b3333d No.595368
Why do the catholics give only the bread during the Eucharist? Where's the wine? The priest drinks it
a45a2d No.595370
We do. Actually, interestingly enough, it seems like mainly novus ordo masses distribute the Precious Blood. Ovus ordo less so in my experience.
adc0a3 No.595374
>>595368
>Ovus ordo
excuse me, what?
e75926 No.595375
>>595368
There are occasions where both is given - for example in small parishes, it is given to deacons and altar servers as well sometimes. The reason both isn't given all the time to the whole parish is that Christ is fully present in both, the wine and the bread.
5d885e No.595377
>>595368
not in the new rite
e75926 No.595378
>>595377
There is no new Rite. Get your facts straight or restrain from posting.
2e036b No.595386
>>595375
>There are occasions where both is given
>sometimes both
Uhh it should always be both. What are you guys even doing lmao
>The reason both isn't given all the time to the whole parish is that Christ is fully present in both, the wine and the bread.
even if that's true, that doesn't preclude giving both.
wew the absolute state of the vatican
5d885e No.595392
>>595378
you know what i mean
00c9b1 No.595398
>>595386
????
Why are you autistically overreacting.
8e946b No.595401
>>595398
because you're Catholic, I suppose…orthos don't like caths.
88787c No.595402
>>595368
I heard you can take the bread or drink the wine, not sure though.
Also
>ID: b3333d
Amazing
b3333d No.595406
>>595375
[Matthew 26:26-28)
>Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
"Drink from it ALL of you"
Again, why don't Catholics follow this?
6f9d03 No.595412
>>595368
Wine is expensive, and gold thrones don't pay for themselves.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
-John 6:53
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>W..well protestants drink Kool Aid!
Really! Is it more common for Catholics than protestants to drink wine for communion? No?
>W..well, the flesh really has the substance of the blood in it
Really! Are you drinking the bread?
>Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
>ye have no life in you.
76f75d No.595421
>>595414
> But most Protestants don't even have communion
Huh? What do you mean by this?
> And Baptists aren't technically even Christian
What would you consider the bare minimun definition of Christian, and how exactly do Baptists fail to meet that definition?
25172e No.595423
Honestly though, sinposting aside, when did it become a standard practice for the Latin Church to give only the bread, and why? I was told by a few Catholics that this is how it was done since apostolic times, and they point to 1 Corinthians 11:27 to prove it, but forgive me if I have my doubts.
73c250 No.595424
>>595368
Lets be real. Wine is very expensive
d9c263 No.595425
>>595368
>The priest drinks it
No wonder our parish priest is always trashed
7dde5d No.595426
>>595368
I don't know what you're talking about. The Maronite Catholic in my community always serves the Eucharist with Wine. What else would the Body and Blood of Christ represent? Another question anons. If the church I go to serves wine with the Eucharist, what mass does it practice?
7dde5d No.595427
>>595426
*maronite catholic church
c92cf9 No.595429
>>595426
>that pic
wait, what?
25172e No.595430
>>595426
Latin Catholics normally only give the bread to the laymen, while the clergy drinks the wine. They believe that the bread is the fullness of the Body and Blood and the wine is the fullness of the Body and Blood. In recent years they've been offering the wine to the laymen too though, although I've never seen it in my own country so it might be an American thing.
7dde5d No.595432
>>595430
Oh, in our church, both the priest and the attendees drink the Wine and take the Eucharist.
>>595429
Hhaha yep, I'm pretty sure that anon is dead. He was most likely exposed to Cl2 gas.
e47302 No.595438
>>595430
>so it might be an American thing
Nod really.
I had occasion to take communion under both kinds in my life. One when I was in Czech republic (it's worth noting there were maybe dozen of men total on the mass), 2nd was somewhere near Easter in Poland I think. Or it was on Corpus Christi, don't remember.
25172e No.595442
>>595438
I see.
I'm in France and have never seen it, not even in tiny morning Masses.
db5b98 No.595450
>>595412
But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said ; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said ; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
9cad75 No.595460
>>595414
>Baptists aren't Christian because they don't follow the traditions of men
9e8a89 No.595466
>>595406
>"Drink from it ALL of you"
>Again, why don't Catholics follow this?
Jesus was talking to the apostles so only the Priest needs to do it at mass.
db5b98 No.595469
>>595460
Christian is defined by both international council of churches and by this board as one following Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed which is clear: "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins". 90% of Baptist do not. Theafore they are not Christian more than Sevendayfags are.
8a44be No.595470
>>595469
Also belief in the communion of saints. Don't some Eastern churches rebaptise though?
aac66b No.595479
>>595460
Baptists aren't in the true Church because they don't follow the traditions of the Apostles, authorized with the Holy Spirit.
"When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Logically speaking, Baptists should disregard any scripture not directly authored by the Apostles- these by "mere men" as they so claim.
a8dfef No.595585
>>595368
It's cheaper. There's no Scriptural basis for it really though. The whole "both the body and blood are in each kind" is something I don't buy at all. Doesn't really make sense from a transubstitiation perspective. I mean if the bread truly becomes the Body and the wine truly becomes the Blood, then I don't see how you can believe both are in each. If anything, Lutherans should be the ones who get away with it, since consubstitiation says that both elements are "in, under, and through" the bread and wine. However, Lutherans always commune under both kinds anyway. I assume it relates to the priesthood of all believers, so all believers need to partake of both kinds.
I rejoice in the fact that Communion is regularly given to Catholics at both kinds during Mass now, at least here in the US. That and the use of the vernacular are probably the only two good things to come out of Novus Ordo.
>>595466
By that logic, only priests need to commune at all, since the Last Supper was just the Apostles.
dcc2f8 No.595597
>>595466
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
377784 No.595626
I never receive the blood.
e3ab1f No.595632
>>595551
yes the egg order
305cc7 No.595635
Depends where. Its always given at my parish, but I noticed never in the UK
The host contains both the body and blood so it's not necessary
dcc2f8 No.595637
>>595635
See >>595406
It's disobeying a direct command of Christ to partake only of bread
955834 No.595823
There's 2 catholic churches near me. One gives only bread and is the one we frequent because its closer. The other is farther away but gives both. Its funny how the one that gives both has a more vibrant community and a choir full of people but the one that gives just the bread feels dead and the choir is literally 1 lady.
8770e4 No.601833
>>595648
I've just started by Christian/Catholic journey and I'm truly amazed to learn that there are Catholic Churches who don't automatically do both.
The Church I go to always does both. UKfag by the way.
9cbcf8 No.601948
>>595469
Catholics don't believe in being saved by faith alone, therefore they are not Christians.
Let's see who gets banned first; my money's on me.
5eb005 No.601964
Yeah, Novus Ordo does it. Funny, tradfags complain all day about Novus Ordo (granted there's good reasons) but seem to completely gloss over that.
c03584 No.601971
>>601964
Yah, Novus Ordo brought some good changes.
- use of the vernacular
- communion in both kinds
When weighed against the negatives of the rite itself (e.g. priest facing the wrong direction), it doesn't seem so bad.
The real problem is the cultural change that followed implementation of the Novus Ordo. Some of the church music written in that period is nigh-heretical. I can understand why tradcaths complain, but in any case I'm glad Catholics have communion in both kinds now.
a7477b No.601976
My church gives both bread and wine. Always. I've never been to a church that didn't do both. This thread has confused me tremendously.
f5f0df No.603084
>>595423
The practice started earlier, but it was given an official explanation and sanction at the council of constance.
It predates this, though, since constance was simply defending the practice against Jan Hus', who maintained that communion should be under 2 forms.
f5f0df No.603085
>>595424
Oh please. If my church can afford it for everyone, why can't the catholics?
447662 No.603087
>>603085
Lutherans don't have popes who want to sit on expensive gold thrones, they don't have to pay Jesuit spies to subvert Christendom, etc.
1b8bea No.603090
>>603087
I thought jesuits did it for free
000552 No.603093
>>595386
With large assemblies it's too difficult to estimate how much blood is needed for everyone to receive without risking having leftover blood. So it makes more sense to just give the body which also contains the blood.
db5b98 No.603113
>>603087
First of all, I don't think that you know what indulgence is. Hint: it have litte to do with absolution.
Second of all, selfspending in Church is minimal
db5b98 No.603114
>>595386
>Uhh it should always be both.
Says who? Not Christ since he equaled "whoever eats &c" with "whoever eats and drinks &c" in John 6 and when his second Eucharist was bread alone in Luke 24
a33860 No.603120
>>603114
He said if you don't drink the wine you have no life in you.
db5b98 No.603151
>>603120
Where? Or that I remember was he talking about blood. But when he did he said:
Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
Always with body. Now compare those with when he speaks about body alone:
He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
It's paralel, my little goose
9e0857 No.603156
>>595426
fuck you for posting that…gross…
0ffec5 No.603177
>>603120
There's a correction to be made here. That saying is from John 6, and in John 6 there is no table or supper. Those things are not present there. This is actually a separate passage from the last supper, and "his flesh" and "that bread which came down from heaven" is literally His words, not a physical bread or meat. See John 6:63.
In the last supper is where you find the saying "this is my body." But those words appear nowhere in John 6. Two separate passages.
db5b98 No.603261
>>603177
> is literally His words, not a physical bread or meat. See John 6:63.
He is quite clear that this is his literal flesh and literal blood. See 1 Corinthians 10-11.
Your reading of John 6:63 is wrong, because "this words" are words that he spoke before namely "Eat (gnaw) my flesh"
>In the last supper is where you find the saying "this is my body." But those words appear nowhere in John 6. Two separate passages.
By the same logic, Christ being lifted up as Moses did to Snake does not mean crucifixion because in no crucifiction account words "lifted" are used and in no lifting passage word "cross" is used.
4474d1 No.603262
>>603156
>>595429
>>595426
don't worry it's fake. looks like some exfoliation mask instead of blistered flesh
0ffec5 No.603271
>>603261
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
db5b98 No.603279
>>603271
What part of "alone" does you not understand?
Also, Christ himself is THE Word and He is living bread.