F
frommi
Guest
Wow…I sometimes weep for the future of the detroit diaconate.
- Status
J
Jakub
Guest
I just love these discussions/debates regarding a fuller form or ancient practice of communion…then why not use a unleavened bread that was used by the Jews at that time…I’m sure it did not resemble what is used today…how far do we go ?
james
james
B
Brendan
Guest
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Frommi, for a thousand years, the faithful did recieve both species. But that doesn’t mean that they were allowed to touch the chalice.
The Precious Blood was given on a spoon by a chalice held by the Deacon in the East, or by a small golden tube in the West.
And, as I have said on my occasions, I’m all for returning to that traditional method of offering the species.
And the reason that this was there was a heresy that developed that stated that the Eucharist was not complete unless both Species were given. And I’m seeing a lot of that in modern times as well./QUOTE]
Just something to ponder.---- How easy it is in our modern time to integrate that heresy back into the Church. What is needed is the right environment and scripture.
The right environment:
—the Church allowing the Chalice
—the Church saying both species is a “fuller sign”
Scripture:
—Christs command to eat—and—drink.
F
frommi
Guest
I didn’t deny saying it did I? But I hardly put it up there with the top 3 things we’ve learned in this thread…
I’ve learned a lot about the lengths people will go to make others feel small.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Oh there now frommi—feeling small. How do you think some of us feel when you make a statement like the above. I take it quite personal —when it is implied that the Church fails in following Christ’ command.
F
frommi
Guest
The church fails everyday, and everyday we are forgiven for those failures…thanks to the boundless mercy of God.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Thankyou for making it clear. I would seem–that to you-- the Council of Trent failed.
B
bilop
Guest
Actually, altar boys are also extraordinary. As are lay lectors. Originally, these were the minor religious orders: acolyte, lector, sub-deacon, deacon, who assited the priest (especially in a high mass). The deacon was/is steward of the cup, and or gives the homily, the sub-deacon or lector does the readings, the acolytes performed the role of altar boys.
Only when the minor orders were made solely pre-cursors to the priesthood did these orders disappear.
Permanent Deacon has been restored. Maybe, in order to increase reverence, the others should be too. Then the whole mass would be served by cassocked and surpliced men/boys. This might also foster vocations.
F
frommi
Guest
All I said was that it was a fuller sign, and in my opinion a better practice to eat and drink…
If you don’t want to because you have some aversion to the chalice…ok. But I don’t think that becomes a reason to not offer the cup to the rest of us.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Very good frommi–to get out from where You have landed–turn it around --to me. Thru out this thread—you have come up with various ways to say we are wrong. We on the other hand --state what is taught by the Church. Oh --excuse me—by your statement—the failure of a Church.
So—frommi—how about the Council of Trent. It would seem it was a failure too,
F
frommi
Guest
I am of the opinion that is a fuller and more complete act to eat and drink. Nothing more, nothing less.
You seem to have this obsession with saying that is wrong-headed of me.
I do think it is better for us to partake of both species and to have that be made available.
You keep bringing up the council of Trent…I have no issues with the council of Trent. I don’t rush the altar to grab a chalice when one is not made available to me.
The question remains…why not offer the chalice? What is the grand obstacle to this in your mind?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=frommi
This isn’t really even a debatable issue…“Take and eat, take and drink” was the command.
So there is no theology in the mandate of Jesus to ‘take and eat, take and drink’?
Basically…theologically then…it’s an optional mandate?
You see, thats where we disagree…I dont think taking Jesus Christ further away from the people increases reverence…
… Of course, I also believe that dipping bread into wine and putting it on someone’s tongue isn’t exactly what Jesus meant when he said ‘do this in memory of me’.
So the choice there is “receive on the tongue” or “receive only the body”. Sounds like liturgical gun pointing.
You are of the opinion–nothing more–nothing less. Just from the statements made by you on this thread–seems to indicate there is more underneath to produce that opinion.
By the way–very good again–now I am obsessed. My responses to you —are based on what–you have stated.
C
CommonMan
Guest
frommi,
No one is listening.
Peter says to John; " Here is the cup" John replies to
Peter “No thanks, I don’t need it”.
John takes a second bite of the bread to quench his thirst.
No one is listening.
Peter says to John; " Here is the cup" John replies to
Peter “No thanks, I don’t need it”.
John takes a second bite of the bread to quench his thirst.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
We listen well–and can read well too.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.
C
CommonMan
Guest
You are correct. You do listen well and read well.
It’s the Catholic Church that isn’t listening or apprently, not reading the Word very well.
Exhibit A: B: etc
Luke 22:17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you:
1 Cor 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me
1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1 Cor 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Church provided us with the scripture and with its interpretation.
Sorry—I cannot say the same for you
Council of Trent
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : 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 (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND ON THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS
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.
CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.
F
frommi
Guest
No one has said that the fullness of eucharistic grace is not present in one or both species. Quit trying to take the high ground of Trent when no one is questioning it.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
When someone says that the Catholic Church is not listening and/or reading the Word very well—I will say the Church gave us and interprets scripture–and will quote Trent.
C
CommonMan
Guest
Walking_Home
Please explain what Paul really meant when he wrote to Corinth and described the Lords actions and His command to “drink of the chalice”. What does Church say about it? In your own words, how do they interpet “drink of the chalice”?
Please explain what Paul really meant when he wrote to Corinth and described the Lords actions and His command to “drink of the chalice”. What does Church say about it? In your own words, how do they interpet “drink of the chalice”?
- Status