A test

[dbacks5439]

Then why do you mock me? I mock no one here; Simply give my view.

Then back it up! Sorry if it seems like I’m mocking you, I’m really not. I simply want you to investigate and find out if what you’re saying actually holds water. Let’s say a non-Catholic comes up to you and asks why we don’t have communion rails anymore. If all you say is, “Vat. II did it,” then the person isn’t going to believe you because you haven’t given any proof. What really scares me is that if this happens in real life and the person continues to believe that lie (yes it’s a lie since Vat. II never made such a claim) and might spread that lie, all because you failed to give proper documentation. Many of the problems that we have in the Church now is because many put forth outrageous claims that they believe Vat. II created but never give their argument any support. And when the conciliar documents do call for something, you guys simply ignore it. Sacrosanctum Concilium says that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites. I go to Mass, no Latin! The Council clearly says that I should hear Latin at Mass, yet there isn’t any. Something sounds fishy…

 

[dbacks5439]

Here’s the quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium

“36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

The full document can be found here.

 

[i_have_no_names]

ROTFL!!! Where…Oh man, sorry. Calm down. Okay. Whew! Could you show me in the conciliar documents where it says take down the communion rails, say Mass versus populam, reception of Holy Eucharist on the hand, and ditching the cassock in favor of more “modern” clothing?

Euh… wasn’t it you who said

let’s now preach a gospel of Love and not hate.

?

I know you say you didn’t intend to mock, but I find that hard to believe what with all the rolling on the floor, laughing at Chuck. Whether you believe a word of what he said or not, it doesn’t seem very loving on your part to openly laugh at him

 

[dbacks5439]

Euh… wasn’t it you who said ?

I know you say you didn’t intend to mock, but I find that hard to believe what with all the rolling on the floor, laughing at Chuck. Whether you believe a word of what he said or not, it doesn’t seem very loving on your part to openly laugh at him

As a college student, I know that if you want a good grade on a term paper, you better have sources to back up your claims or else your paper is well…laughable.

 

[laudamus_te]

Jesus gave us both his body and his blood, and told us to “do this in memory of me”. Why would we only half-obey? Just because for a long time it’s been practised that it was only given under the form of bread doesn’t mean it was right for that long period of time. Not if Jesus himself told us to celebrate it under both forms.

jimmy:

Christ gave us both the bread and wine. He did not give us just the bread and say, ‘I am fully present in the bread so you don’t have to have the wine.’ Further the Church used both for the first 1200 years in all traditions so why wouldn’t you?

Do both of you, then, believe that it is necessary to receive both species in order to receive the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[i_have_no_names]

Do both of you, then, believe that it is necessary to receive both species in order to receive the Body and Blood of Christ?

Yes… I do. It seems obvious to me. To make a rough analogy - how can you say you’re receiving a pair of shoes for your birthday if you only receive one shoe?

 

[Freshman88]

Yes… I do. It seems obvious to me. To make a rough analogy - how can you say you’re receiving a pair of shoes for your birthday if you only receive one shoe?

The Eucharist which has been transformed from bread is the living flesh of Christ. Flesh does not exist without blood, it is perfectly fine just to receive the bread, but receiving the precious blood from the chalice is a licit option in today’s Church.

This is way for the last millennium at least, prior to 1970, the faithful only received one form, it was all that was needed and was born of out of a piety that thought receiving the precious blood could risk spilling his blood.

 

[Chuck_H]

The Eucharist which has been transformed from bread is the living flesh of Christ. Flesh does not exist without blood, it is perfectly fine just to receive the bread, but receiving the precious blood from the chalice is a licit option in today’s Church.

This is way for the last millennium at least, prior to 1970, the faithful only received one form, it was all that was needed and was born of out of a piety that thought receiving the precious blood could risk spilling his blood.

Maybe He instituted both species at the last supper since He knew that in the next twenty-four hours, His Body and His Blood were about to get separated into two distinct entities by scourging, bleeding from the crown of thorns and a spear being thrust into His right side.
Just to keep the academics happy I cite the four Gospels.

 

[pjn6444]

Yes… I do. It seems obvious to me. To make a rough analogy - how can you say you’re receiving a pair of shoes for your birthday if you only receive one shoe?

This is heresy. The teaching on the Eucharist was clearly defined at the Council of Trent. When the bread is consecrated it becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Same for the wine. This is why under both forms is a problem. It leads to these heretical views.

 

[i_have_no_names]

This is heresy. The teaching on the Eucharist was clearly defined at the Council of Trent. When the bread is consecrated it becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Same for the wine. This is why under both forms is a problem. It leads to these heretical views.

Mmk. Sorry. I haven’t studied any Church history or anything, I just know what I’ve observed.
Still, I don’t see anything wrong with having communion under both forms. That’s what Jesus did.

 

[Chuck_H]

Mmk. Sorry. I haven’t studied any Church history or anything, I just know what I’ve observed.
Still, I don’t see anything wrong with having communion under both forms. That’s what Jesus did.

Heresy is a strong word to toss around. Are you saying that the council and Popes from 1959 on are heretics? Maybe every priest from that council on was a heretic for having both species on the altar?

Slow down on the heresy slinging.

 

[stmaria]

Mmk. Sorry. I haven’t studied any Church history or anything, I just know what I’ve observed.
Still, I don’t see anything wrong with having communion under both forms. That’s what Jesus did.

There is nothing wrong with having communion under both forms. But it is not necessary.

Council of Trent
CHAPTER I session XXI
LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[and following the judgment and custom of the Church,declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation.** For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>,[4] also said: ;[5] and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,>[6] also said: ;[7] and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,[8] said, nevertheless: [9]
CHAPTER III
CHRIST, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, AND A TRUE SACRAMENT ARE RECEIVED UNDER EITHER SPECIES
It declares, moreover, that though our Redeemer at the last supper instituted and administered this sacrament to the Apostles under two forms, as has already been said, yet it must be acknowledged that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone,and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation."

 

[i_have_no_names]

Ok. Thanks