I see I got some people offended. Aint trying to start something.
The masses I have been to at different places there is 50% partaking pf the Blood.
I see that so many people cling to the Host-only as their source of both, but I fail to see why the Cup should be thrown out. Whats the reason for the Cup? I was at St Patricks in NYC a few years back and they didnt even offer the Cup from what I could see, so if you arent offered it than its no big deal.
I have some questions for some who posted
Also, more likely to spill, drop, dribble, etc. The Precious Body is less prone to accidents by clumsy receivers.
I dont know what to say. Then the Cup shouldnt be offered if the people are too clumsy.
That’s an incorrect viewpoint, if you’ll take a gander at the catechism and the canons of the Trent council which addressed this protestant error.
The reason why most Catholics don’t isn’t just “fear of germs” but fear of sacrilege. Older and some not-so-old Catholics were never really trained to receive in both species, particularly out of an open chalice while standing.
Could you give me something to read that Trent or the CCC talks about, Im open, Im seeking the answers here. Also you say “isnt just”, well so I was onto something in my original post. About the age thing, how many truly believe that Christ is really present? An open Chalice? I have been to Masses where the Priest gives out communion by intinction and I loved that, but hardly anyplace I have seen does that. The bottom line for me is that there is Bread and Wine, two separate things, one united Christ in both. If I was looking to follow a Protestant heresy I would be complaining that I couldnt have grapejuice instead in my own little dixie cup and that minors shouldnt be drinking alcohol.
It is absolutely impossible to partake of one without the other. Yes, I know what you meant, and I wish you would just say that instead of spreading old heresies.
You know what I meant? I dont know what you mean, do you agree with taking both? Did I say something bad? To the best of my knowledge I am not and would not intentionally say anything to attack the Church, I have to hidden agenda.
I receive both the Body and Precious Blood of Christ at Mass. However, I usually receive them under only one species - the Host.
Why? Well, I used to receive under both species when offered. Then I started teaching the First Communion class at CCE. The idea that both Body and Blood are present in each species is harder for a seven year old to grasp than transubstantiation itself. I realized that I had, probably subconciously, started thinking of the two species as the Body (host) and the Blood (wine) as if they were seperate. So I started receiving under just the one species as a personal reminder.
This is the post that prompted my reply. This isnt an attack, but your teaching kids what? Either the priest is drinking out of a Cup at the altar AND eating a Host or hes just eating a Host.
I am uneasy about teaching a kid that the Priest just said “Then He took the Cup…and said drink this this is my Blood…”, but go ahead and just eat the bread. Especially for a kids First Communion, they must take both! As for grasping transubstantiation, thats a difficult concept for anyone to truly grasp. If anything borders on heresy, which I am not referring to you as doing, it would be the old fashion Protestant argument that kids shouldnt be Baptized or receive Communion until they are “mature” enough. Us Catholics dont believe that Protestant trash. Again this isnt an attack on you, you were the only one who wrote more than 3 lines and I applaud that.
Heres a good one: Why dont more people only recieve the Blood instead of the Host if both contain the fullness of Christ?
At the end of the day taking both seem ideal to me. I also said in my first post that at first I didnt because I was scared of germs, but I realized that that was a flawed understanding of what I was partaking in.