F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I haven’t see any response to my post 147. Has anyone answered? Could you send me back to the answer.
- Status
A
AlexV
Guest
"Originally Posted by st_bernard
do you agree that… it might be within the power of the Church to exercise economia by offering only one of the two species to the congregation?
Fr. Ambrose:
No, the Church cannot be disobedient to her head."
This is exactly where the problem lies. Trent infallibly declared that Fr. Ambrose’s view is false and erroneous. The matter is closed.
The Church’s documents, canons, doctrine, dogma, etc., do not speak, I might add, of “normative” reception of sacraments. You either receive them or you do not. You don’t get special bonus points for receiving them in certain ways. You don’t occasionally get “fuller” or “better” or “more efficacious” sacraments for receiving them in certain ways.
And THAT’S the issue here. And that’s where “St. Bernard” is in error.
Serious error.
do you agree that… it might be within the power of the Church to exercise economia by offering only one of the two species to the congregation?
Fr. Ambrose:
No, the Church cannot be disobedient to her head."
This is exactly where the problem lies. Trent infallibly declared that Fr. Ambrose’s view is false and erroneous. The matter is closed.
The Church’s documents, canons, doctrine, dogma, etc., do not speak, I might add, of “normative” reception of sacraments. You either receive them or you do not. You don’t get special bonus points for receiving them in certain ways. You don’t occasionally get “fuller” or “better” or “more efficacious” sacraments for receiving them in certain ways.
And THAT’S the issue here. And that’s where “St. Bernard” is in error.
Serious error.
C
chrisb
Guest
Grace and Peace,
I’m willing to bet that you prefer kneeling when receiving the Eucharist at Novus Ordo Liturgy.
I’m willing to bet that you prefer the Tridentine Liturgy over the Novus Ordo.
I’m willing to bet that you believe kneeling, attending the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo is more reverent and that receiving the Body in the hand and drinking from the Chalice to be less reverent.
I get the impression that St_bernard equates these higher levels of reverence as ‘fuller’ signs. I don’t get the impression that he is talking about receiving ‘more’ grace but perhaps one through these ‘fuller’ more reverent ‘signs’ is experiencing and thus encountering the grace present in these signs more fully.
I’m willing to bet that most ‘Traditional’ Catholics would agree with this view but I believe st_bernard gives the appearance of criticism of the Church when describing Norms which fall outside of those codified within the Council of Trent. I get the impression that some have great difficulty stomaching that Trent could codify anything other than the Norms and that any suggestion of them codifying exercises of economy is simply not tolerable.
Perhaps this is why Vatican II was such a blow to many ‘Traditional’ Catholics? I mean in a lot of ways Vatican II gave the appearance of contradicting Trent for many. Ultra-Conservatives split into factions, like the SSPX and Sedevacantism, and more liberal elements exercised greater criticism of the Pope and the traditional hierarchy creating all kinds of issues not the mention ecumenism, particularly with Orthodoxy.
Personally I don’t know exactly how to understand the whole scope of issues that challenge Catholicism in our day. Some days I just want to leave but on others I see glimpses of sanity through all the confusion.
I originally posted this topic because I wanted to understand more fully how the Catholic Church could offer a Sacrament, like the Holy Eucharist, under one species after 1000’s of years offering the Sacrament under two species. I don’t believe that Christianity is whatever the Popes and the Councils say it is. I believe that the Popes and the Councils have been given a Deposit of Faith (i.e. a Holy Tradition) which they safeguard through the exercise of Divine Wisdom through the Holy Spirit (Ghost). I don’t believe blind zealotry to individual Popes or to individual Councils ultimately gives us the perspective necessary to grasp the whole of God’s Plan of Salvation and so I ultimately turn a deaf ear to those who point to passages and canons without the forethought to know that the Popes and the Bishops, through time, exercise discretion in their execution. I also don’t believe that such discretion is a license to distort and change what has been sacredly placed within that Deposit of Faith.
That said I really have to agree with st_bernard. You’ve brought me a little closer to a more secure relationship within the Roman Catholic Church. Kudos to you bro.
Peace and God Bless.
A
AlexV
Guest
“I’m willing to bet that you prefer kneeling when receiving the Eucharist at Novus Ordo Liturgy.”
Don’t attend the Novus Ordo. Your point is also irrelevant to this thread.
“I’m willing to bet that you prefer the Tridentine Liturgy over the Novus Ordo.”
Correct. Point also irrelevant.
“I’m willing to bet that you believe kneeling, attending the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo is more reverent and that receiving the Body in the hand and drinking from the Chalice to be less reverent.”
Reverence is not the issue of this thread either.
“I get the impression that St_bernard equates these higher levels of reverence as ‘fuller’ signs. I don’t get the impression that he is talking about receiving ‘more’ grace but perhaps one through these ‘fuller’ more reverent ‘signs’ is experiencing and thus encountering the grace present in these signs more fully.”
Grace is everywhere, said Bernanos. Paragraphs like this are wishy-washy, lead us far afield, and lack clarity.
“I’m willing to bet that most ‘Traditional’ Catholics would agree with this view but I believe st_bernard gives the appearance of criticism of the Church when describing Norms which fall outside of those codified within the Council of Trent.”
The same error. Communion under BOTH species is NOT a NORM, if by NORM you then mean ONE species isn’t the norm. The same old error.
“I get the impression that some have great difficulty stomaching that Trent could codify anything other than the Norms and that any suggestion of them codifying exercises of economy is simply not tolerable.”
The same tiresome “economy” argument. Has no basis in truth.
The Church hasn’t “distorted” or “changed” anything about the doctrine of the Eucharist. You’re the one spreading confusion, dissent, heresy, error, etc. You’ve posted outrageous and fallacious things.
And I will oppose you to the face every time you do.
Don’t attend the Novus Ordo. Your point is also irrelevant to this thread.
“I’m willing to bet that you prefer the Tridentine Liturgy over the Novus Ordo.”
Correct. Point also irrelevant.
“I’m willing to bet that you believe kneeling, attending the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo is more reverent and that receiving the Body in the hand and drinking from the Chalice to be less reverent.”
Reverence is not the issue of this thread either.
“I get the impression that St_bernard equates these higher levels of reverence as ‘fuller’ signs. I don’t get the impression that he is talking about receiving ‘more’ grace but perhaps one through these ‘fuller’ more reverent ‘signs’ is experiencing and thus encountering the grace present in these signs more fully.”
Grace is everywhere, said Bernanos. Paragraphs like this are wishy-washy, lead us far afield, and lack clarity.
“I’m willing to bet that most ‘Traditional’ Catholics would agree with this view but I believe st_bernard gives the appearance of criticism of the Church when describing Norms which fall outside of those codified within the Council of Trent.”
The same error. Communion under BOTH species is NOT a NORM, if by NORM you then mean ONE species isn’t the norm. The same old error.
“I get the impression that some have great difficulty stomaching that Trent could codify anything other than the Norms and that any suggestion of them codifying exercises of economy is simply not tolerable.”
The same tiresome “economy” argument. Has no basis in truth.
The Church hasn’t “distorted” or “changed” anything about the doctrine of the Eucharist. You’re the one spreading confusion, dissent, heresy, error, etc. You’ve posted outrageous and fallacious things.
And I will oppose you to the face every time you do.
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum,
But she does speak about ‘more complete signs’…
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. - CCC
What is your opinion on the meaning of the words “more complete when given under both kinds” found in the CCC?
Gratias
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
AlexV,
I am willing to wager that I have attended more Latin Masses than you can shake a stick at: 6am Low Masses, Sunday Sung Masses and Sunday High Masses.
I can say with the benefit of experience that administering the Chalice to the laity would cause no disruption or indignity to the Latin Mass. It simply means that a priest or deacon follows the celebrant and gives the Precious Blood to the people kneeling at the altar rail.
This would be a glorious return to the true tradition and it would do away with the oddity of one species brought in only recently because of the heretical Ultraquists. After all, why should heretics have the honour of inflicting a permanent alteration on the Tradition?
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum,
Would you agree Father that intinction would be a natural fit?
Gratias
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Use the traditional method. In the West that is separate administration of the Body and Blood.
Intinction has one benefit though - it helps remove the worry of infection being transmitted. Even the most pious worry about that these days and instead of receiving the Blood of the Lord joyfully they may be thinking about whether the gay man before them has AIDS.
Until a while ago we had no idea about bacteria and viruses and their transmission.On the other hand, the Orthodox continue to use one spoon which is dipped repeatedly into the Chalice and placed in everyone’s mouth. It then falls to the deacon or priest to consume the remaining contents of the Chalice. We seem to survive the bacteria!
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Why would intinction be a natural fit?
And (though I’ve lost track of precisely who is advocating precisely which practices), to those who so strongly advocate communicating both species to more closely follow Jesus’s command: How fitting *is *intinction for that purpose? It certainly does not seem to be the way he instituted the sacrament at the last supper – He said Eat my body and drink my blood; he didn’t say Make soup out of me…?
I really don’t understand.
tee
A
AlexV
Guest
More heresy.
“True tradition.”
Sorry Father. “True tradition” INCLUDES Communion under one species, which was solemnly codified by Trent and which is a normative practice of the Roman Rite. THE normative practice, in fact, since Communion under both kinds is regulated in the West, and does not always occur - notably at papal Masses.
Your heresy is that you have been obstinately arguing that Communion under one kind ISN’T the “true tradition”. That’s heresy, and Trent declared you anathema.
You’re not a Catholic, so this isn’t surprising…though your presence at a traditional Catholic forum identifies you as a provocateur.
As for “more complete sign”…it’s a BIG leap from those words in the Catechism and Chris’ nonsense about “blasphemy”, “disobedience to Christ”, and his post on another forum about how unCatholic the Church was after Trent until more recently.
Again, spread your errors and heresies elsewhere. I will oppose you both to the face so long as you continue to spread dissent, heresy, and attacks on dogma here.
“True tradition.”
Sorry Father. “True tradition” INCLUDES Communion under one species, which was solemnly codified by Trent and which is a normative practice of the Roman Rite. THE normative practice, in fact, since Communion under both kinds is regulated in the West, and does not always occur - notably at papal Masses.
Your heresy is that you have been obstinately arguing that Communion under one kind ISN’T the “true tradition”. That’s heresy, and Trent declared you anathema.
You’re not a Catholic, so this isn’t surprising…though your presence at a traditional Catholic forum identifies you as a provocateur.
As for “more complete sign”…it’s a BIG leap from those words in the Catechism and Chris’ nonsense about “blasphemy”, “disobedience to Christ”, and his post on another forum about how unCatholic the Church was after Trent until more recently.
Again, spread your errors and heresies elsewhere. I will oppose you both to the face so long as you continue to spread dissent, heresy, and attacks on dogma here.
M
maryjk
Guest
After reading this thread, and knowing that there are better informed people here to explain, I left it alone.
But I keep coming back to this.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Well, at least you said “Personally.” As you, most likely, well know, this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Alcoholics need to avoid the chalice and Celiacs need to avoid the host.
It really doesn’t matter what you, personally, think.
But I keep coming back to this.
:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Well, at least you said “Personally.” As you, most likely, well know, this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Alcoholics need to avoid the chalice and Celiacs need to avoid the host.
It really doesn’t matter what you, personally, think.
J
jco2004
Guest
Christ said “eat AND DRINK” One does not “drink” a Host; it is a semantical game to pretend that one does. Get it, yet? Joe
A
AlexV
Guest
Ever commit a sin with your eye, or your hand? Ever lust after anyone? Covet anything?
I hope you gouged out your eye. Christ said to.
Get it, yet?
Or, you can argue that reception under one species is disobedient to divine decree. Christ is divine. If you argue reception under one species is disobedient to divine decree, you’re anathema.
Get it, yet?
I hope you gouged out your eye. Christ said to.
Get it, yet?
Or, you can argue that reception under one species is disobedient to divine decree. Christ is divine. If you argue reception under one species is disobedient to divine decree, you’re anathema.
Get it, yet?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Christ also said just to eat. Did our Lord contradict himself. Did He not know what He was saying.
(DR) John 6
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_PW3.HTM
48 I am the bread of life.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
J
jco2004
Guest
So now you’re saying the divine command to eat and drink is metaphorical like gouging out one’s eye. How about “this is my body… this is my blood”- metaphorical also? That’s what the Protestants believe.
Your nonsense just gets deeper and deeper. Joe
J
jco2004
Guest
Christ does not say here “just to eat”. He’s making an analogy between the Eucharist and manna, so He talks momentarily just about the bread. Very different from saying “just eat”. When He gets more specific, He talks about eating and drinking. Always.
But you must think Christ didn’t know what He was talking about at the Last Supper; He took bread and said “this is my body” (Not “this is my body and blood”). I think Christ knew what He was doing. Joe
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Me? A provocateur?
Almost every one of your posts aims the accusation of “heretic” at the Catholic participants here who do not agree with you.I do wish that there were some Eastern Catholics participating in this thread. They could show you the traditional ways in which communion has always been received in the Church. Communion under one species is a very recent introduction, no more than 500 years. So it’s hardly traditional.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You just went on record as saying the Council of Trent did not know what Christ was talking about at the Last Supper.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS]
Note: This title is missing in the Waterworth translation, 1848 edition.
The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-whereas, touching the tremendous and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are in divers places, by the most wicked artifices of the devil, spread abroad certain monstrous errors, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, It has thought fit, that what relates to communion under both species, …
CHAPTER I.
… 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.)
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum,
Are you familiar with the practice of intinction?
If not: The priest takes the host with Chalice in the hand and dips the host once and then proceeds to place the moistened host into the mouth.
What I like about intinction is that the two species do not co-mingle nor does anyone handle either species except the ordained clergy. It’s a very reverent means of partaking of communion.
Gratias
J
jco2004
Guest
I’m well aware of what Trent says. I’ll take Tradition over Trent where there’s a conflict.
Because the East did not participate at Trent, it has diminished authority. Even the RC magisterium has indicated that post-schism western councils do not have the same status as the first millenium councils. Joe
- Status