[metmom]

The miracle of transubstantiation takes place on a daily basis and billions have witnessed it.

Besides, since Catholics never drank of the cup, there's no way for anyone to be able to attest that the wine was changed to blood.

Why doesn't the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?

Why the disobedience to the command of Jesus Himself?

[OpusatFR]

“Why doesn’t the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?”

That’s quite a question. Why do you think this is so?

[Natural Law]

"Why doesn't the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?"

We do.

[OLD REGGIE]

Why doesn't the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?

The cup has been offered for some time. Prior to that there was a highly specialized Catholic Dictionary definition that both elements were present in the host.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you for making as clear as it needs to be that the truth has nothing to do with many posts on FR.

Why doesn't the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?

Tonight, and at my parish's three per day (except Saturday when there's only one) weekday Masses the chalice is ALWAYS offered, unless there's a 'flu going around or something. It is offered on Sundays also.

Consequently the implied assertion that the Catholic Church does not offer "BOTH elements of communion" is false. It is so interesting to BE a Catholic, to pray to worship, to contemplate (not nearly enough) to study, and to teach as a Catholic, and then to come here and read posts which SAy they are about me but which make almost no contact with my thought, belief, or experience.

So the charge of disobedience is also false.

A little introduction to the teaching of transubstantiation was given to you earlier and you acknowledged it. IF you had understood it, you would also understand that the senses of sight, taste, smell, and touch would give NO evidence that the Precious Blood was anything other than wine.

If you had been catechized at all well, you would know that. It's a main feature of Aquinas's Corpus Christi hymns.

If your catechesis was as good as you say, you will be able to translate this:

Verbum caro, panem verum
verbo carnem efficit:
fitque sanguis Christi merum,
et si sensus deficit,
ad firmandum cor sincerum
sola fides sufficit.

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
veneremur cernui:
et antiquum documentum
novo cedat ritui:
praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.

Further, the explanation for the thinking about the legitimacy of communion in one kind has also been posted more than once. Of course, not everyone agrees. But you asked "why," and that question has been answered.

This leads me to wonder why you ask it again.

[bronx2]

After the startling revelations of this afternoon with beliefs confessed in space cadets, Brother Jimmy /Sister Frances and other assorted false gods , it would be good for all to confront the demons in each life. Some hide behind a false Christianity while others are now opening up to confessing these demons.

It would be good for all the non Catholics on this thread to make a public confession of their beliefs and if warranted perhaps make a disclaimer of faking Christianity.

What say you? If you wish to apologize for past atrocities I will be forgiving.

Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.