I often joke that the eucharist isn't effective until you shake hands with the pastor/priest after the service. no sneaking out of mass right after distribution, that's cheating.

so by that logic, it's definitely not okay to go halfsies on the sacraments. it's a package deal. we are commanded to do both.

I wasn't trying to take the argument to absurdity, but I was making the point that both the body and blood are 100% Jesus. If you receive one species you are receiving the fullness of the Lord. I agree that the ancient practice was to share the cup between the clergy and the laity and Vatican II brought the practice back, which is not a bad thing within itself. And of course trying to consecrate either wine or bread alone would be an invalid consecration.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I often joke that the eucharist isn't effective until you shake hands with the pastor/priest after the service. no sneaking out of mass right after distribution, that's cheating.

so by that logic, it's definitely not okay to go halfsies on the sacraments. it's a package deal. we are commanded to do both.

---

Now we're all shaking hands with the pastor too? We're definitely all gonna die.

aggietony2010 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I often joke that the eucharist isn't effective until you shake hands with the pastor/priest after the service. no sneaking out of mass right after distribution, that's cheating.

so by that logic, it's definitely not okay to go halfsies on the sacraments. it's a package deal. we are commanded to do both.

---

Now we're all shaking hands with the pastor too? We're definitely all gonna die.

---

That Korean megachurch/cult is basically the epicenter of the issue there, so, I'm just staying clear of Greenway Plaza altogether.

jrico2727 said:

---

I wasn't trying to take the argument to absurdity, but I was making the point that both the body and blood are 100% Jesus. If you receive one species you are receiving the fullness of the Lord. I agree that the ancient practice was to share the cup between the clergy and the laity and Vatican II brought the practice back, which is not a bad thing within itself. And of course trying to consecrate either wine or bread alone would be an invalid consecration.

---

I dont understand this logic. "of course" only concentrating one would be invalid..but that rule doesnt extend to consumption?

aggietony2010 said:

---

Now we're all shaking hands with the pastor too? We're definitely all gonna die.

---

Well, yes. I think that was the point of Ash Wednesday right? Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return!

(mostly the point was you have to stay through the nunc dimittis and the announcements than a sacred handshake...but we do tend to form an orderly line to shake hands with the pastor as we exit the sanctuary)

chimpanzee said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Council of Constance in 1415 ...

---

This thing is a real historic humdinger in the story of the RCC. Would love to read more, but would not really want to wade through the biases, pro or con, that could have motivated someone to write a thorough history of it.

I need to dig around more and see what's out there, the more I learn about it, the more I want to learn more.

---

Yeah it is interesting.

Basically the historical practice is both kinds, and sometimes for pragmatic reasons only one kind was used. For example, sometimes when people were brought communion who couldn't attend services, they'd bring only bread. Or for infants, sometimes they would commune only wine.

That being said, even that doesn't reflect the normative practice. In the eastern churches infants are given a very small portion (a morsel!) of bread and wine, and when we prepare the gifts for people who cannot attend they are bread with wine poured over them. It's no different than when we practice the liturgy of the presanctified gifts and a small portion of the gifts is reserved in the pyx on the altar - after the prayer of invocation, a small portion of the wine is poured in the shape of a cross onto the reserved portion of the bread, so when you receive the presanctified gifts you are receiving both.

It seems to me fairly clear that this arises out of cultural drift and is justified by scholastic theology. From there it becomes doctrinal. I mean, that's true of a bunch of stuff in RCC history.

Is there a Patristic teaching that taught that reception to one species without the other was invalid? I seriously do not know. Either way it would be within the authority of the church to determine or modify the rites. In the upper room at the establishment of the Eucharistic at the last supper scripture only lists the apostles as being present at first Eucharist. There is not any laity present or any practice for distribution of communion to the laity established.

The consecration of the Eucharist and the consumption of the Eucharist by the laity are 2 separate things.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Now we're all shaking hands with the pastor too? We're definitely all gonna die.

---

Well, yes. I think that was the point of Ash Wednesday right? Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return!

(mostly the point was you have to stay through the nunc dimittis and the announcements than a sacred handshake...but we do tend to form an orderly line to shake hands with the pastor as we exit the sanctuary)

---

The person who did my ashes went with the alternative "Repent, and believe the Gospel" this year, so I didn't get my annual reminder of mortality.

We had a solid year where our priests would announce that mass wasn't over until the final blessing and dismissal. You miss all sorts of important graces leaving early, like the final blessing and the knowledge of when the fish fries are and whether or not there are donuts and coffee after Mass. Leaving immediately after communion means the kid in tow is about to get a nice stern talking to, and that they're definitely not getting a donut.

jrico2727 said:

---

Is there a Patristic teaching that taught that reception to one species without the other was invalid? I seriously do not know. Either way it would be within the authority of the church to determine or modify the rites. In the upper room at the establishment of the Eucharistic at the last supper scripture only lists the apostles as being present at first Eucharist. There is not any laity present or any practice for distribution of communion to the laity established.

---

Argument from silence eh?

I would put it the other way. Since we have mounds of evidence that communion of both was normative for centuries, where is the patristic evidence that changing this is permissible?

So, if we are saying that the last supper only prescribes communion for the apostles, why stop at clergy? Surely they are bishops, no? So now we have, according to you, evidence only for episcopal receipt of communion? C'mon.

At any rate I don't know that the scriptures are explicit that the first communion was only with the Twelve. For example, in St Mark's account some disciples left to prepare everything (v16) and then the Twelve show up with Jesus (v17). Jesus even clarifies that from "one of you who is eating with me will betray me" in v17 to "it is one of the Twelve" in v20. On the other hand St Luke says that those who prepared were Peter and John. Call it an ambiguity.

Regardless, 1 Corinthians 11 seems to be pretty clear that the two are linked. Eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink - 5 times!!

k2aggie07 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Is there a Patristic teaching that taught that reception to one species without the other was invalid? I seriously do not know. Either way it would be within the authority of the church to determine or modify the rites. In the upper room at the establishment of the Eucharistic at the last supper scripture only lists the apostles as being present at first Eucharist. There is not any laity present or any practice for distribution of communion to the laity established.

---

Argument from silence eh?

I would put it the other way. Since we have mounds of evidence that communion of both was normative for centuries, where is the patristic evidence that changing this is permissible?

So, if we are saying that the last supper only prescribes communion for the apostles, why stop at clergy? Surely they are bishops, no? So now we have, according to you, evidence only for episcopal receipt of communion? C'mon.

At any rate I don't know that the scriptures are explicit that the first communion was only with the Twelve. For example, in St Mark's account some disciples left to prepare everything (v16) and then the Twelve show up with Jesus (v17). Jesus even clarifies that from "one of you who is eating with me will betray me" in v17 to "it is one of the Twelve" in v20. On the other hand St Luke says that those who prepared were Peter and John. Call it an ambiguity.

Regardless, 1 Corinthians 11 seems to be pretty clear that the two are linked. Eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink - 5 times!!

---

But the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized him in just the breaking of the bread. I agree that under both forms is the ideal, but what was this if not a reference to the last supper?

aggietony2010 said:

---

The person who did my ashes went with the alternative "Repent, and believe the Gospel" this year, so I didn't get my annual reminder of mortality.

---

Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.

Quote:

---

But the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized him in just the breaking of the bread. I agree that under both forms is the ideal, but what was this if not a reference to the last supper?

---

Yea - I was going to include that in my post but I forgot. They were not of the Twelve (Cleopas). So if we take this as a reference to the supper in the upper room then they would be non-Twelve witnesses to it. On the other hand, this is not the only time we see Jesus blessing bread and break it (Mark 6:41, Matthew 14:19) and as they were close disciples, even if not the Twelve, this would be something they would have seen before.

But at any rate I don't think this is an argument for communion in one kind. The scriptures are not a liturgical manual - but if they are, then the evidence surely points to both kinds, as both the first time it is described it is both, and the actual scriptural instruction we have about it talks about both.

k2aggie07 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Is there a Patristic teaching that taught that reception to one species without the other was invalid? I seriously do not know. Either way it would be within the authority of the church to determine or modify the rites. In the upper room at the establishment of the Eucharistic at the last supper scripture only lists the apostles as being present at first Eucharist. There is not any laity present or any practice for distribution of communion to the laity established.

---

Argument from silence eh?

I would put it the other way. Since we have mounds of evidence that communion of both was normative for centuries, where is the patristic evidence that changing this is permissible?

So, if we are saying that the last supper only prescribes communion for the apostles, why stop at clergy? Surely they are bishops, no? So now we have, according to you, evidence only for episcopal receipt of communion? C'mon.

At any rate I don't know that the scriptures are explicit that the first communion was only with the Twelve. For example, in St Mark's account some disciples left to prepare everything (v16) and then the Twelve show up with Jesus (v17). Jesus even clarifies that from "one of you who is eating with me will betray me" in v17 to "it is one of the Twelve" in v20. On the other hand St Luke says that those who prepared were Peter and John. Call it an ambiguity.

Regardless, 1 Corinthians 11 seems to be pretty clear that the two are linked. Eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink, eat and drink - 5 times!!

---

I wouldn't exactly say I argued from silence.

I didn't argue that it was the normative practice for both species to be used. Full immersion used to be the practice for baptism, but that changed. Women deaconesses were used to baptize women, but that changed. Do we need to spend all day looking up quotes from saints all day to support the Church's authority to modify the administration of the sacraments.

All bishops are priests so I am not making a huge leap, especially since the last supper established the Christian priesthood. The Apostles are the only ones we can say with any certainty were there.

In Corinthians 11 it does say eat and drink together a lot, but are any of those instances a commandment that you have to eat and drink at the same time? By that logic in verse "29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Would someone in the wrong disposition to receive Holy Communion not bring judgment to themselves if they only eat or drink? Certainly that is not the point I am trying to make.

What this boils down to is do you accept the Church's authority to make decisions like this or not.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It seems to me fairly clear that this arises out of cultural drift and is justified by scholastic theology. From there it becomes doctrinal. I mean, that's true of a bunch of stuff in RCC history.

---

Can't argue with that.

jrico2727 said:

---

The consecration of the Eucharist and the consumption of the Eucharist by the laity are 2 separate things.

---

They are not. You dont consecrate for an empty room. communion is for the church. the purpose is purely for consumption.

You're saying there's no patristic text prohibiting it, therefore its not prohibited. That is the definition of an argument from silence.

Quote:

---

I didn't argue that it was the normative practice for both species to be used. Full immersion used to be the practice for baptism, but that changed. Women deaconesses were used to baptize women, but that changed. Do we need to spend all day looking up quotes from saints all day to support the Church's authority to modify the administration of the sacraments.

---

This is very different. For starters, we have a great deal of historical evidence about the methods of baptism along with the pragmatic or pastoral administration of baptism. Going back to the very beginning - like the Didache or The Apostole Tradition of Hippolytus - we see the preference was for immersion, but it certainly wasn't a limit. And the use of women deacons was for cultural norms but didn't change the act itself.

This would be more akin to saying you don't need to use water for baptism. Holy Communion, as described in the scriptures and in tradition, is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. What's more, if you look at the Liturgical texts, prayers, hymns, it becomes even more apparent that communion is both. Here's some excerpts from the prayers before communion:

with the witness of my conscience pure, I may receive a portion of thy Holy Gifts, and be united to thy Holy Body and Precious Blood...I know that I am unworthy to receive thy Holy Body and Precious Blood; I know that I am guilty, and that I eat and drink condemnation to myself, not discerning the Body and Blood of Christ my God.
St Basil the Great

And grant that I may partake of thine All-holy Body and Precious Blood..
I believe that this is truly thine own precious Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood
St John Chrysostom

Even in the liturgy itself we see -
enable me, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, clothed with the grace of the priesthood, to stand before Your holy Table and celebrate the Mystery of Your holy and pure Body and Your precious Blood

Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins....Drink of this, all of you; this is My Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ...And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Your Christ...Changing them by Your Holy Spirit...So that they may be for those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, remission of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, boldness before You, not for judgment or condemnation

And with Your mighty hand, grant Communion of Your most pure Body and precious Blood to us, and through us to all the people.

And when the priest communes the faithful he says - "The servant of God (Name) partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal."


In the post communion prayers we say "May Your holy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, be to me for life eternal, and Your precious Blood for remission of sins."

I'm happy for the Church to exercise pastoral care, what we call economy. But not to the extent that it results in the denial of the holy mysteries to the faithful. Or to the extent that it materially changes what was passed on once for all to the saints.

Quote:

---

All bishops are priests so I am not making a huge leap, especially since the last supper established the Christian priesthood. The Apostles are the only ones we can say with any certainty were there.

---

If no laity were there on what grounds do you give communion to the laity at all, using this logic? This is a very troubling way to think.

Quote:

---

In Corinthians 11 it does say eat and drink together a lot, but are any of those instances a commandment that you have to eat and drink at the same time? By that logic in verse "29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Would someone in the wrong disposition to receive Holy Communion not bring judgment to themselves if they only eat or drink? Certainly that is not the point I am trying to make.

---

This is the most backward way to read scripture I have ever heard of. You think it's acceptable to take only the wine, then?

Every direct scriptural reference to Holy Communion is both. The traditional approach is both. The witness of the ancient prayers, liturgical texts, etc. is both. So why is it my burden to demonstrate not to change? No, the requirement or burden here is to justify the change.

Quote:

---

What this boils down to is do you accept the Church's authority to make decisions like this or not.

---

The Roman Church. Sure. Answer? No, absolutely not.

I was reminded of this discussion when I saw this recent article about Iranians licking a religious shrine because of coronavirus "fear mongering".

I'm not so worried about the Eucharist itself containing infectious diseases, but it does seem risky to share a cup that everyone's saliva gets on, even if it does gets wiped off with a cloth.

I feel like there could be a compromise where instead of common cup, you do the individual serving cups out of a community tray that they have at some Lutheran churches (and probably others). It just feels wrong to not offer the communion wine/blood of Christ at all though.

In my church the priest or deacon communes the faithful with a spoon.

Many people open their mouth to let the priest "tip" communion in. Once we had a heirodeacon (monk who is a deacon) and he steadfastly refused to do that - waited for each person to close their mouth on the spoon, like feeding a baby.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You're saying there's no patristic text prohibiting it, therefore its not prohibited. That is the definition of an argument from silence.

-What I am saying is where there is no clear or ambiguous teaching the Church has the authority clarify the issue. I am not arguing that the tradition was established for both species to be used. In a earlier post I stated that is why the Church has tried to go back to to this practice, but when she feels that it appropriate to only offer one species that is her right to do so. If I am at a mass and they are only offering the host I don't feel cheated or that I only received a portion of the Lord, because any portion of the Eucharist is fully the Lord.

Holy Communion, as described in the scriptures and in tradition, is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. What's more, if you look at the Liturgical texts, prayers, hymns, it becomes even more apparent that communion is both. Here's some excerpts from the prayers before communion:

- Again receiving the Host alone is receiving the body and blood. The precious blood is not separated from the body.

If no laity were there on what grounds do you give communion to the laity at all, using this logic? This is a very troubling way to think.

-What I am saying is if the priests or priest, bishops included all partake of the body and blood at the consecration they preforming the rite as established at the last supper. The church afterwards made the decision and practice on how to distribute communion to all the faithful



This is the most backward way to read scripture I have ever heard of. You think it's acceptable to take only the wine, then?

- I am glad you took an absurd example as such, I never intended it to be a proper example to practice. I knew of a woman with an extreme case of celiac disease who only received the wine, so under certain circumstances the Church as the ability to make that call too. And she received the Lord fully by doing so.

Every direct scriptural reference to Holy Communion is both. The traditional approach is both. The witness of the ancient prayers, liturgical texts, etc. is both. So why is it my burden to demonstrate not to change? No, the requirement or burden here is to justify the change.

- My point again is that the Church has the authority to make the decision. If the change is made to prevent spread of disease and will be changed back is it not justified.


The Roman Church. Sure. Answer? No, absolutely not.

-So why would it be ok to change after centuries of tradition of obedience to Rome. JK don't want to open that can of worms today

---

Quote:

---

- Again receiving the Host alone is receiving the body and blood. The precious blood is not separated from the body.

---

Seems directly contrary to scripture. This is my body, this is my blood. Not this is my body and blood, and this also is my body and blood only different. Besides this begs the question. You say this practice is permissible because they're the same. I don't think they're the same, and it's only by retroactive theological justification that the Roman Church even came to say they were the same.

Quote:

---

-What I am saying is if the priests or priest, bishops included all partake of the body and blood at the consecration they preforming the rite as established at the last supper. The church afterwards made the decision and practice on how to distribute communion to all the faithful

---

The laos is the kleros and the kleros are the laos. Clergy are not special super-Christians. Communion should not be materially different. This isn't a distribution question, it is a content question.

Quote:

---

- I am glad you took an absurd example as such, I never intended it to be a proper example to practice. I knew of a woman with an extreme case of celiac disease who only received the wine, so under certain circumstances the Church as the ability to make that call too. And she received the Lord fully by doing so.

---

Shouldn't take a practice or extreme form and make the norm. This is an abuse of economy.

Quote:

---

- My point again is that the Church has the authority to make the decision. If the change is made to prevent spread of disease and will be changed back is it not justified.

---

How far do you think this authority goes? Can they omit it entirely? Can they change materials? Can they change the baptism of water into a "immersion" of cloth? The Church collectively has authority, sure, but not unlimited and universal - this is Christ, we are under obedience to Christ.

Quote:

---

-So why would it be ok to change after centuries of tradition of obedience to Rome. JK don't want to open that can of worms today

---

Joke about obedience to Rome aside, the answer to your question is because Rome started doing crap like this... changing the understanding and administration of Holy Communion, changing the creed, and so forth.

k2aggie07 said:

---

In my church the priest or deacon communes the faithful with a spoon.

Many people open their mouth to let the priest "tip" communion in. Once we had a heirodeacon (monk who is a deacon) and he steadfastly refused to do that - waited for each person to close their mouth on the spoon, like feeding a baby.

---

There's gotta be an epidemiology researcher who wants that monk's contact information.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I think they should just bump up the alcohol content in the blood.

You know, for safety.

---

I read a book a few years ago set in the very early 20th century. The book theme really didn't have anything to do with temperance or religion, but it had a scene in it that was pretty funny. The book was supposed to be a true story.

This guy sits down in a meeting of a temperance group that is trying to get alcohol banned. As a demonstration, they show a bottle of water under some light or microscope or something (I forget exactly what) and you see that it is teeming with life. Then they show a bottle of alcohol that has absolutely nothing moving in it.

This old codger yells out "that does it! I'll never drink water again with those critters swimming around in it! Just whiskey for me!"

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

The consecration of the Eucharist and the consumption of the Eucharist by the laity are 2 separate things.

---

They are not. You dont consecrate for an empty room. communion is for the church. the purpose is purely for consumption.

---

From a Catholic point of view, they are indeed discrete. In our tradition, the Missa Privata (private Mass) is said/offered with no congregation. Delving further, the four inherent elements (in order) of the Holy Mass are:
1. The Mass is first and foremost the worship we owe the triune God.
2. Because it is THE sacrifice of Calvary represented, we are brought into His very divine presence.
3. The Mass is the sacrificial banquet of the Lamb that was slain, in which we the faithful partake (assuming we are in a state of grace... i.e. no unconfessed mortal sin)
4. The Mass is communal.

It is to bring us into deeper communion with the Holy Trinity first and foremost, and therefore exists in the Missa Privata. Any communion we share in a horizontal sense is due to communion we have with Jesus Christ.

The ancient tradition which endures to this day in the Orthodox Church is that the Divine Liturgy cannot be said without the faithful. Every prayer in the Divine Liturgy is in the plural. The very word liturgy itself is from leitourgia, the common act. A private liturgy is fundamentally a contradiction.

The laity - as ordained, vocational Christians - are active participants in the liturgy, even if their role is different than that of the clergy. The celebrants role is to represent the people; the people themselves are co-celebrants. There is no prayer, offering, blessing ever in the Church without the amen - said by the people. This is an approval, a participation, and it belongs almost exclusively to the laity (only in one or two prayers does the priest amen his own words). This is a sacramental word, a participation in the work of the bishop - ratifying and participating his teaching, his prayers, and even his governance. With the amen the people weigh carefully or test (1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:21).

There can be no liturgy without the laity who are serving in the role to which they have been ordained as the assembly (ekklesia) of God. With the amen "the ecclesial assembly concludes and, as it were, seals each prayer uttered by the celebrant, thereby expressing its own organic, responsible and conscious participation in each and every sacred action of the Church" as Fr. Alexander Schmenann put it.

The Church collectively is the kleros, the portion or inheritance of God; and, everyone is the laos, the people of God. Some of the laos are the portion within the portion, the kleros -- the clergy.

It has been this way from the beginning, as witnessed far back as St Justin Martyr -

Quote:

---

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

---

From the OCA website:

Quote:

---

Because of its common character, the Divine Liturgy may never be celebrated privately by the clergy alone. It may never be served just for some and not for others, but for all. It may never be served merely for some private purposes or some specific or exclusive intentions. Thus there may be, and usually are, special petitions at the Divine Liturgy for the sick or the departed, or for some very particular purposes or projects, but there is never a Divine Liturgy which is done exclusively for private individuals or specific isolated purposes or intentions. The Divine Liturgy is always "on behalf of all and for all."

Because the Divine Liturgy exists for no other reason than to be the official all-inclusive act of prayer, worship, teaching, and communion of the entire Church in heaven and on earth, it may not be considered merely as one devotion among many, not even the highest or the greatest. The Divine Liturgy is not an act of personal piety. It is not a prayer service. It is not merely one of the sacraments. The Divine Liturgy is the one common sacrament of the very being of the Church itself. It is the one sacramental manifestation of the essence of the Church as the Community of God in heaven and on earth. It is the one unique sacramental revelation of the Church as the mystical Body and Bride of Christ.

---

Lex orandi lex credendi.

I'd probably say closer I believe he protects the communicants from disease during Holy Communion.

The Reformers had something to say on this topic:

Quote:

---

1] To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26:27: Drink ye all of it, 2] where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. 3] And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. 4]And this usage has long remained in the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time 5] when it was approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. 6] The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests administer the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the people. Indeed, Pope Gelasius 7] commands that the Sacrament be not divided (dist. II., De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus). 8] Only custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident 9] that any custom introduced against the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the Canons witness (dist. III., cap. Veritate, and the following chapters). 10] But this custom has been received, not only against the Scripture, but also against the old Canons 11] and the example of the Church. Therefore, if any preferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they ought not to have been compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. And because the division 12] of the Sacrament does not agree with the ordinance of Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has been in use.

---

This may be a bit of a side track.

When I attend mass, at least what I see is the priest consecrating a large host with his own chalice. But then, everybody that's not the priest or deacon only has access from the regular hosts and chalices (when it's not flu season). Why the separation?

Withholding the cup from the laiety seems totally bogus. But if I gotta drink outta the common cup, I'm good with bread alone. That common cup is anti-vaxxer strange.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'd probably say closer I believe he protects the communicants from disease during Holy Communion.

---

This is the point that I poorly attempted to convey in the op.

Please understand that I'm not interested in arguing but rather understanding. Im Not a strong Christian and probably the last person on this planet to be qualified to really even discuss faith like this but here goes....If the statement you made is true, which I think it would be assumed to be by all Catholics, then why would a cardinal or anyone for that matter feel it necessary to suspend aspects of the mass in order to reduce risk of disease? Moreover, If the decision is truly to reduce risk of disease then why isn't it permanently suspended? They can seemingly make changes to procedures as needed.

I have no idea. I don't understand it either.

Maybe some divine protection was removed when Paul was talking about people dying from taking communion in the wrong manner.

These days, God has graciously given us germ theory to protect us, and we are foolish not to use it.