Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HamiltonJay; blue-duncan
You are not required to partake of both the wine and the eucharist to receive communion. One may, but partaking of one or the other is no less receiving than than getting both.

Is there any particular reason why the general practice for more than one thousand years (communion in both kinds) was changed?
1,304 posted on 04/30/2008 9:47:31 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1192 | View Replies ]


To: OLD REGGIE

I’m not sure where you got the idea that it was common practice for thousands of years. In formal churches which you are used to, in relatively civilized western societies it is more common for both to be offered, but that it has always been required or that way is not accurate.

The church has existed in much of its early history, and in parts of the world THROUGHOUT its history underground... the eucharist has often been taken to those who could not attend mass itself, or if the mass was held undeground, for whatever reasons. As well as within cultures where alcohol is not tolerated.

In fact more than one martyr has died protecting the eucharist they were charged with delivering under such circumstances. The catholic church has never viewed the recieving of both the host and the blood required for communion. Only 1 is required to partake in the sacrament, and this has been the Catholic churches belief in this matter for far more than just the modern era.. it is traced back to the very beginings of the church.


1,313 posted on 04/30/2008 10:18:10 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1304 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson