Communion under one kind

[goldenchild17]

How do I explain why Catholics can recieve just the consecrated or just the cup? From Scripture...

[DojoGrant]

The belief that communion can be received under one or both kinds is taken from both Scripture and the ancient teaching of the Church that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human.

In Matthew 26:26

[i]While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."[/i]

Here Jesus gives the disciples bread, "My Body." The question you must ask yourself is, did Jesus at this point only give them "part" of Himself? Jesus also did not mention that His soul was present, or that His divinity is present. The question thus becomes: Is it possible for Jesus to separate His divinity from His humanity? The answer is, of course, no. Where any single part of Jesus humanity is, His divinity is. And because in the Eucharist we are receiving Christ sacramentally, that is, under the form of bread and wine, we can be assured that the indivisible Christ is wholly present under both species. Where Christ's divinity is fully present, so is His humanity full present, and vise versa.

Going back to the scripture, Jesus gave them His Body, and then in verses 27-28, he gives them His Blood. It is preposterous in the Christian faith to think that Christ had split Himself in two and in each instance, they only received "part" of Him. It's like saying that once we receive the Eucharist under the bread, we cannot be confident that we have received all of Him until we receive Him under the wine, that in between these two, we have only some portion of Our Lord.

I hope that helps!

[goldenchild17]

Well, this is one of the questions...

[quote]I went and read John 6, it does mention both the cup and the bread: John 6:53-56 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. [/quote]

"AND drink His blood". Is there anything in the Scriptures that say that either can be recieved and not both are required?

[phatcatholic]

ok, i may be reading too much into this, but i may have found something in 1 Cor 11 that will help.

[b]1 Cor 11:26-29[/b]
[b]26 [/b]For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
[b]27 [/b]Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.
[b]28 [/b]So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[b]29 [/b]For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

verse 27 seems to say that if you eat the one OR drink the other you are guilty of profaning BOTH. read that verse again. it seems to be at least a possible interpretation. also, verse 29 seems to say that we must recognize the body when we eat AND when we drink.

if my interpretation of these verses is correct, then together they affirm, at the very least, that the body and blood are BOTH present in the bread and in the wine. now, where his humanity is present, so to is his divinity. this is based on our understanding of the hypostatic union, that Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine. so, in both species we have everything that is Jesus Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

now, as for scriptural proof that it is only necessary to take of the bread or the wine, i don't think there's an explicit reference. but, its really just common sense. since we have shown that the bread is entirely Jesus and the wine is entirely Jesus, if we wish to receive Jesus in his entirety, we need only take one of them. there would be no necessity to take both if he is fully present in both.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

I came upon the same thing in a debate i had...I said that as Catholic's, we believe that the Body is fully Christ (100% Soul and Divinity)...and the Blood is Fully Christ(100% Soul and Divinity)...So by receiving only the Body you are still receiving all of Christ. And by only receiving the Blood you still are receiving all of Christ...

I also went into a little more detail, but basically they just wanted to know Catholic teaching, not so much trying to refute it.

Totus Tuus,

Andy

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 7 2004, 02:20 PM'] ok, i may be reading too much into this, but i may have found something in 1 Cor 11 that will help.

[b]1 Cor 11:26-29[/b]
[b]26 [/b]For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
[b]27 [/b]Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.
[b]28 [/b]So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[b]29 [/b]For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

verse 27 seems to say that if you eat the one OR drink the other you are guilty of profaning BOTH. read that verse again. it seems to be at least a possible interpretation. also, verse 29 seems to say that we must recognize the body when we eat AND when we drink.

if my interpretation of these verses is correct, then together they affirm, at the very least, that the body and blood are BOTH present in the bread and in the wine. now, where his humanity is present, so to is his divinity. this is based on our understanding of the hypostatic union, that Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine. so, in both species we have everything that is Jesus Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

now, as for scriptural proof that it is only necessary to take of the bread or the wine, i don't think there's an explicit reference. but, its really just common sense. since we have shown that the bread is entirely Jesus and the wine is entirely Jesus, if we wish to receive Jesus in his entirety, we need only take one of them. there would be no necessity to take both if he is fully present in both.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
Thanks man, that's perfect.

[phatcatholic]

i'm glad i could help

[goldenchild17]

How 'bout a response to this?

[quote]1 Cor 10 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

Hebrews 9:11-14, 22 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ( rabbit trail I will only mention briefly....the sacrifices the people made before Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice were new sacrifices each time, they were not a continuation of one sacrifice which leads to another question that I don't wish to address at this time) 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission

John 6:53-56 as already mentioned 53 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. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him

The body and blood serve two separate purposes and both are necessary. Eating the body joins us into the body of Christ, drinking the blood is necessary for remission of sin. One without the other is not good enough. I know of nowhere in scripture where either the body or the blood of Christ are spoken of as doing both things or of one element taking on the purpose of the other as well as its own purpose.[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

[quote]I know of nowhere in scripture where either the body or the blood of Christ are spoken of as doing both things or of one element taking on the purpose of the other as well as its own purpose.[/quote]

well, i have already shown you one place in scripture where the body and the blood are indeed "spoken of as doing both things." look at 1 Cor 11:16-19 again:

[b]1 Cor 11:26-29[/b]
[b]26 [/b]For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
[b]27 [/b]Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.
[b]28 [/b]So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[b]29 [/b]For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

verse 27: when we [i][b]eat [/b][/i]unworthily we sin aginst the [i][b]body and blood[/b][/i]
when we [i][b]drink [/b][/i]unworthily we sin against the [i][b]body and blood[/b][/i]

verse 29: when we [i][b]eat [/b][/i]we must recognize [i][b]the body[/b][/i]
when we [i][b]drink [/b][/i]we must recognize [i][b]the body[/b][/i]

it seems to me that from these verses we must conclude that whenever and wherever Jesus is sacramentally/substantially present, he is present in totality. his body would never be present w/o his blood, soul, and divinity. his blood would never be present w/o his body, soul, and divinity.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited October 12, 2004 by phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Dealing with an interesting aspect in which I have no idea where to start. She brings up our practice of requiring that the host is made of unleavened wheat. She doesn't question the unleavened part, so far as I know, but the wheat part. She read this stuff and thinks we should be using barley if we claim to follow as close as possible the last supper.

[quote]Thanks, I know you are busy , as am I, and I really appreciate how you take the time to respond. Would you prefer me to respond back in this thread with any further questions I have after you respond , or would you prefer I do it elsewhere? Some questions that stem from your answers I need to give background as to why I am asking a further question.

I did some reading, briefly, and I found this site [url="http://bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w51.html"]http://bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w51.html[/url]. I have barely skimmed it ( and I have not had time to research its accuracy, so I won't claim its right, just that I came across it and it was interesting ), but it seems to be saying that the Passover feast came during the barley harvest, not the wheat harvest... that wheat was not harvested until Pentecost. This quote is under the bold heading " THE GRAIN HARVEST AND THE LIFT OFFERING "The grain harvest of Israel began with the cutting of barley for the Lift Offering during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and ended with the presentation of two leavened loaves of bread out of the wheat harvest, seven weeks later, on the Day of Pentecost." Then, from under the bold heading " THE WHEAT HARVEST" .."Just as the first grain of the barley harvest was prophetic and symbolic of Jesus Christ as the first born of God, the first grain of the wheat harvest was prophetic and symbolic of all those who would obtain salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ."

All the following will be from Exodus 12 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. ( I looked in several commentaries and they all said this was March, not Sept as the Jews had previously considered the " beginning of months".) ... 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it........14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread;..... 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.


I have a LOT more researching to do on this, this is just what I found in a quick search I did on the Passover and the unleavened bread. IF that site is accurate, it appears that the bread would have had to be made of barley, not wheat...but like I said, I have barely even skimmed the article and have no opinion at this time as to whether it is accurate or not. I never even thought about what the bread was made of until I read the article about that young girl.[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

The following seems to be a pretty good argument which I can't find any fault in. It seems to show that 1 Cor. 11:29 is not referring to Christ's body, but our own. I'm not really seeing anymore where both the Body and Blood of Jesus is in each the consecrated host and cup. Don't get me wrong, I still believe because the Church teaches so, but I'm not seeing it in Scripture...

[quote]Correct, it is the word of God. But, it does not say what you claim. It says AND, which you ignore.... " If anyone EATS AND DRINKS"... Next... there is a condition... "without discerning the body"... what does that mean???

Discerning from Strongs:

1. to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer
2. to learn by discrimination, to try, decide
a. to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute

3. to withdraw from one, desert
4. contend
5. to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

The Corinthians were eating the Lord's Supper as if it was just a meal, they were strongly corrected. They were told to " make a distinction" between this meal which was to remember Christ, and their normal dinner.

Look at vs 28 , 30, 31, and 34 to see what body is being spoken of in 29

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

discerning/judging the body was a command to them to look at themselves and what they were doing. Body in vs 29 is not referring to Jesus body as can be seen by the other 3 verses I pointed out.

Therefore , this passage is not saying the bread contains both body and blood nor does it say the cup contains both the body and blood.

Oh, here are the verses that come before this passage ...20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

goldenchild,

sorry i never responded to your question about wheat bread vs. barley. somehow, i glossed over it. anway, i don't have alot of information on this as of yet, but i did find this from the NewAdvent article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm"][b]The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament[/b][/url], which is a start:[list]
[*](a) The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be baked, since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as grain (frumentum), On the other hand, the different varieties of wheat (as spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid, inasmuch as they can be proved botanically to be genuine wheat. The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may be remarked, that in Scripture bread (artos), without any qualifying addition, always signifies wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tradition, whether it be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of the Church, shows wheaten bread to have played such an essential part, that even Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread as a proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

The Church maintains an easier position in the controversy respecting the use of fermented or unfermented bread. By leavened bread (fermentum, zymos) is meant such wheaten bread as requires leaven or yeast in its preparation and baking, while unleavened bread (azyma, azymon) is formed from a mixture of wheaten flour and water, which has been kneaded to dough and then baked. After the Greek Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to palliate the renewed rupture with Rome by means of the controversy, concerning unleavened bread, the two Churches, in the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, came to the unanimous dogmatic decision, that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not interfere with the confection of the sacrament, though for just reasons based upon the Church's discipline and practice, the Latins were obliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held on to the use of leavened (cf, Denzinger, Enchirid., Freiburg, 1908, no, 692), Since the Schismatics had before the Council of Florence entertained doubts as to the validity of the Latin custom, a brief defense of the use of unleavened bread will not be out of place here. Pope Leo IX had as early as 1054 issued a protest against Michael Cærularius (cf. Migne, P. L., CXLIII, 775), in which he referred to the Scriptural fact, that according to the three Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated "on the first day of the azymes" and so the custom of the Western Church received its solemn sanction from the example of Christ Himself. The Jews, moreover, were accustomed even the day before the fourteenth of Nisan to get rid of all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings, that so they might from that time on partake exclusively of the so-called mazzoth as bread. As regards tradition, it is not for us to settle the dispute of learned authorities, as to whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread (Sirmond, Döllinger, Kraus) or have observed the present custom ever since the time of the Apostles (Mabillon, Probst). Against the Greeks it suffices to call attention to the historical fact that in the Orient the Maronites and Armenians have used unleavened bread from time immemorial, and that according to Origen (In Matt., XII, n. 6) the people of the East "sometimes", therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy. Besides, there is considerable force in the theological argument that the fermenting process with yeast and other leaven, does not affect the substance of the bread, but merely its quality. The reasons of congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which would have us consider it as a beautiful symbol of the hypostatic union, as well as an attractive representation of the savor of this heavenly Food, will be most willingly accepted, provided only that due consideration be given to the grounds of propriety set forth by the Latins with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:74:4) namely, the example of Christ, the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His Sacred Body, free from all corruption of sin, and finally the instruction of St, Paul (I Cor., v,8) to keep the Pasch not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth".
[/list]
also, there is strong symbolism evoked by using wheat bread, which at least makes it more appropriate. wheat is symbolic of the followers of God (Jer 23:28; Mat 13:24-30; Luke 3:17) as well as of God's abundant grace and mercy (Psalms 81:16; 147:14). we lose this symbolism when we use bread made of barley. however, this alone isn't a proof, for i suppose someone could find appripriate symbolism in other ingredients as well.

i will try to find more for you on this.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 16 2004, 08:02 PM'] Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize . . . No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all succeeding times. [/quote]
This is basically what I'm trying to find out. How do we know that this is what was used at the Passover? The Greek used might help. I'll look into that. What about my next post?

[goldenchild17]

I looked up the Greek and I'm finding some stuff that say Artos refers to wheat bread. But that it refers to leavened wheat bread. I'm reading that it emphasizes "Raised" bread...

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Oct 17 2004, 01:28 AM']This is basically what I'm trying to find out.  How do we know that this is what was used at the Passover?  The Greek used might help.  I'll look into that.  What about my next post?[/quote]
goldenchild,

i'd like to settle the whole wheat vs. barley argument before i move on to your other question. i did some research and it appears as tho barley was indeed traditionally used for the Passover. at least, this is what the Jews used. this is surmised by the following information:[list]
[*]As the offering of a sheaf of barley marked the beginning of the harvest season, so the offering of loaves made from the new wheat marked its completion. ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11661a.htm"][b]here[/b][/url])
[*]The feast of the Passover begins on the fourteenth day of Nisan (a lunar month which roughly corresponds with the latter part of March and the first part of April) and ends with the twenty-first. ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11512b.htm"][b]here[/b][/url])
[*]Nisan (first month of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03166a.htm"][b]Jewish Calendar[/b][/url])[list]
[*]1. New Moon
[*]14. Paschal Lamb killed
[*]15-21. [i][b]Paschal Feast (Firstfruits of barley offered)[/b][/i]
[/list]
'Iyyar (second month)[list]
[*]1. New Moon
[*]14. Second Passover
[/list]
Sîwan (third month)[list]
[*]1. New Moon
[*]6. [i][b]Pentecost (Firstfruits of wheat harvest)[/b][/i]
[/list]
[/list]
so, i too am at a loss for words. it seems to me that the only way the Church would be right on this one was if Jesus broke custom for some reason and used wheat instead. the KJV NT Greek Lexicon doesn't say anything about wheat in its definition of "artos". neither does the NASB lexicon. the only greek word for bread that by definition is wheat bread is "prothesis", but this always refers only to the shewbread of the temple (that David ate). when speaking of the bread for the passover, "artos" is always used.

any reasons i can think of for why Jesus would use wheat instead of barley would only be speculation. so, i'm no help on this one. anyone else care to take a stap at this. i'll ask apotheoun and see what he says.

pax christi,
phatcatholic