Communion in Both Kinds (Augsburg Confession Article XXII)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is part of our series on the Augsburg Confession. Here, I discuss the medieval practice of withholding the cup from the laity in Holy Communion.
I'm Catholic but you are absolutely right. This has always bugged me. Every time, before communion, I tell God I wish they would give me the chalice. Last year I was offered both and I cried like a baby.
Ah yes, I'm reminded of that beautiful text in the epistle to the Corinthians which reads:
"In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them saying, "Nevermind. You basically got my blood when you ate the bread. Don't worry about this part."
😆 good one
One of the local Catholic parishes gives the wine as well. The others just the host... Their music also varies, some have contemporary, some have piano, really differs a lot
You present this very calmly and fairly, I'm neither Lutheran nor Catholic and it's very useful to have a scholar like you for the Lutheran position, someone who presents both sides while arguing his own.
First! Thank you for this series on the Confessions. Very helpful!
Great video. And Roman Catholics don't get how serious this issue is. Magisterial authority says that the faithful are obligated to obey it. But this is an instance where the magisterium just so obviously contravened both Scripture and the ancient tradition. So Rome can't say "oh the magisterium is just expositing the apostolic deposit" here--since, even as they admitted, they were holding to a custom that developed and contravened the clear commands of Christ and the practice of the church.
Communion of of holy one species (bread) to the laity is NOT a dogma but a rule. Example of rule that is written in Scripture (NOT in church fathers) but no one practise today is Acts 15:20 where gentile believers must be abstain from blood. If you obey what is written in Acts 15:20, either you slaughter the animal yourself and make sure all blood are drained or you only consume kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims).
Must the Eucharist be received under both species or kinds (bread AND wine)? Those who say yes, rely on what Jesus said in John 6:54 (emphasis in capital is mine) "he who eats my flesh AND drinks my blood has eternal life." Those who say no, rely on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:27 (emphasis in capital is mine) "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord."
According to 1 Cor. 11:27 either eating the bread OR drinking the cup unworthily will profane the Body AND Blood of Christ. The verse uses "OR and AND", neither "OR and OR" nor "AND and AND" (KJV translates the verse as AND and AND). This is the basis why the Catholic Church teaches receiving under one species (bread or wine) we receive both flesh and blood of Christ. Receiving both species is neither forbidden nor condemned. To the best of my knowledge in Eastern Catholic churches both species are given to laity. In the past even the Western church did the same as pointed out by the speaker. Some Catholic churches give both species even today.
@@justfromcatholic You are intentionally misunderstanding the video. Your repetition of this strawman does not make it true. It makes you an intentional brainwasher.
At the time of the Reformation the laity were FORBIDDEN the blood. They did not have the RIGHT to take the cup. Which part of the unwritten deposit from the Apostles allows your to REFUSE the cup to anyone taking this bread that we break?
@@Mygoalwogel I did watch it - it is you who did not read what I wrote. Copied and pasted below for your convenience:
Communion of of holy one species (bread) to the laity is NOT a dogma but a rule. Example of rule that is written in Scripture (NOT in church fathers) but no one practise today is Acts 15:20 where gentile believers must be abstain from blood. If you obey what is written in Acts 15:20, either you slaughter the animal yourself and make sure all blood are drained or you only consume kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims).
Must the Eucharist be received under both species or kinds (bread AND wine)? Those who say yes, rely on what Jesus said in John 6:54 (emphasis in capital is mine) "he who eats my flesh AND drinks my blood has eternal life." Those who say no, rely on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:27 (emphasis in capital is mine) "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord."
According to 1 Cor. 11:27 either eating the bread OR drinking the cup unworthily will profane the Body AND Blood of Christ. The verse uses "OR and AND", neither "OR and OR" nor "AND and AND" (KJV translates the verse as AND and AND). This is the basis why the Catholic Church teaches receiving under one species (bread or wine) we receive both flesh and blood of Christ. Receiving both species is neither forbidden nor condemned. To the best of my knowledge in Eastern Catholic churches both species are given to laity. In the past even the Western church did the same as pointed out by the speaker. Some Catholic churches give both species even today.
@@justfromcatholic Wrong. While it's true that one species carries the promise of the forgiveness of sins, this does NOT validate the REFUSAL of the cup to the laity. That's what the video was about. That's what the AC article was about. You know this. You know you're wrong. You know your sect is wrong. But you gotta gotta gotta defend your sect, wrong or right.
@@Mygoalwogel I NEVER WROTE "While it's true that one species carries the promise of the forgiveness of sins". Why do you apply it to me? Did you read what I wrote?
The Church I go to does intinction. Is that reason enough to leave, given that they're doctrinally and sacramentally solid in basically every other way?
Yes
@@nate9601 well okay but by your standards there are like 4 good Churches in the world
@@redeemedzoomer6053 the sacraments being worthily received and the word being faithfully preached with a proper law/gospel distinction is literally the bare minimum requirement. Obv proper worship is secondary but also important
The LCMS disapproved of intinction back in 1944. I have never seen any church that practices it, and my church practices a lot of Eucharist abuses.
Aren't you PCUSA? Doesn't count as doctrinally sound
The Council of Trent, The Twenty-First Session, CHAPTER IV.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that, *by the precept of God,* or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ *ought to receive both* species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.
CANON 11.--if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church *was not induced, by just causes and reasons,* to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.
Glad to be Lutheran.
Saw a little bit of fire from Cooper at the end here
41:25 this argument is made by John Owen against the credobaptists
Hello, your friendly neighbor Catholic here. But I don’t know too many, in fact, I don’t know any practicing Catholic in good standing that would disagree with you that it should & ought to be in both kinds. I do know that some Parishes and some Basilicas argue that it is impractical under certain circumstances but my local Parish has done under both kinds as far back as I can remember, the only exception was during the lockdown, & in my diocese only the Basilica and the National Shrine do under one species toward the laity (but both for the celebrant).
I'm glad to hear that, but it is a concession to the Reformation on that point.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Silly Jesus for not knowing about germs. So glad we've learned better and can ammend his malpractice.
@@poordoubloon10 🤣Thank you! Here's my rebuttal to your point.
I read and respond to way too many TH-cam comments. Especially on this channel. There's probably sin in this.
John8thirty-two's comments are nothing but trolling.
Don't feed the troll.
I rest my case.
@@Catholic-Perennialist I already rested my case. We have enough evidence, but thank you for this overabundance.
As someone who lives after the discovery of the germ theory of disease, I can't say what effect the Blood of Christ has on germs, but I am acquainted with what alcohol does to germs.
rev dr cooper what would you say to those in the priesthood who withhold wine from their congregation substituting grape juice instead believing that it is more important to show concern for the potential alcoholic in the congregation than obedience to Christ's explicit commands (cf St Cyprian). what argument could be offered against substituting juice for wine in the celebration of the eucharist? my denomination is wholly unwilling to reconsider their position on this matter though I can find no confessional reason why they should uphold it, there is no rule in the denomination's constitution. yet the practice persists. is there a valid historical argument against wine/alcohol in the sacrament?
I'm obviously not Dr Cooper, but the only historical precedent is that some heretical groups used cups of water instead of wine. This was roundly condemned by Orthodox teachers. I would be amazed if there was anything that would apply to grape juice as pasteurization was not invented when the sacrament was instituted.
Canon XXXVII of the Code of Canons of the African Church (419AD) and Canon XXXII of the Quinsext Council (692AD)
"It is in the Church Fathers, but in seedling form. Duh."
I would be interested in hearing about the nature of the superstition that led to communion in one kind. (BTW, autocorrect typed “communism” when I dictated “communion”😊).
Good video as always, Dr. Cooper. Any thoughts on the use of grape juice in lieu of wine for communion? Leavened vs unleavened bread?
Not dr. Cooper here, but I have never heard of any Lutheran church using grape juice, and such practice would go against the words of institution which mention "wine" explicitly. I would argue that, while most Lutheran churches do use unleavened bread I believe this to be an adiaphora.
@@benmizrahi2889 Thanks for your reply Ben. I suppose my question relates to how closely we must or should follow the way Jesus did the Last Supper in our communion practices. Using both substances of bread and wine are important in my opinion. Other things are probably not so important. For example, Jesus and the disciples probably sat on the floor while they shared the supper but I don't think we need to imitate that part.
@@Steve-wg3cr I personally prefer standing during the distribution, but that's my personal preference (:
The reason our posture during the Communion is adiaphora (within limits of course, for example, lying on the floor in the raw during distribution would be extremely inappropriate for the same way it would be inappropriate elsewhere), while the elements used are not, is that Jesus attached his divine promises to the elements rather than the posture of the disciples, or even the setting of a seder (or a pre-seder?) meal.
The church of my youth (ELCA) did serve grape juice for one of the members who was a recovering alcoholic, who asked for it.
You didn’t discuss “intinction” - or did I miss it?
To be frank, the idea of consecration so far ahead of actual distribution that Rome does smacks of simple laziness, not wanting to take the time to consecrate it during the mass.
Wait, they don't consecrate the elements during the mass?
@@benmizrahi2889that's what I think when they pray that the bread and wine "may become" body and blood of Christ (to which I whisper "aren't they?"), there is the eucharistic adoration as well. So yeah I definitely think so as well
😚 *Promo sm*!!!
1,000 years of unity is a lot of history to argue against. So if Christ says this is my Body and the whole Church believed that for 1,000 years… making it symbolic is a 500 year old tradition.
Are you aware that the Augsburg Confession affirms that? The same tradition that's nearly unanimous on Christ's presence in the Sacrament is also unanimous on the receiving of Christ's blood.
Presence is not the same as being His resurrected Body. The paschal lamb always had to be consumed, not a symbol or presence of it, the actual lamb. Christ is our Passover Lamb and He must also be consumed. He commanded it. But my understanding is the cup was withheld because certain reformers like Hus were stirring people into thinking they were not getting valid sacraments if they had one form. It’s ultimately just a question of authority like everything else.
And no one takes the "this IS my body/blood more literal than Lutherans!!!" Yes...the baptists and pentecostals and reformed ones invented the memorial thing
@@kirstenfondren9226 paschal lamb...well whatever Jewish tradition was...as Jesus said "this is the NEW covenant". Jesus instituted the eucharist. We are not under the law (Galatians)
@@kirstenfondren9226 You realize that Lutherans (and many Anglicans) actually do believe that the body and blood of Christ are physically present in the Eucharist?
Listen to the video. Dr. Cooper's argument here is that the same 1000 year tradition that taught the faithful to receive *both* the body and the blood (and Lutherans deny that the elements are mere symbols, but affirm that the body and blood are present in and with the bread and wine). The magisterium can't claim its a mere servant of the Word (like it does in Dei Verbum), then, because in this instance it attempted to overthrow the clear command of Scripture (Paul in 1 corinthians 11 explicitly tells us to *drink the cup* in a worthy manner)
Brevity is the soul of wit. Give a shorter catechism, stick to the Augsburg confession and the Word of God in N. Testament. Stop rambling and meandering. Name your patristic sources afterward... You can do this in ten minutes for people who haven't the leisure for these kind of presentations, especially if you don't get to the point. I say this in in love. I live among Catholics and am trying to let them see the Lutheran view. I can't get over the hard core traditionalists on both sides who spout the same slanders from ages ago.
You should start your own channel devoted to just this! I’m quite happy with Dr Cooper’s presentations.
Dr. Cooper's presentations are perfect for his audience. This is his niche. I enjoy spending an hour a week with Dr. Cooper. Complex theological topics such as the two kinds require more than a 10 minute overview.
Many of us are here precisely for the details and sources.
Glad to see two thumbs up in agreement. These others eliminated my rejoinder and my request for a link to other Lutheran apologists beyond this niche. Luther's small catechism shows how to get to the point and the meat (This is most certainly true.).
There are plenty of other YT series for the Augsburg Confession besides Dr. Cooper. His approach is appreciated for those of us who actually would like a more in-depth discussion and a rabbit-trail here and there.
Some people are turned off by overly simplistic coverage of highly complex and nuanced discussions.
Jordan:
Justification by faith alone as expounded by Luther was unanimously rejected by the Fathers as well. I think it was Chesterton that said something like “the moment someone stops resisting Catholicism he becomes Catholic.”
There is a great resistance we have built in by default, we glory in the Hollywood rebellion stories, honoring the heroes who fight against “injustice.” I believe much of the reason for the resistance to converting is psychological.
We tend to put ourselves over Scripture and the Church instead of under as a little child. So we make ourselves “scholars” so we can be as certain as possible that whatever conclusions we come to. Much of it comes down to psychological certainty. You seem like a really good guy that would be fun to talk to, and you have a seeker’s heart. Please don’t put yourself above the Church Jesus wants you in communion with, be a little child. Brother, as your Catholic brother I am going to stop typing and pray for you. -In Christ, Charlie
Dr. Cooper: [Produces years worth of articles, podcasts, and videos expounding Sola Fide in the Fathers.]
Charlie K: jUSdifiKaSHIN wuz YOUnannymisslee ReJeKtED bi da FAdas
@@Mygoalwogel we must have very different definitions of Christian charity and what Jesus means by “by your fruits you shall know them.” God bless you.
@@charliek2557
Have you never found that direcly jeering a snob can effectively snap him out of self-idolatry and possibly save his soul? No? Then I'll stop poking fun and
1. This video is about a topic where it is certain the Papist sect is wrong and the Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglican Lutheran Churches are right. Rather than comment on this video, you brought up an unrelated topic to keep the high ground.
2. Dr. Cooper has read the Fathers more extensively than most people. He explains at length that, for one example, every syllable of _Mathetes to Diognetus_ agrees with Sola Scriptura (though perhaps not with every possible strawman variation). Therefore, IF you have not read the Fathers MORE extensively than Dr. Cooper, your claim about them is not "charity" or good "fruit." It is damnable pride.
3. You claimed, "So we make ourselves 'scholars' so we can be as certain as possible that whatever conclusions we come to." You hide this accusation with "we", and have doubtlessly convinced yourself that you are not judging the hearts of others. I will not self-justify in the same way. I charge you you with assuming that Dr. Cooper became a scholar for selfish and insecure motives. You believe that if he were honest, he would have come to the same conclusion as you.
4. You also asserted, "Please don’t put yourself above the Church Jesus wants you in communion with." You presume to know the mind of God better than the holy men of Orthodoxy? Of Oriental Orthodoxy? Than the Assyrian martyrs of Iran and Iraq? Your sectarian assertion does not promote catholicity but is an effort toward perpetuating schism.
Regardless of what your priest who communes you thinks, you are not a Catholic. You are an idolater of self. Stop being an architect of hell.
@@Mygoalwogel 👍🏻
Sadly, answering a specific heretical error perpetrated by nearly 500 years of Bishops of Rome and Trent, with the same unfounded arrogance taught by Rome, is an unchristian response.
Will you address this heretical error of Rome? Then will you acknowledge how this does irrefutable damage to the claims of the infallibility of the office of the Bishop of Rome and heretical councils like Trent? If we are to know where corruption of Christ’s Church lies, we do look to the bad fruit. And here, that is Rome denying the Sacrament in both kinds. Furthermore, Vatican II only partially fixed this heretical practice, also making it heretical on this point. Bishops are allowed to decide which of their churches may serve the Sacrament in both kind, of at all.
May God bless you and humble your defense of heresy.
Communion of of holy one species (bread) to the laity is NOT a dogma but a rule. Example of rule that is written in Scripture (NOT in church fathers) but no one practise today is Acts 15:20 where gentile believers must be abstain from blood. If you obey what is written in Acts 15:20, either you slaughter the animal yourself and make sure all blood are drained or you only consume kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims).
Must the Eucharist be received under both species or kinds (bread AND wine)? Those who say yes, rely on what Jesus said in John 6:54 (emphasis in capital is mine) "he who eats my flesh AND drinks my blood has eternal life." Those who say no, rely on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:27 (emphasis in capital is mine) "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord."
According to 1 Cor. 11:27 either eating the bread OR drinking the cup unworthily will profane the Body AND Blood of Christ. The verse uses "OR and AND", neither "OR and OR" nor "AND and AND" (KJV translates the verse as AND and AND). This is the basis why the Catholic Church teaches receiving under one species (bread or wine) we receive both flesh and blood of Christ. Receiving both species is neither forbidden nor condemned. To the best of my knowledge in Eastern Catholic churches both species are given to laity. In the past even the Western church did the same as pointed out by the speaker. Some Catholic churches give both species even today.
Does Holy Tradition give your sect the RIGHT to withhold the blood from the laity? At the time of the Lutheran Confessions, the laity were not ALLOWED to take the cup. You know this, and I charge you with intentional dishonesty. You would rather defend your sect's sins with intentional strawmen than accept that the Reformation may actually have helped you become less antichristian, even in so minor a matter.
@@Mygoalwogel It seems you did not bother to read what I wrote. Copied and pasted for your convenience below:
Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:27 (emphasis in capital is mine) "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord."
According to 1 Cor. 11:27 either eating the bread OR drinking the cup unworthily will profane the Body AND Blood of Christ. The verse uses "OR and AND", neither "OR and OR" nor "AND and AND" (KJV translates the verse as AND and AND). This is the basis why the Catholic Church teaches receiving under one species (bread or wine) we receive both flesh and blood of Christ.
@@justfromcatholic
Wrong. While it's true that one species carries the promise of the forgiveness of sins, this does NOT validate the REFUSAL of the cup to the laity. That's what the video was about. That's what the AC article was about. You know this. You know you're wrong. You know your sect is wrong. But you gotta gotta gotta defend your sect, wrong or right.
@@Mygoalwogel I NEVER WROTE "While it's true that one species carries the promise of the forgiveness of sins". Why do you apply it to me? Did you read what I wrote?
@@-Justinus- Can you be more specific?