Ask a Catholic

[Pax]

This question is in regards to the Eucharist. I have been to many a Catholic Mass, and I have observed that many people take the wafer, but they do not take the cup.

When I inquired about this, my Catholic friends told me that some choose not to drink the wine, since a common cup is used, because of health reasons -- getting a germ from someone else.

My question is: If Catholics really believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then wouldn't that be the most purest, safest thing to drink?

Thank you.

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass.

I find that totally bizarre. To me that means you really are only offered the Eucharist twice a year. On one hand Catholics hold this Sacrament as the center the most important thing, and then on the other the instructions of Christ are ignored. Sorry to come of strong on this Pax, but Christ said take drink, take eat, it was not choose which you like the best and do what you want. I just don't get not taking both elements? How can you be so literal on one side, this IS my Blood, then on the other saying ,well don

[Kansasdad]

Please show me scripture that specifies how a marriage ceremony has to be in order for it to be considered God approved? It says marriage. Marriage is marriage whether it is performed by a minister in a church or by a justice of the peace.

Let me ask you this. Please show me in scripture what constitutes a marriage. This might be a good place to start. Lets establish what scripture actually says, and move from there.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Smalcald]

Smalcald where we may differ is in the fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual presence, body, blood, soul and divinty of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that the bread becomes only Christ's body, and the wine only his blood.

I think you must correct on that. Under con-substantiation which we hold to be true, the bread is still bread and it is also the true body, the blood is true blood but also wine, this happens at the same time, thus both elements are important. That is probably the difference.

The efficiency argument bothers me though. If it were really important then you would not change the sacrament regardless of how many people were to take it. I also don't understand not kneeling at the altar. I just don't like the Drive through option But now we are into personal likes and dislikes and some Lutheran Churches are now doing the drive through option also.

Oh another question. Do you need a priest to offer the Eucharist? What I mean is, can a priest do what needs to be done as far s consecration goes, at one location, and then the consecrated hosts be sent out to remote locations? I know for example in Mexico there is a real crisis in the lack of priests. Some villages may only see a priest a couple of times a year, which must be horrible for someone seeking this sacrament unless it is sent and offered by the lay ministers?

Peace.

[Kansasdad]

Smalcald where we may differ is in the fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual presence, body, blood, soul and divinty of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that the bread becomes only Christ's body, and the wine only his blood.

I think you must correct on that. Under con-substantiation which we hold to be true, the bread is still bread and it is also the true body, the blood is true blood but also wine, this happens at the same time, thus both elements are important. That is probably the difference.

The efficiency argument bothers me though. If it were really important then you would not change the sacrament regardless of how many people were to take it. I also don't understand not kneeling at the altar. I just don't like the Drive through option But now we are into personal likes and dislikes and some Lutheran Churches are now doing the drive through option also.

Oh another question. Do you need a priest to offer the Eucharist? What I mean is, can a priest do what needs to be done as far s consecration goes, at one location, and then the consecrated hosts be sent out to remote locations? I know for example in Mexico there is a real crisis in the lack of priests. Some villages may only see a priest a couple of times a year, which must be horrible for someone seeking this sacrament unless it is sent and offered by the lay ministers?

Peace.

The Consecrated Host can be dispensed by a lay person. Often this is done for people in the hospital, nursing home, shut-ins. There is some training and prayer to be a Eucharistic minister. I get the privilege and honor every 5th Sunday. Hmmmmmm, how many 5th Sundays are there in a Year.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Scarletprayers]

Smalcald where we may differ is in the fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual presence, body, blood, soul and divinty of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that the bread becomes only Christ's body, and the wine only his blood.

I think you must correct on that. Under con-substantiation which we hold to be true, the bread is still bread and it is also the true body, the blood is true blood but also wine, this happens at the same time, thus both elements are important. That is probably the difference.

The efficiency argument bothers me though. If it were really important then you would not change the sacrament regardless of how many people were to take it. I also don't understand not kneeling at the altar. I just don't like the Drive through option But now we are into personal likes and dislikes and some Lutheran Churches are now doing the drive through option also.

Oh another question. Do you need a priest to offer the Eucharist? What I mean is, can a priest do what needs to be done as far s consecration goes, at one location, and then the consecrated hosts be sent out to remote locations? I know for example in Mexico there is a real crisis in the lack of priests. Some villages may only see a priest a couple of times a year, which must be horrible for someone seeking this sacrament unless it is sent and offered by the lay ministers?

Peace.

The Consecrated Host can be dispensed by a lay person. Often this is done for people in the hospital, nursing home, shut-ins. There is some training and prayer to be a Eucharistic minister. I get the privilege and honor every 5th Sunday. Hmmmmmm, how many 5th Sundays are there in a Year.

God Bless,

K.D.

See Catholic's can't even count!

[Kansasdad]

Smalcald where we may differ is in the fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual presence, body, blood, soul and divinty of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that the bread becomes only Christ's body, and the wine only his blood.

I think you must correct on that. Under con-substantiation which we hold to be true, the bread is still bread and it is also the true body, the blood is true blood but also wine, this happens at the same time, thus both elements are important. That is probably the difference.

The efficiency argument bothers me though. If it were really important then you would not change the sacrament regardless of how many people were to take it. I also don't understand not kneeling at the altar. I just don't like the Drive through option But now we are into personal likes and dislikes and some Lutheran Churches are now doing the drive through option also.

Oh another question. Do you need a priest to offer the Eucharist? What I mean is, can a priest do what needs to be done as far s consecration goes, at one location, and then the consecrated hosts be sent out to remote locations? I know for example in Mexico there is a real crisis in the lack of priests. Some villages may only see a priest a couple of times a year, which must be horrible for someone seeking this sacrament unless it is sent and offered by the lay ministers?

Peace.

The Consecrated Host can be dispensed by a lay person. Often this is done for people in the hospital, nursing home, shut-ins. There is some training and prayer to be a Eucharistic minister. I get the privilege and honor every 5th Sunday. Hmmmmmm, how many 5th Sundays are there in a Year.

God Bless,

K.D.

See Catholic's can't even count!

That's because we would have to ask a Priest if what we counted was correct first.

Silent you slay me, I love your sense of humor!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless,

K.D.

[ayin jade]

In is interesting to me though to watch the vigorous denial of the possibility of annulment from folks who approve divorce. We've had several threads discussing the pros and cons of divorce. Puzzling.

I do not approve of divorce. Nor do I think annulment is proper. The person who first described it (KansasDad) said this:

The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

Sorry, but the bible does not give us the right to divorce, much less have the marriage annuled, because we made a stupid decision when we got married. This isnt like your example of a woman with a gun to her head. (I mean really, how often will you see the gun type scenario.) If 2 consenting adults marry because they couldnt keep their hands off of each other, she got pregnant and they chose to be married, there is no exception clause in the bible for that marriage to be dissolved by divorce or by annulment.

Show me please where the bible says that God accepts that as a valid reason for divorce/ marriage annulment. Please show me scripture to back up the marriage annulment thing to begin with.

I would like an answer to this.

[Kansasdad]

In is interesting to me though to watch the vigorous denial of the possibility of annulment from folks who approve divorce. We've had several threads discussing the pros and cons of divorce. Puzzling.

I do not approve of divorce. Nor do I think annulment is proper. The person who first described it (KansasDad) said this:

The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

Sorry, but the bible does not give us the right to divorce, much less have the marriage annuled, because we made a stupid decision when we got married. This isnt like your example of a woman with a gun to her head. (I mean really, how often will you see the gun type scenario.) If 2 consenting adults marry because they couldnt keep their hands off of each other, she got pregnant and they chose to be married, there is no exception clause in the bible for that marriage to be dissolved by divorce or by annulment.

Show me please where the bible says that God accepts that as a valid reason for divorce/ marriage annulment. Please show me scripture to back up the marriage annulment thing to begin with.

I would like an answer to this.

Kansasdad Today, 09:37 AM Post #390

QUOTE(Ayin Jade @ Oct 5 2006, 03:04 PM)

Please show me scripture that specifies how a marriage ceremony has to be in order for it to be considered God approved? It says marriage. Marriage is marriage whether it is performed by a minister in a church or by a justice of the peace.

Let me ask you this. Please show me in scripture what constitutes a marriage. This might be a good place to start. Lets establish what scripture actually says, and move from there.

God Bless,

K.D.

Just trying to start on common ground and see where we depart from our understanding.

[ayin jade]

Sorry, but since you didnt answer my question, instead asking me almost the same question, I didnt see a point to continue on that. (Its a topic to ask catholics questions and get answers as I recall) I am asking about annulment and how that is scriptural.

[Spunky]

After a brief time of thought I feel my question wasn't

suited for this thread, so please excuse my editing it!

God Bless!