Why Roman Catholics dont get wine.

Linschoten · Dec 15, 2012

Transubstantiation is a funny notion; the bread and wine 'really' turn into flesh and blood without literally doing so; if they did turn into flesh and blood in an absolutely literal sense, it would become a form of cannibalism. As Aquinas remarks: "I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith."

beetle · Dec 15, 2012

Linschoten said:
Transubstantiation is a funny notion; the bread and wine 'really' turn into flesh and blood without literally doing so; if they did turn into flesh and blood in an absolutely literal sense, it would become a form of cannibalism. As Aquinas remarks: "I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith."

Good old Aquinas has a way with words. What he's saying, in short, is it's a miracle.

Thanks for posting the excerpt.

Linschoten · Dec 15, 2012

Much as I admire Aquinas, I think he works his way around this one through conceptual jugglery, all that stuff about substance and accident!

beetle · Dec 15, 2012

Linschoten said:
Much as I admire Aquinas, I think he works his way around this one through conceptual jugglery, all that stuff about substance and accident!

Hey! He got that from Aristotle.

Perix · Dec 15, 2012

Linschoten said:
Transubstantiation is a funny notion; the bread and wine 'really' turn into flesh and blood without literally doing so; if they did turn into flesh and blood in an absolutely literal sense, it would become a form of cannibalism.

It is one from the reasons I am agnostic. All the same, it would be too much to believe that all the believers realy believe it

Linschoten · Dec 16, 2012

Though it's not compulsory to believe in transubstantiation to be a Christian; though that particular belief does have the advantage of being so unintelligible that one doesn't understand what one is supposed to be believing!

Perix · Dec 16, 2012

Linschoten said:
Though it's not compulsory to believe in transubstantiation to be a Christian; though that particular belief does have the advantage of being so unintelligible that one doesn't understand what one is supposed to be believing!

Wel, well saing sounds great....beyound the logic

antonina · Dec 16, 2012

Lord Lucan said:
Im sort of agnostic, but since my wife is lutheran I frequent our local church with her. Lutherans, when they recieve holy communion, get whine (Christs blood) and bread (Christs flesh). This kinda seems to ressemble idea behind Last Supper quite accurately.

But just last weeek I attended Mass in Roman Catholic church and I noticed that while priests (there were 3 of them I think) drunk wine before communion the members of parish just got bread. I asked my catholic friend and he said that its a normal practice - priests gets Christs blood while ordinary people get Christs flesh only.

I would want to know the theology behind such order of things. Im no expert of Bible, but I always thought that there were no differences between participants of Last Supper and Christ asked all of them to drink wine and bread. He didnt say that, lets say Peter, is more important and should be the only one to drink his blood.

So how Catholics got from rather simple depiction of Last Supper to this hierarchical form?

Both Bread and Wine are offered in the Catholic church, but you're right it isn't always. In some churches it's every Sunday (especially in Western Europe I think), in most here - on some occasions during the year. I've never really considered why it is so, it would certainly be wonderful to have both Bread and Wine in Church on a daily basis.

Bart Dale · Dec 17, 2012

Lord Lucan said:
Im sort of agnostic, but since my wife is lutheran I frequent our local church with her. Lutherans, when they recieve holy communion, get whine (Christs blood) and bread (Christs flesh). This kinda seems to ressemble idea behind Last Supper quite accurately.

But just last weeek I attended Mass in Roman Catholic church and I noticed that while priests (there were 3 of them I think) drunk wine before communion the members of parish just got bread. I asked my catholic friend and he said that its a normal practice - priests gets Christs blood while ordinary people get Christs flesh only.

When I have attended Catholic masses in the US, which is always during the Christmas with my brother and his Catholic wife, it always seemed to me that they served wine during communion. Now, that may be because it was a special holiday, since it took a long time to march everyone up to the altar to sip from the communion cup. Because it took a long time, it may be that they only serve wine to the parishioners on special occaissions, because of the time it takes get everyone to the altar.

Also, some people, myself included, might be a little squeamish about sharing a cup that others have drunk from, even if the priest wipes if after every person, which they do. (Of course, not being Catholic, I remain seated in the pews when the time for communion comes.) That may be another reason they don't always serve wine to the parishioners. According to Catholic link I found (see below), apparently it is acceptable to just take the bread.

In Protestant services I normally attend, communion is served to us in individual glasses while we are sitting in pews, so it takes a lot less time, no more time than passing the collection plate.

Here is what I found

Before Vatican II, the priest placed the host into the mouths of the parishioners. Now Catholics may receive communion in their hands. Congregants usually come forward to the front of the church or to stations in the aisles manned by ministers to receive communion. The priest or minister places the host in their hand. Then they may drink from the cup.

Some churches serve Eucharist by the process of intinction, in which the priest breaks the bread and dips it in wine before giving it to the communicant. However, many Catholics only take the bread, a practice that is acceptable because both the bread and the wine incorporate the whole of Christ's presence. Only sick people may take the wine alone. Q&A: The Eucharist - Catholicism

annelouise17 · Dec 17, 2012

Most Protestant Churches serve Grape juice.

Crystal Rainbow · Dec 17, 2012

beetle said:
In my locale it's common to receive the Eucharist by both bread and wine. I'm not familiar with any parishes here which distribute communion by bread only.

I think thanks terrible not sharing the wine. If I was him I would complain if I only got bread.

beetle · Dec 17, 2012

Crystal Rainbow said:
I think thanks terrible not sharing the wine. If I was him I would complain if I only got bread.

Hey, I'm Catholic, I have a sense of humor.

The inclusion of wine during communion is a rather recent development. I don't know why some parishes practice it and some don't. Bishops, pastors and parishoners have a lot of leeway. More often than not, at least in the US, it's the parishioners who run the parish. Most priests don't have much time other than to perform ministerial duties.

As for complaining about some things, hey!, get in line. Catholics have been doing this sort of thing for 2,000 years.

The first spat occurred between Peter and Paul.

beetle · Dec 17, 2012

Linschoten said:
Though it's not compulsory to believe in transubstantiation to be a Christian; though that particular belief does have the advantage of being so unintelligible that one doesn't understand what one is supposed to be believing!

Don't be silly. It's very well understood. For 2,000 years, from the "best and the brightest" to the "least" among us.

Linschoten · Dec 18, 2012

I don't think it is understood, how bread and wine can 'really' change into flesh and blood without really changing; the Protestant view that it is symbolic seems more sensible than me.

Thaladan · Dec 18, 2012

Linschoten said:
I don't think it is understood, how bread and wine can 'really' change into flesh and blood without really changing; the Protestant view that it is symbolic seems more sensible than me.

It's substance changes, but the appearance remains the same. All the bread's qualities (size, shape, colour, taste, etc.) remain the same, but its "breadness", what it actually is, turns into the body of Christ.

When ice melts into liquid water, it's substance, H20, remains the same, but it's qualities alter. With transubstantiation, the opposite happens.

Is that helpful?

Linschoten · Dec 18, 2012

Not really, because I can't see that 'substance' is more than a philosophical abstraction in this context; I'm not sure why Catholics are so resistant to the idea that the bread and wine is symbolic of the body and blood of Christ, it doesn't make the sacrament any less meaningful in my view, or indeed less 'real' in view of the fact that it is conceded that there is not a literal change.

Sicknero · Dec 18, 2012

People have debated and fought wars over this point (among others) for centuries now. Can't see them agreeing anytime soon.

Thaladan · Dec 18, 2012

Linschoten said:
I don't think it is understood, how bread and wine can 'really' change into flesh and blood without really changing; the Protestant view that it is symbolic seems more sensible than me.

When I was first introducted to the doctrine of transubstantiation, I shared similar doubts. But, there are several biblical passages that talk about the Eucharist, and in none of them is it referred to as symbolically.

In Chapter 6 of John's Gospel, Christ tells the Jews that they will have to eat His body and drink His blood. The Jews' reaction is one of disgust. But does Christ tell them that it's only symbollic? No, He repeats that they must eat His body and drink His blood. At that point, many of His followers leave Him. Does Christ call them back and tell them they've misunderstood him? No, He turns to His apostles and asks if they'll leave to, to which Peter answers, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

In the first letter to Corinthians, St Paul tells us that: "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." How can we be guilty of profaning Christ's body if it's only symbollic?

Sicknero is probably right; it's unlikely that any uniform agreement will arise. And yet, what's the harm in trying?

antonina · Dec 18, 2012

Linschoten said:
I don't think it is understood, how bread and wine can 'really' change into flesh and blood without really changing; the Protestant view that it is symbolic seems more sensible than me.

It's completely and gloriously nonsensical, praise the Lord

Ficino · Dec 18, 2012

Linschoten said:
I don't think it is understood, how bread and wine can 'really' change into flesh and blood without really changing; the Protestant view that it is symbolic seems more sensible than me.

Its essence is changed, not its accidental attributes. If you want to theologize (read intellectualize), everything can be reduced to a discussion re: what is the essence of something. This in case you don't want to accept with simple faith miracles like the miracle of Lanciano ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano]Miracle of Lanciano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]).

Search

Search

Why Roman Catholics dont get wine.

Linschoten

beetle

Linschoten

beetle

Perix

Linschoten

Perix

antonina

Bart Dale

annelouise17

Crystal Rainbow

beetle

beetle

Linschoten

Thaladan

Linschoten

Sicknero

Thaladan

antonina

Ficino

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions