Eucharist via one species...

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d like to add a twist to this discussion, I know some people that think that when you receive under both species that you are receiving Our Lord twice! They think people are receiving two communions in the same Mass. Can anyone direct me to sources to refute this and help me to explain the Churches teaching on this(I tried the CCC but they don’t buy it) and show them how they are wrong? Thanks
Gratia et vobis pax,

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma By Ludwig Ott would be a great start!

Gratias
 
I’d like to add a twist to this discussion, I know some people that think that when you receive under both species that you are receiving Our Lord twice! They think people are receiving two communions in the same Mass. Can anyone direct me to sources to refute this and help me to explain the Churches teaching on this(I tried the CCC but they don’t buy it) and show them how they are wrong? Thanks
I have had no experience with it but I hear that Denzinger’s The Source Of Catholic Dogma is very good too. Anyone used it before?
 
It is certainly a modern practice and outside the tradition of the Church -whether we are talking Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It is a practice only as old as 1450 (the time of the Ultraquist heresy if our correspondent is right.) That means that receiving in one species is only as old as Protestantism and for the overwhelminly majority of the Church’s history Catholics always received under both kinds.

Since this is such an untraditional practice why did you not return to communion in both kinds when the UItraquists had faded away?

Do heresies ever completely fade away Fr. Ambrose.

Before the site crash there were various threads started (Liturgy and Sacrament forum)— as to why the Body was offered but not the Blood. By the tone of the inquiry–it seem the original posters were concerned that they were missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord.

In one particular thread—a cradle Catholic (born and raised in the Faith) was surprised to learn that our Lord was complete in each of the species. All her life --she had been under the impression that the Body was just the Body and the Blood was just the Blood. Receiving under both species re-enforced this ideology. If she believed this—there are others.

Not to change the subject—but to make a pt.
I believe it was bones_IV—who posted a link months back.

It was about a seminarian who had encounter a group of “Catholics” who denied the divinity of our Lord Christ.

So do heresies ever completely fade away. Or do they ly dormant —waiting for the right environment–to rear up again.
 
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Ah, now you have recognized that withdrawing the Chalice from the Laity was an Act of Economy by the Catholic Church, to be integrated back in time.

What you have written shows wisdom and an understanding of the powers and responsibilities of the Church as a guardian of the Norms of Traditional Doctrine (i.e. our Faith).

It is from this platform the Catholic Church builds a rational and insurmountable case for its judious exercise of Economy (economia) against this heresy and any critics of its execution of her canon but we and the Church cannot dispute our responsibility to return to enforce rigidly (akrivia) the Norm of the Eucharist under two species because ‘precision’ is the Norm. Any act of economy must always be drawn back to the norm. The Norm of our Sacramental Trust never changes, these were instituted by God, and they are sacred and immutable. Any deviation from that sacred Trust must be determined to be a valid act of economia or a breech but let us be clear that although any act of economia is valid in the eyes of the Church such leniency in our exercise of the Norms of Faith can never be seen nor spoken of as the Norm or Standard.

Again this is a discussion about validity or efficacy of our exercise of economy in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This is also ‘why’ the Church has Councils and Bishops to exercise economia when the rigid enforce of the Norm is not justified by the wisdom and mercy of God.

Again I continue to extend peace toward you and my other Catholic Brothers and Sisters.

Gratias et pax vobiscum

Still pushing your same story that the Church is negligent.
 

Do heresies ever completely fade away Fr. Ambrose.

Before the site crash there were various threads started (Liturgy and Sacrament forum)— as to why the Body was offered but not the Blood. By the tone of the inquiry–it seem the original posters were concerned that they were missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord.

In one particular thread—a cradle Catholic (born and raised in the Faith) was surprised to learn that our Lord was complete in each of the species. All her life --she had been under the impression that the Body was just the Body and the Blood was just the Blood. Receiving under both species re-enforced this ideology. If she believed this—there are others.

Not to change the subject—but to make a pt.
I believe it was bones_IV—who posted a link months back.

It was about a seminarian who had encounter a group of “Catholics” who denied the divinity of our Lord Christ.

So do heresies ever completely fade away. Or do they ly dormant —waiting for the right environment–to rear up again.
Voted yur best post so far!

BTW:
Do u ever sleep??
Or can u post in yur sleep?
 

Before the site crash there were various threads started (Liturgy and Sacrament forum)— as to why the Body was offered but not the Blood. By the tone of the inquiry–it seem the original posters were concerned that they were missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord.
Gratias,

This ‘missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord’ is an interpretation of your concern. It could also well be that they desired the ‘fuller’ sign of the Bread and Wine in their participation of the Holy Eucharist.

This is Incarnational to participate through ‘both’ signs with the Apostles and Saints as they did with Christ Himself. This is not necessarily heresy and in fact if your interpretation of their motive is in error it is clearly ‘not’ heresy. The declaration of heresy is not to be ‘assumed until proven innocent’ but quite the opposite.

The vine produces wine, as the Word produces blood. And both of them drink health to men: wine for the body; blood for the spirit. – Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

To drink the blood of Jesus is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality… As wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man… And the mixture of both - of the water and the Word - is called the Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace. Those who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. - Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

There is no rationale to critize one who desires the fuller sign of the Eucharist under two species. They are justified by Holy Tradition to desire it not because ‘one species’ is invalid nor lacking efficacy but because ‘two species’ is the fuller sign.
In one particular thread—a cradle Catholic (born and raised in the Faith) was surprised to learn that our Lord was complete in each of the species. All her life --she had been under the impression that the Body was just the Body and the Blood was just the Blood. Receiving under both species re-enforced this ideology. If she believed this—there are others.
This appears more an example of poor catechesis than heresy. If this individual is not obstinate in their error there are no grounds for a declaration of heresy here. Regardless such declarations are not the prerogative of Laity or apologists but the Bishops and the Pope.
It was about a seminarian who had encounter a group of “Catholics” who denied the divinity of our Lord Christ.
Again if this a position held not in obstinacy of the truth then again there are no grounds to declare them heretical. Again this appears to be a case of poor catechesis not heresy.
So do heresies ever completely fade away. Or do they lie dormant —waiting for the right environment–to rear up again.
A simple ‘fear of heresy’ is not grounds for the exercise of discipline on the Laity.

You and others here are far too quick to jump to conclusions. I’m glad that you are all not members of the clergy.
 

Still pushing your same story that the Church is negligent.
Gratias,

The Church is the Hospital of Sinners not only the refuge of Saints. Clearly the Sinners within her can be negligent. Do you desire some examples?

Gratias
 
Actually communion under both species in the West started to fall out of favor shortly after 1000AD. There were pockets that retained both species, but by the 1400s, they had vanished as well, and one species was ordered by the Pope to combat the heresy that there would be no grace unless a communicant recieved both species.

Anyways, I am not 100% opposed to communion under both spcies, but the way it is done in the West, with a chalice rather than intinction I am very opposed to because it forces EMHCs to be used. If intinction was the Norm in the US for communion under both species, it would be a far better situation.
It is certainly a modern practice and outside the tradition of the Church -whether we are talking Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It is a practice only as old as 1450 (the time of the Ultraquist heresy if our correspondent is right.) That means that receiving in one species is only as old as Protestantism and for the overwhelminly majority of the Church’s history Catholics always received under both kinds.

Since this is such an untraditional practice why did you not return to communion in both kinds when the UItraquists had faded away?
 
Gratias,

This ‘missing out in receiving the full benefits of our Lord’ is an interpretation of your concern. It could also well be that they desired the ‘fuller’ sign of the Bread and Wine in their participation of the Holy Eucharist.

This is Incarnational to participate through ‘both’ signs with the Apostles and Saints as they did with Christ Himself. This is not necessarily heresy and in fact if your interpretation of their motive is in error it is clearly ‘not’ heresy. The declaration of heresy is not to be ‘assumed until proven innocent’ but quite the opposite.

The vine produces wine, as the Word produces blood. And both of them drink health to men: wine for the body; blood for the spirit. – Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

To drink the blood of Jesus is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality… As wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man… And the mixture of both - of the water and the Word - is called the Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace. Those who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. - Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

There is no rationale to critize one who desires the fuller sign of the Eucharist under two species. They are justified by Holy Tradition to desire it not because ‘one species’ is invalid nor lacking efficacy but because ‘two species’ is the fuller sign.

This appears more an example of poor catechesis than heresy. If this individual is not obstinate in their error there are no grounds for a declaration of heresy here. Regardless such declarations are not the prerogative of Laity or apologists but the Bishops and the Pope.

Again if this a position held not in obstinacy of the truth then again there are no grounds to declare them heretical. Again this appears to be a case of poor catechesis not heresy.

A simple ‘fear of heresy’ is not grounds for the exercise of discipline on the Laity.

You and others here are far too quick to jump to conclusions. I’m glad that you are all not members of the clergy.

A heresy —does not stop being a heresy–even when the people involved may believe this way–thru improper catechesis.

Where in my post did I ever call the people in question heretics. I said the tone of the inquiry showed concern that they were missing out on something. They asked —we answered. This is what these forums are for.

As to the cradle Catholic who did not know—she did receive the correct information that day. I never said she was culpable of heresy. She never knew until that day–that her belief was heretical.

When you combine the right conditions—add improper catechesis or worse—heretical catechesis—we have the makings for a full blown heresy.

By the way—reading the rest of your post—you are still coming across as implying we are not receiving the full benefits of our Lord Christ if we do not partake from the Chalice. As if— the “sign” itself contributes to the full benefits of our Lord’s grace. Without the “sign” --we are lacking.

We may not be members of the clergy–but we are members of the Church. As members–we leave it to Her with God’s grace to decide how She administers Her sacraments. Sorry–the same cannot be–said for you.
 
Gratias,

The Church is the Hospital of Sinners not only the refuge of Saints. Clearly the Sinners within her can be negligent. Do you desire some examples?

Gratias

I am well aware that we are all sinners and can be negligent. But we were discussing how the Church administers Holy Communion. Are you now implying that the Church is sinning in not commanding the whole Church to offer the Chalice.
 
I find it unusual that you would turn to such an image of single-minded Papal Absolutism as Turrecremata as your advocate for Traditional Doctrine Father.
Who better? Have not some of the Heads of the Inquistion been renowned theologians?
In my attempt to refocus this discussion back to the subject at hand let me ask if you agree that a valid Eucharist under one species as it has been practiced in the Tridentine Mass, is within the realm of Bishops right and power of economia in his exercise of canonical Norm of the Sacraments if such a heresy rose which appeared to split the unity of the divine nature found within the two species?

Is it within the realm of economia?
No. It is disobedience to the words of our Lord at the Last Supper (that alone should give us serious pause) and contradicts the Church’s understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

During the time of Communism when thousands of priests were imprisoned for decades in the prison camps where nearly all expired, they went to great pains to ferment just one or two raisins so that they had a wine product. Together with some scraps of bread they offered the divine Liturgy to God and offered communion to themselves and the other believers in the camps. Why would they bother? Why not be content with just the bits of bread?
 
Who better? Have not some of the Heads of the Inquistion been renowned theologians?
Gratias,

No, none come to mind Father. I’m sorry.
No. It is disobedience to the words of our Lord at the Last Supper (that alone should give us serious pause) and contradicts the Church’s understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

During the time of Communism when thousands of priests were imprisoned for decades in the prison camps where nearly all expired, they went to great pains to ferment just one or two raisins so that they had a wine product. Together with some scraps of bread they offered the divine Liturgy to God and offered communion to themselves and the other believers in the camps. Why would they bother? Why not be content with just the bits of bread?
Perhaps you are under the false impression that the West has no wine present for the Holy Eucharist at a Tridentine Mass. Let me assure you that this is false. Both bread and wine are necessary for any valid Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The key distinction being that the consecrated wine (only enough for one Chalice) is consumed by the Priest and the consecrated bread (enough for all present) is offered to the Laity. There is not valid Sacrament without bread and wine.

Are you aware of that fact? If is not does this new information cause you to reconsider your opinion?

Gratias
 
Who better? Have not some of the Heads of the Inquistion been renowned theologians?
No. It is disobedience to the words of our Lord at the Last Supper (that alone should give us serious pause) and contradicts the Church’s understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

During the time of Communism when thousands of priests were imprisoned for decades in the prison camps where nearly all expired, they went to great pains to ferment just one or two raisins so that they had a wine product. Together with some scraps of bread they offered the divine Liturgy to God and offered communion to themselves and the other believers in the camps. Why would they bother? Why not be content with just the bits of bread?

How much wine can be fermented from one or two grapes. If there were not enough of our Lord’s Blood to commune the believers—only some bits of our Lords Body left—would the priest not offer the bits of our Lord’s body for this would break our Lord’s command.
 
No, none come to mind Father. I’m sorry.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine is a reknowned theologian and Catholic Saint. He is one of the small band of “Doctors of the Church.” He was also the head of the Inquisition and was the man in charge when Galileo was tried by the Inquisition.
Perhaps you are under the false impression that the West has no wine present for the Holy Eucharist at a Tridentine Mass. Let me assure you that this is false…

Are you aware of that fact? If is not does this new information cause you to reconsider your opinion?
Aware of the fact?! LOL! I am ancient! I was born long before Vatican II and I was raised in the Catholic school system. I knew nothing but the Tridentine Mass. I must have been to thousands of them. 😃
 
What the Eastern schismatics fail to realize is that when the Pope defines something infallibly, like the Immaculate Conception, it is indeed TRADITION. That which has been handed down. Period. It’s a DOGMA. You must assent to it, or you’re not Catholic. Period, again.

As for Communion under one species, the DOGMATIC Council of Trent declared ANATHEMA those who make the arguments we’ve seen from several posters on these threads.

We don’t need to defend that which the Church has defined as traditional, edifying, normative, whole, full, and precious.

If you are an Orthodox priest, “Fr. Ambrose”, then your views on this issue are irrelevant, quite frankly. It’s a Catholic forum, not an Orthodox one. The Orthodox are objectively in schism. And before you give me your frequent “two lungs” speech…we HAVE the East. They’re called Eastern Catholics. They really tick off some Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome.

You’ve stated the Church is disobedient to Christ’s will if it has a Eucharist distributed under one species. That’s heresy. Case closed.
 
How much wine can be fermented from one or two grapes. If there were not enough of our Lord’s Blood to commune the believers—only some bits of our Lords Body left—would the priest not offer the bits of our Lord’s body for this would break our Lord’s command.
Not much consecrated wine is needed.

To help give you a picture… once a year on Holy Thursday the priest consecrates two “Lambs” - this is the cube of bread which becomes the Lord’s Body. He cuts one of the Lambs into a lot of tiny pieces and then he very carefully dips the Spear or the Spoon into the consecrated Boold and touches a very tiny amount of it to each little piece of Bread. Then he dries all the pieces very carefully and places them in the Tabernacle. They are used when he needs to take communion to the sick.

So this is more than likely what the priest in the camps were doing. It was a procedure which they were used to in their parish churches. In this way a small amount of wine can go a long way.

Here is what the Lamb looks like. It is the pyramid-shaped piece of bread.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.crosslink.net/~hrycak/diskos.gif
 
Not much consecrated wine is needed.

To help give you a picture… once a year on Holy Thursday the priest consecrates two “Lambs” - this is the cube of bread which becomes the Lord’s Body. He cuts one of the Lambs into a lot of tiny pieces and then he very carefully dips the Spear or the Spoon into the consecrated Boold and touches a very tiny amount of it to each little piece of Bread. Then he dries all the pieces very carefully and places them in the Tabernacle. They are used when he needs to take communion to the sick.

So this is more than likely what the priest in the camps were doing. It was a procedure which they were used to in their parish churches. In this way a small amount of wine can go a long way.

Here is what the Lamb looks like. It is the pyramid-shaped piece of bread.

http://www.orthodox.cn/images/diskos_sm.jpg

http://www.crosslink.net/~hrycak/diskos.gif

I see–thankyou for the explanation. But still—if the situation had occured in the prison camps—where not enough of our Lord’s blood would be available----would the priest offer Holy Communion via the Bread only.
 
If you are an Orthodox priest, “Fr. Ambrose”, then your views on this issue are irrelevant, quite frankly. It’s a Catholic forum, not an Orthodox one. The Orthodox are objectively in schism.
The objectivity disappeared in 1965 when Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication imposed on the East in 1054. 🙂
You’ve stated the Church is disobedient to Christ’s will if it has a Eucharist distributed under one species. That’s heresy. Case closed.
I am not saying it is heresy. But I do believe it is hard to reconcile with the words of Our Lord Who clearly taught what he wanted for His people - bread and wine… And for 1500 years the Roman Catholic Church faithfully followed His instructions. It seems to have been only in the 15th century that the confusion sets in with a rather questionable (so it seems to me) method of combatting a heresy from the Ultraquists. At the very least the Church of Rome should have returned to its own ancient tradition as soon as the Ultraquists ceased to be a threat.

My views coincide with those of the Eastern Catholics. Unfortunately they are not here to present them. But they are so close to us that lately they have started calling themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” It is a great pity that so few Roman Catholics are aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches. They are overlooked far too much. Pope Benedict spoke of them very warmly in a papal address two weeks ago.
 
Excommunications can be lifted and schism still remain.

Are you subject to the pope? If not, you’re in a state of schism from the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Do you confess the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception? If not, you’re a heretic in the strict and objective sense.

As for “ancient traditions”, the Church determines the disposition of the Sacraments. Period. She determines the disciplines surrounding them. Period. Not you, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the liturgists at the Notre Dame Pastoral Center.

You are in serious error if you claim that the Church is disobedient to Christ. Because She isn’t…objectively. You’re offensively saying she was “faithful” for x number of years. That means she hasn’t been since. That’s offensive and erroneous.

Take your schismatic errors elsewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top