have attended 100's, maybe 1000's of services where at least one person receives Communion (including baptisms etc), and have stood at the cup as an Altar server and seen many 1000's of people (over the years) receive Communion, and it's certainly true from every Orthodox priest I've served under, says, and proclaims by their application of distributing Communion, that Christ is fully present in both species. While it is the "norm" to receive both species, from the mingled cup, there are exceptions, as stated above. This again, doesn't take into consideration the Western rite Orthodox, whom, I admit I'm quite ignorant of, but considering they're probably following a pre-vatican II tradition, I assume they're receiving Christ as Catholics did before Vatican II, under the bread only? (but I admit I'm just guessing on that issue)

Even if that's not the case, Christ is present in both; either that or I've seen dozens of people only receive "half of Christ" for the last 6 years! :)

NP



Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #50 on: May 06, 2009, 10:52:11 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.
Apparently the blood of God can become diseased. Interesting. :(
What? You don't think that its possible for some one to catch a cold when the last person who drank from the chalice had a cold?
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2009, 10:52:33 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.


I can only hope that this is not true.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2009, 10:54:52 AM »
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?




Papist, yes, Christ is fully present under both species.

When newly baptized infants receive their first Communion, often times they'll just receive a tiny drop of wine from the chalice for obvious practical reasons. (although I've seen infants receive both as well). People with severe forms of Celiac disease also receive "only" the wine from the chalice. (at least I've seen it that way, I'm sure some with Celiac receive both) I've been an Altar server for 6 years, have attended 100's, maybe 1000's of services where at least one person receives Communion (including baptisms etc), and have stood at the cup as an Altar server and seen many 1000's of people (over the years) receive Communion, and it's certainly true from every Orthodox priest I've served under, says, and proclaims by their application of distributing Communion, that Christ is fully present in both species. While it is the "norm" to receive both species, from the mingled cup, there are exceptions, as stated above. This again, doesn't take into consideration the Western rite Orthodox, whom, I admit I'm quite ignorant of, but considering they're probably following a pre-vatican II tradition, I assume they're receiving Christ as Catholics did before Vatican II, under the bread only? (but I admit I'm just guessing on that issue)

Even if that's not the case, Christ is present in both; either that or I've seen dozens of people only receive "half of Christ" for the last 6 years! :)

NP



Fantastic. Thanks for the answer. BTW, I am still working on that thing OS article. I ran into a snag yesterday.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Communion question
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2009, 11:02:07 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.
Apparently the blood of God can become diseased. Interesting. :(

Not to scandalize anyone here, but the blood of Christ can also be infested with insects! :) I know a priest who has had this happen once where a dozen fruit flies landed in the cup, (because the cloth wasn't put on completely buy the deacon), and the priest drank down the chalice, with the fruit flies in there after Liturgy. Were the fruit flies no longer flies because they touched the body and blood of Jesus Christ? Granted the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ, but certainly not everything that touches it after the consecration is changed too.

 Why would flies not be prevented from landing in the chalice and remain flies, but microscopic lifeforms such as a virus would be prevented from landing in their and remaining a virus? I'm not saying we should all be freaking out about this and refuse Communion based on this, but I just don't buy that rational that "God's blood cannot become diseased". Faith is one thing, yet faith must be balanced with common sense and without tempting the Lord our God. I'm not saying that you're suggesting we "tempt" God, but there are oh so many practical reasons why spreading the swine flu through the common cup (in the Orthodox practice) is unlikely that has nothing to do with "faith" but practical applications by the priest and what happens behind the iconostasis when the gifts are prepared....with that said, if a true pandemic broke out, I would be hesitant to take Communion from the common cup, especially if the Church was full of severely ill people. (actually if the Church was full of violently ill people I'd be running for the hills LONG before Communion time...lol!)

Maybe I'm weak in faith, and am just not strong enough...that could very well be. But just because a virus ends up in the chalice, doesn't mean the blood is "diseased"....at least IMO!

NP


Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Communion question
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2009, 11:03:11 AM »
What? You don't think that its possible for some one to catch a cold when the last person who drank from the chalice had a cold?
Would that mean that Christ had a case of the sniffles then? Ridiculous. ::)

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Communion question
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2009, 11:06:55 AM »

Fantastic. Thanks for the answer. BTW, I am still working on that thing OS article. I ran into a snag yesterday.

No problem! Take your time!

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,574
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Communion question
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2009, 11:21:10 AM »

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 receive it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to receive 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 species.
Any one planning on answering my question?

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?


Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,574
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Communion question
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2009, 11:23:14 AM »
I have heard recently that there are some RC  Churches (California I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.


I can only hope that this is not true.

Don't worry. It's best to consider California a foreign country.
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2009, 11:35:51 AM »

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 receive it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to receive 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 species.
Any one planning on answering my question?

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?



Receiveing the Eurcharist as the latins do (seperate species) is the more ancient practice going back to the early Church.
Also, we don't believe that we are separating Christ's body and blood because we believe that he is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Host alone. Likewise, He is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Chalice alone as well.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2009, 11:38:09 AM »
What? You don't think that its possible for some one to catch a cold when the last person who drank from the chalice had a cold?
Would that mean that Christ had a case of the sniffles then? Ridiculous. ::)
Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Communion question
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2009, 11:41:41 AM »
Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.
A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....
Quote
He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.
I am not so sure that you are correct Papist...

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2009, 11:45:25 AM »
Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.
A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....
Quote
He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.
I am not so sure that you are correct Papist...
I know I am correct.  :) The Eucharist is not magic. It doesn't disinfect everything that it touches.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 11:45:46 AM by Papist »
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Communion question
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2009, 01:45:27 PM »
[quote author=Marc1152 link=topic=21123.msg318003#msg318003

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?



[/quote]

The most ancient practice is to partake of the two species seperately, and in fact priests in EO'y do just that. Only after the priests and deacons consume, is the 'bread' put into the chalice. Certainly Jesus is alive and present before then. The OO (at least the Copts) still partake both seperately, everyone taking one form....then everyone taking the other...and yes, Communion in the Coptic Church takes a LONG time. The last time I attended, it must have been 45 minutes just for communion, and it wasn't exactly a Cathedral or anything, and not even a feast day, just a "regular" Sunday, and just a regular medium sized parish. I suppose this might be one of the reasons the Byzantine Churches began distributing in the same Chalice....imagine Communion in Hagia Sophia, where everyone was partaking seperately. It would take probably hours.....(OTH St. john Chrysostom oftened complained too few were taking Communion, so my theory may be full of holes here...)

I have a feeling the same reasoning was partly responsible for doing only the bread in the West, but again, that's just a guess.

The OO, had history went different, probably would have taken a similar approach, but with persecutions, and their population being kept down, it probably never truly became an issue one way or the other. (again, this is all pure speculation on my part, and of course, the Coptic Church i attended only had one priest...I suppose with multiple priests it might go much quicker, as it does in an EO Church, but still, technically it would be twice as slow)

Again, just historical speculation on my part, but it makes  sense to me anyhow! :)



Offline monkvasyl

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
Re: Communion question
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2009, 02:10:53 PM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.  But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood".  One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated.  Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.
The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2009, 02:20:08 PM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. 

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum.  The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified.  The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,998
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: Communion question
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2009, 02:52:22 PM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.  But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood".  One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated.  Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.

Father Bless .If the wine isn't consecrated But The Body Is ..When it touches the Wine ,doesn't it make it Holy and it become Blood of Christ..The Passage the Lord mentions can't remember it exactly About the altar and the objects on it how one makes the other Holy and sanctified....
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline monkvasyl

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
Re: Communion question
« Reply #66 on: May 06, 2009, 03:41:26 PM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.  But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood".  One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated.  Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.

Father Bless .If the wine isn't consecrated But The Body Is ..When it touches the Wine ,doesn't it make it Holy and it become Blood of Christ..The Passage the Lord mentions can't remember it exactly About the altar and the objects on it how one makes the other Holy and sanctified....

I was originally told the wine remains wine, that's why when the Lamb is prepared some of the Blood is touched to it.  Its the same with the Gifts that are prepared on Holy Thursday to be reserved throughout the year for the sick.  It would seem wine is added to soften the Bread to make it easier for the person to consume.
The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #67 on: May 06, 2009, 04:19:59 PM »
My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Communion question
« Reply #68 on: May 06, 2009, 04:21:17 PM »
My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

It would really blow your Catholic friend's mind if he knew that (Eastern) CATHOLIC infants can receive communion, too! ;)
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #69 on: May 06, 2009, 04:23:05 PM »
^ I told her that. She just can't understand it. She thinks they need to go thru classes and such first to "understand." And then if you do it with a baby at baptism there are less parties to plan! ;)

Offline EofK

  • Mrs. Y
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,976
  • lolcat addict
Re: Communion question
« Reply #70 on: May 06, 2009, 05:53:02 PM »
My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

Caitlin is the same way when she goes to commune.  She looks like a baby bird with her mouth wide open and she's just learned to kiss the chalice, so that always makes me laugh too.  It's no wonder Christ said we had to become like children.  They have such an eagerness for Him that makes us over-rational adults look like bumps on a log.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

Offline Quinault

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,518
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
Re: Communion question
« Reply #71 on: May 06, 2009, 05:57:34 PM »
The guys that help with the catch cloth (two guys stand on either side of the chalice with a cloth to catch the drops that fall and to wipe mouths. We receive on a spoon) always look at me like I am insane coming up smiling so big.

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Communion question
« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2009, 11:04:16 AM »
Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.
A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....
Quote
He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.
I am not so sure that you are correct Papist...


St. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake once as well, and just "shook it off"....

Jesus said, "if you drink any deadly thing it will not harm you" and that we're to "take up serpents".....I don't take those promises of Christ, and St. Paul's example to mean that if I'm bitten by a cobra I won't die without treatment. And yet Paul was bitten, and did not die.

The story about St. John doesn't "prove" anything, except that, yes he was a saint. I'm SURE because of his holiness, his great faith and trust in and love for God, and His love for the Holy Eucharist had some part to play in that event. I honestly cannot believe that if I had consumed the remaining Eucharist, the same thing would have occurred with me. It's not that the Eucharist can become "contaminated", but viruses and germs are microscopic organisms that can land "on" the body and blood. Its not like there is an invisible forcefield around the chalice. Again if fruit flies can land there, why can't microscopic "bugs"?

I understand what you're saying, and for those who have that faith, the faith of St. John of San Francisco, the faith of St. Paul, that's great. I just don't necessarily think such an event "proves" anything about the Eucharist itself, per se.....certainly St. John's sainthood, but not necessarily the Eucharist. The Eucharist isn't magic, and I think that is what Papist is trying to say. Stories of SAINTS doing wondrous miracles proves their saint hood (IMO), but that doesn't mean EVERYONE can follow suit and do exactly as they did. I mean St. Herman befriended a Kodiak bear, that doesn't mean EVERYONE can befriend a kodiak bear. :)

St. Paul was bitten and "should" have died, but didn't. And yet I'm pretty sure if I were bitten by a poisonous snake, and didn't get treatment, I would die. That doesn't make Jesus a liar, or his promise not true, it simply means my faith isn't strong enough AND I've not acheived a level of theosis that would allow me to do such a thing. (it's not just about faith like some protestants believe, but Theosis as well that makes these miracles possible) Both things go hand in hand. I'm not saying the Eucharist doesn't provide protection from sicknesses and diseases, because it most certainly does. (otherwise priests would be constantly sick) But is this because microscopic bugs cannot land on it, or is this because of the healing properties of the Eucharist itself? Or something else entirely? In the end it really doesn't matter as far I'm concerned. Because by doing what we're doing I think we're being a bit to scientific about the whole thing. I guess I'm just saying that just because precautions are taken in the Catholic Church doesn't somehow "disprove" their sacraments....because as an Altar server I know precautions are taken in our Church as well, which simply goes unseen by 99% of the congregation who've never seen these precautions.

Trust in God, have faith that the Eucharist will not make you sick, (as I do) but let us not tempt God by assuming that no matter what we do, that that protection will always be there, because I just don't see God working that way in history. Again that's how I see it, and I may very well be wrong.





Offline EofK

  • Mrs. Y
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,976
  • lolcat addict
Re: Communion question
« Reply #73 on: May 07, 2009, 11:04:27 AM »
It's usually Mr. Y and one of the priest's sons holding the cloth at our parish, so they're grinning ear to ear with me.  :)
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

Offline Douglas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 608
Re: Communion question
« Reply #74 on: May 07, 2009, 12:54:02 PM »
What I've always wondered is this: Christ said to His apostles in the institution of the Eucharist... "And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying 'Drink ye all of it.'"

Now how can you drink if you are not given the wine?
Douglas no longer posts on the forum.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,293
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Communion question
« Reply #75 on: May 07, 2009, 02:50:47 PM »
What I've always wondered is this: Christ said to His apostles in the institution of the Eucharist... "And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying 'Drink ye all of it.'"

Now how can you drink if you are not given the wine?
But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #76 on: May 07, 2009, 02:55:07 PM »
But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.

 ???

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,589
Re: Communion question
« Reply #77 on: May 07, 2009, 03:04:28 PM »
But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.

Whom else were He supposed to ask that? There were no one apart from Apostles.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 03:08:38 PM by mike »
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 Douglas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 608
Re: Communion question
« Reply #78 on: May 07, 2009, 09:12:57 PM »
What I've always wondered is this: Christ said to His apostles in the institution of the Eucharist... "And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying 'Drink ye all of it.'"

Now how can you drink if you are not given the wine?
But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.

Well.. to follow your reasoning, since He told His apostles to "eat" by extension that must mean "they" are to eat and we are not to eat since "He didn't say that we all have to eat. As I see it, your reasoning is deeply flawed.
Douglas no longer posts on the forum.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,294
Re: Communion question
« Reply #79 on: May 07, 2009, 10:09:09 PM »
My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

You have the right attitude.  He said, "Rejoice!"  Nothing better than seeing your child enter heaven.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Communion question
« Reply #80 on: May 08, 2009, 01:55:47 AM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. 

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum.  The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified.  The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

 :o

I hate it when I hear stories like this. Alas, they are too often true. In response to reports of abuse, the Archbishop of Bologna in Italy just banned Communion in the hand in large churches of his archdiocese. Good for him---he's following Pope Benedict's lead.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Communion question
« Reply #81 on: May 08, 2009, 02:00:42 AM »
A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....

A good friend of mine witnessed a woman receive Communion but then promptly vomit back into the Chalice. My friend tells me that the priest, without hesitating, drank the entire contents of the Chalice, puke and all. God bless that holy priest!

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Communion question
« Reply #82 on: May 08, 2009, 04:14:30 AM »
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?
I heard of a case in a Byzantine Catholic Church where a parishoner had a problem with alcohol and in that case, he received only the Consecrated Bread and not the wine. Similarly, this was done in the case of a child who had a problem with the alcohol.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Communion question
« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2009, 09:43:30 AM »
I hate it when I hear stories like this.

Me too.

Offline Reader KevinAndrew

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: Communion question
« Reply #84 on: May 16, 2009, 11:08:57 AM »
You have separate species. so do we.

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

No, Latins do not. After the Pater Noster and before the Agnus Dei, the priest breaks a fraction of the Host, makes three signs of the cross over the chalice with it saying, "The Peace of the Lord be alway with you." Response, "And with thy spirit,"  and drops the piece of the Host in the chalice. He then says, "May this commingling and consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ obtain for all who receive it eternal life." This part of the Mass is called the Fraction.

I remember seeing, when I served at Byzantine rite Orthodox parishes, that if multiple clergy were at the altar, the consecrated bread was administered to clergy first (all priests and then deacons) after which, the wine from the chalice was administered (in the same order). The laity then are communed by spoon with all of the bread and wine combined in the chalice. But I am sure that the chalice, from which the clergy had communed after taking the consecreated bread on its own, had fractions of consecrated bread in it -- placed there at some point during the Liturgy.

But back to my point, the chalice in a Latin-rite Mass does indeed have a piece of the Host in it.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2009, 11:18:48 AM by Reader KevinAndrew »

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Communion question
« Reply #85 on: May 16, 2009, 03:09:22 PM »
But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them?  And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. 

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum.  The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified.  The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

 :o

I hate it when I hear stories like this. Alas, they are too often true. In response to reports of abuse, the Archbishop of Bologna in Italy just banned Communion in the hand in large churches of his archdiocese. Good for him---he's following Pope Benedict's lead.
I think that the reverence or rather the apparent lack of it that is seen in many Catholic liturgical celebrations is a real problem for Catholics if they are serious and want to work toward reconcilation with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Offline rwprof

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
Re: Communion question
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2009, 01:14:22 PM »
I think that the reverence or rather the apparent lack of it that is seen in many Catholic liturgical celebrations is a real problem for Catholics if they are serious and want to work toward reconcilation with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There are two things that contribute to that, and I'm not sure how they would be addressed:

1. "Anonymous" sacraments, specifically, Confession and Communion

2. Large size of most Catholic parishes

Roman Catholic priests are technically guardians of the Sacrament, as are Orthodox priests, but if you have no idea who you are giving the Sacrament to, how can you guard it?




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