Half-baked Eucharists

[stovebolts]

As near as I can tell, the reasons were purely practical. One reason was the danger of spills. The Host is easy to pick up, the Wine, not so much. The main reason was that the Church grew rapidly and, pre-Vatican II, communion was only given by the priest. If given under both species, it would take forever even in a mid-sized congregation. Once Extraordinary Ministers (EM's) were instituted, it became practical to distribute under both Kinds. This is the reason distribution of the Precious Blood was re-instituted after VII, because EM's were put in place.

Again, it wasn't really "withheld" from the faithful because the Blood is present in the Body. This view comes from the fact that there is not one bit of human flesh that does not contain blood. Same with the Host. If we believe it becomes the ACTUAL Flesh of Christ, then it stands to reason there is blood within the Flesh, right? The argument here should be, as it is everywhere else, that the Host DOESN'T become the actual Flesh of Christ. Once you grant the point that the Host is the Flesh (which the OP seems to do), the debate is basically over due the facts of biology.

Seems like a lot of unneeded reasoning to justify not doing something that's laid out pretty straight forward in Scripture. One could reason well enough how not to plant a seed in the ground but it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't grow... much in the same way Jesus took both elements and the apostles partook of each element independently of the other... it just seems to me that we can reason our way out of doing a lot of things that we should be doing. Just saying.

I attended a congregation a few years ago that served over 3,000 people. They had the bread and the fruit of the vine up front in four separate stations. It took all of 20 minutes for those who wished to partake to come up. That's not too bad.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Some folk interpret the Lord's words "this do" as a commandment to participate in the Lord's supper. Ironically, those very same folk-- because of Thomas Aquinas' bright idea --see consumption of the cup element (a.k.a. species) as optional; yet the Lord said "this do" for both it and the bread.

†. 1Cor 11:24 . . And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do . .

†. 1Cor 11:25 . . After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do . .

How is it that one of the Lord's "this do" commandments is optional and the other isn't? Are the Lord's wishes sort of cafeteria style where people are at liberty to take what they want and ignore the rest?

Buen Camino
/

 

[BornAgain]

.
I was an old school Catholic from 1944 to 1968 which was pre Vatican II. Only priests consumed the fruit of the vine in those days: viz: the congregation had zero contact with it-- no dipping, dunking, tincturing, moistening, soaking, wicking, or tasting; no, the congregation was given only the bread element. So then all those years I practiced the Lord's supper my participation was half-baked; which is far more serious than the average rank and file pew warmer realizes

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

In other words; it's necessary to consume both the Lord's body and his blood in order to obtain eternal life; which means I was a dead Catholic.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Thomas Aquinas came up with the bright idea that it's only necessary to consume one of the elements (he called them species) in order to be given credit for consuming the Lord's flesh and blood. But is that really the procedure that the Lord stipulated for his apostles? No. He clearly, and without ambiguity, commanded them to eat a bit of bread and to follow it up with a beverage from the vine; and I would just like to know why in God's good name Rome found it so difficult to comply with His son's wishes prior to Vatican II.

†. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

The importance of the correct procedure is paramount because; according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: I and the other pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life due to our lack of access to the fruit of the vine; were consequently denied Christ too.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christless-ness is an extremely hazardous spiritual condition.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

What it boils down to is: I and my fellow pre Vatican II Catholics were not the Lord's sheep; and had no right to claim any of Psalm 23 for ourselves.

Buen Camino
/

I was also raised, "old school catholic." I have a different meaning now of what the Lord's supper is opposed to the catholic doctrine. I heard of a "wheat allergy" and the church compensates for that....what about if one is allergic to wine? Does the catholic church substitute wine for grape juice?

 

[Webers_Home]

.

what about if one is allergic to wine? Does the catholic church substitute wine for grape juice?

I'm not up on current Eucharistic practices; but in Jesus' day wine was the only option because there were no fresh grapes available in Israel during Passover week since that's a Spring festival. But people have a choice today. I would say that grape juice is acceptable because the only requirement is that the cup contain a fruit of the vine.

Buen Camino
/

 

[dadof10]

Seems like a lot of unneeded reasoning to justify not doing something that's laid out pretty straight forward in Scripture.

Isn't the "straightforwardness" to consume the Body and Blood? Isn't that the point? Take a look at the words used by Jesus in John 6. He uses the word "chew" or "gnaw". Does that mean that people with no teeth can't properly receive and therefore are bound for Hell (if you agree with the OP, that is)? Do you hold the same view as Webers Home, that people with wheat allergies should just suck it up and tempt death, because consumption of wheat is COMMANDED by God upon penalty of eternal Hell? I hope not.

One could reason well enough how not to plant a seed in the ground but it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't grow... much in the same way Jesus took both elements and the apostles partook of each element independently of the other... it just seems to me that we can reason our way out of doing a lot of things that we should be doing. Just saying.

One could also put a seed into a wet paper towel or potting "soil" and it would grow. The point is the growth, not the form of the planting or that it HAS to be in actual earth for the seed to grow.

I attended a congregation a few years ago that served over 3,000 people. They had the bread and the fruit of the vine up front in four separate stations. It took all of 20 minutes for those who wished to partake to come up. That's not too bad.

That's not how it was done pre-VII. The priest was the only one allowed to distribute communion. That meant there was a HALF station for the entire congregation. If your stations are like ours (one cup and one host at each) that would mean that a congregation of 3000 would take 2 hrs. and 40 min., give or take (20 min. x 8 ministers). That seems a little excessive to satisfy unnecessary legalism. After all, all flesh contains blood.

 

[dadof10]

I was also raised, "old school catholic." I have a different meaning now of what the Lord's supper is opposed to the catholic doctrine. I heard of a "wheat allergy" and the church compensates for that....what about if one is allergic to wine? Does the catholic church substitute wine for grape juice?

No. the Body contains the Blood, like all flesh contains blood, so every time you receive the Host, it's assumed there is Blood in the Flesh. After the consecration, the priest breaks off a tiny piece of the Host and drops it in the cup. That way if a person has an allergy to wheat, he can only drink from the cup and still receive both Species.

 

[dadof10]

.
Some folk interpret the Lord's words "this do" as a commandment to participate in the Lord's supper. Ironically, those very same folk-- because of Thomas Aquinas' bright idea --see consumption of the cup element (a.k.a. species) as optional; yet the Lord said "this do" for both it and the bread.

†. 1Cor 11:24 . . And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do . .

†. 1Cor 11:25 . . After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do . .

How is it that one of the Lord's "this do" commandments is optional and the other isn't? Are the Lord's wishes sort of cafeteria style where people are at liberty to take what they want and ignore the rest?

Buen Camino
/

Why don't you "do this", then?