W
Walking_Home
Guest
I don’t know if your are Catholic (Latin/Eastern) or Orthodox.
But for your information the Church has not declared Trent invalid. As such—She still falls back to this Council to administer Her sacraments.
- Status
I don’t know if your are Catholic (Latin/Eastern) or Orthodox.
But for your information the Church has not declared Trent invalid. As such—She still falls back to this Council to administer Her sacraments.
H
HailMary
Guest
Also, Intinction adds another “sign” to the recipients senses because by doing it this way it invokes in us the Reality and image of the Resurrected Lord because the Precious Blood and Body are united.
P
prodromos
Guest
I know of two Celiac sufferers who receive both the body and the blood at Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church. They suffer no ill effects. There have also been times where very few people have gone forward to receive Holy Communion and the priest has had to consume almost the whole amount of consecrated wine immediately afterwards, again with no ill effects. It is no longer bread and wine which we receive but the body and blood of Him who is life itself. It cannot possibly harm those who receive in faith after preparing themselves with prayer and confession.
John
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I am familiar with the practice of intinction. And my question still stands.
I believe the only mention at the Last Supper of dipping a morsel was to reveal the identity of the betrayer to the Disciple Whom He Loved.
Feeling and opinion do not justify to some the distribution of the species singly. What command of Jesus do we believe we are following when we practice intinction in the Liturgy?
tee
A
AlexV
Guest
It’s amazing, really.
Catholic Answers opens a “traditional forum”.
And what’s one of the first threads someone starts?
Communion under one species.
Forget the fact it’s normative in the Novus Ordo (witness papal Masses).
Forget the fact it’s more common universally in the West than communion under both species.
No, a variety of provocateurs have decided to make this an issue now, on this thread.
News for Joe, Chris, Ambrose, Bernard:
Catholic Answers opens a “traditional forum”.
And what’s one of the first threads someone starts?
Communion under one species.
Forget the fact it’s normative in the Novus Ordo (witness papal Masses).
Forget the fact it’s more common universally in the West than communion under both species.
No, a variety of provocateurs have decided to make this an issue now, on this thread.
News for Joe, Chris, Ambrose, Bernard:
- Trent is dogmatic. And Trent’s dogmatic utterances ARE traditional. There’s no conflict between Trent and Sacred Tradition. Joe’s expressed views on the Holy Eucharist render him anathema. They are heretical. NOWHERE has the Church said Trent has “diminished authority” on ANYTHING. Prove it. Show the document. Show the document that has the same status as the DOGMATIC decrees of Trent? Oh, sorry, they don’t exist. Next heresy?
- The Eucharist is a mystery (fancy that). The Church is not “disobedient” to Christ when She administers the Body AND Blood under one form. You’re receiving the Blood when you receive the host. If you argue that the Church is disobedient to Christ, you’re a heretic.
- Communion under one species started far earlier than “1450”, the date the heretics have been mocking the West for. In any case, the date of introduction is irrelevant. Trent solemnly codified the practice as TRADITIONAL. Got it, heretics?
- What’s your point on this thread? Confusion? Dissent? Needling? In any case, so long as you post nonsense (“blasphemy”, “true tradition”, “disobedience”), I will oppose you.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I am confused. We are discussing the traditional way of receiving communion which obtained for nearly all the history of the Church.
The information given us on this thread is that it was the heretical Ultraquists which prompted the introduction of communion under one species, and that took place in 1453. I mean, you can’t say that the Church’s tradition began in 1453, whether we are talking about communion or anything else !! It began in Apostolic times.
Since that was only a 550 years ago, around the time of the Protestant Reformation, it cannot be considered traditional. There are all the previous 1500 years when communion under both species was the tradition.
It seems to me that the Catholics here arguing for communion under both species are arguing for a return to the ancient tradition. Since Vatican II has as one of its major aims a ressourcement, a return to the ancient ways of the Church, this seems very commendable. It also has the benefit of bringing the Roman Catholic Church into line with the various other Eastern Catholic Churches as well as the Orthodox and its own ancient majority tradition. I really do not understand why you are so adamant about retaining a modern custom which was brought in only in response to these heretical Ultraquists. I just can’t see why you didn’t return to your traditional way once the danger was past?
I am not sure if I have seen a message where you tell us *why *you are arguing so strongly for communion under one species?
A
AlexV
Guest
First off, Father, I don’t need to defend Catholic doctrine against a heretic.
Second off, Communion under one species DOES NOT date only to c. 1450.
Third off, Communion under one species is traditional BECAUSE ROME SAID IT WAS at Trent. ROMA LOCUTA EST, CAUSA FINITA EST. You know, the little thing you Eastern Orthodox have such a problem with.
Fourth off, Vatican II did not mandate Communion under two species.
Fifth off, Tradition isn’t defined solely by longevity of a practice. The Immaculate Conception was only defined infallibly in 1854. Is that your next target, heretic? Will you next be saying we should “return” to the practice of 1853 years and surrender the practice of 150? What’s next on the agenda of “return to apostolic times”, heretic?
Archaeologism indeed.
The lovely thing about this thread is how many posts have displayed EXACTLY why we need Communion under one species. There’s been more heresy on this thread than any I’ve ever seen at CAF. Only the heretics and schismatics are claiming “the danger is past.”
Rome will be the judge of that, thank you.
Second off, Communion under one species DOES NOT date only to c. 1450.
Third off, Communion under one species is traditional BECAUSE ROME SAID IT WAS at Trent. ROMA LOCUTA EST, CAUSA FINITA EST. You know, the little thing you Eastern Orthodox have such a problem with.
Fourth off, Vatican II did not mandate Communion under two species.
Fifth off, Tradition isn’t defined solely by longevity of a practice. The Immaculate Conception was only defined infallibly in 1854. Is that your next target, heretic? Will you next be saying we should “return” to the practice of 1853 years and surrender the practice of 150? What’s next on the agenda of “return to apostolic times”, heretic?
Archaeologism indeed.
The lovely thing about this thread is how many posts have displayed EXACTLY why we need Communion under one species. There’s been more heresy on this thread than any I’ve ever seen at CAF. Only the heretics and schismatics are claiming “the danger is past.”
Rome will be the judge of that, thank you.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Some references would be welcome. Papal documents… etc?
I dont see Trent claiming that communion under one species was traditional. Just the opposite. Trent says:CANON II.–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.
Trent is acknowledging quite clearly that the Church of Rome was induced to communicate laymen under one species. It was something new.
A
AlexV
Guest
You don’t get it, do you?
Once Rome sanctions a practice, especially one tied in with dogma (and this issue is), that practice becomes what is HANDED DOWN by Rome. = Traditio. Tradition. Traditional. Sanctioned. = Holy.
All you and Chris and Bernard and Joe have done is spread dissent. In your view, there’s something less than ideal about Communion under one species. Something that needs defense. Something that needs apology or correction. Something disobedient, blasphemous, or downright wrong, depending on which of you is harping about it currently.
As I said, what’s next, Father? Assumption as a dogma? That was defined 57 years ago and is part of TRADITION. Is that next for the criticism forum? Immaculate Conception? PAPAL INFALLIBILITY??
The decrees of Trent have never been rescinded, and Rome has never said Communion under two species is the norm except for some cases of exigency. Communion under one species is normative, holy, grace-filled, complete, TRADITIONAL, and not disobedient to Christ.
Tradition doesn’t depend on a calendar. It depends on Rome.
Basil received Communion on his deathbed several times…under the form of bread alone. Augustine says children were communicated…with the form of wine alone. The Mass of the Presanctified used bread alone. That’s just off the top of my head, along with the Council of Lambeth (1281 I think?) which decreed one species. Aquinas knew of Communion under one species (also 13th century). But, as Augustine, Paulinus, and Basil show…the practice is patristic.
Once Rome sanctions a practice, especially one tied in with dogma (and this issue is), that practice becomes what is HANDED DOWN by Rome. = Traditio. Tradition. Traditional. Sanctioned. = Holy.
All you and Chris and Bernard and Joe have done is spread dissent. In your view, there’s something less than ideal about Communion under one species. Something that needs defense. Something that needs apology or correction. Something disobedient, blasphemous, or downright wrong, depending on which of you is harping about it currently.
As I said, what’s next, Father? Assumption as a dogma? That was defined 57 years ago and is part of TRADITION. Is that next for the criticism forum? Immaculate Conception? PAPAL INFALLIBILITY??
The decrees of Trent have never been rescinded, and Rome has never said Communion under two species is the norm except for some cases of exigency. Communion under one species is normative, holy, grace-filled, complete, TRADITIONAL, and not disobedient to Christ.
Tradition doesn’t depend on a calendar. It depends on Rome.
Basil received Communion on his deathbed several times…under the form of bread alone. Augustine says children were communicated…with the form of wine alone. The Mass of the Presanctified used bread alone. That’s just off the top of my head, along with the Council of Lambeth (1281 I think?) which decreed one species. Aquinas knew of Communion under one species (also 13th century). But, as Augustine, Paulinus, and Basil show…the practice is patristic.
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum AlexV,
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? Does this suggest to you that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under one species is perhaps not as ‘complete a sign’ (i.e. less full) than the Holy Eucharist under two species?
Gratias
H
Hesychios
Guest
You seem upset.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Does the “sign” itself contribute to the Christ’s benefits.
Is communion under one species not complete in benefits—is it “less full”.
Communion under one species is legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. Is that so difficult to understand.
H
Hesychios
Guest
A
AJV
Guest
If I could rephrase Hesychios, what AlexV was trying to say (not that he needs it ) the thing is that, as I’m sure the Orthodoxen know, and it seems to me, the real question seems to be whether or not one accepts the Papal teaching on the subject.You seem upset.
I suppose one could question “why wasn’t it restored when heresy had passed”, but the bottom line is that the Catholic teaching is that one receives the whole Christ under either species. The Orthodox may well have a different opinion on the matter, but then perhaps that would be better discussed in the EC forum as a difference between the respective communions, since it could be confusing to someone going through this board as to the nature of Church teaching?
Don’t interpret this as a “get thee back O ye schismatics to thy Eastern forum where thou dost belong”
but since the Orthodox have a different view on the Councils and the Pope, etc. the issue is being approched from a totally different perspective than from one inside the Roman communion, that would probably be better discussed as a difference in the other forum.
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum Walking_Home,
I would say “No”. A ‘sign’ in and of itself does not contribute to the benefits in the sense that I believe you are inferring.
Once again let me make clear this discussion is not about the efficacy of the Sacrament under one species. As you and AlexV have made abundantly clear such a stance is anathema.
This isn’t about the right and power of the Catholic Church to exercise legitimate economia. This is about what is the most ‘complete’ sign of the Holy Eucharist which is and ever will be the Standard or Norm of the Sacrament.
What Christ did among His Apostles and Disciples sets the ‘Complete’ Sign of every Sacrament. Sacraments are instituted by God in the first place and faithfully executed by His Church through Her Holy Tradition. Any deviation from that set Standard is, to a greater or lesser degree, an act of economia. Economia is always a legitimate exercise of leniency of the strict practice of the Norms of the Faith (Holy Tradition). Properly understood, an exercise of economia should never be mistaken as the Norm (strict exercise of Holy Tradition) of the Sacraments instituted by God.
The common practice may change but the Norms never change because the Sacraments are divinely instituted by God and God is immutable. Holy Tradition is the Deposit of Faith given to His Church by God and is immutable as all divinity is and all things which share in said divinity are.
No, it isn’t difficult at all but even though it may be ‘the most common form in the Latin rite’ there continues to exist a ‘more complete sign’.
Such has been my point from the start. Holy Tradition offers us the ‘more complete sign’ as our ‘common form’ offers us ‘a legitimate sign’ (i.e. one established through economia).
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
I’d be interested if you or AlexV have read God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life by Pope Benedict XVI. It outlines this ‘fuller sign’ more clearly than even the CCC.
Gratias
C
corvidae
Guest
I would say it means exactly what it says. That the sign is more complete because it appears more clearly as a meal. That does not mean reception under one species is not the full grace. I think the problem especially with you st. bernard is that we are comepletely missing eachother, because many feel that you are saying something about grace, when you are simply saying something about looks.
There is a more complete sign under both species because that is how the apostles and Jesus himself did it, however, that does not make reception under one species wrong. There are those out there who hold to heretical beliefs regarding the Eucharist, even those who are supposed to be teaching on it. When only one species is offered, they look into why, and then they find out what the Church teaches on it, when both species are offered, they continue in their beliefs.
Everyone here acknowledges Christ is present under either and both species. If you deny Christ is present in the Holy Chalice, you are no less a heretic than those who deny the Eucharist completely, but that does not mean you must recieve or else do injury to Christ.
Sorry, that was kind of rambling, I just woke up.
A lone Raven
W
Woodstock
Guest
No, it isn’t. That’s what a few posters continuously are arguing despite it not having anything to do with this thread. The modus operandi appears to be “find a Roman document with an anathema in it, then argue that all who disagree with you somehow are associated with it, no matter how tenuous the connection.”
That would be a good subject to address in this thread. It’s been asked several time.
Which does not respond to the inquiry.
I disagree. This ardent clinging to only receiving under one species is unique to traditionalist Roman Catholics and as such is most appropriate to discuss here where they can (if they ever choose to) respond with their understanding and reasoning for this practice.The Orthodox may well have a different opinion on the matter, but then perhaps that would be better discussed in the EC forum as a difference between the respective communions, since it could be confusing to someone going through this board as to the nature of Church teaching?
Don’t interpret this as a “get thee back O ye schismatics to thy Eastern forum where thou dost belong”
It separates them from many NO Latin Catholics and all Eastern Catholics. As such, the issue is not one of non-Catholics or of those outside communion with Rome, but of the traditionalist Roman Catholic mindset which insists on withholding the chalice from the laity. To date, the only responses as to why were listed twice before by me with specific questions to help me further understand the traditionalist view. I would be very happy if any traditionalists who hold this view would impart their understanding to those of us who don’t by answering those questions I had outlined for that purpose.
W
Woodstock
Guest
Raven,
This is the type of dialogue I was hoping would occur. Thank you!
With this in mind
There is a more complete sign under both species because that is how the apostles and Jesus himself did it, however, that does not make reception under one species wrong.
what do you believe of someone who desires to receive under both species? Should he be denied? Is reception under both species wrong?
C
corvidae
Guest
Reception under both species is not wrong, if they are offered, however, there is no right to demand that both species be offered.
The Church has the power to regulate her sacraments, and if you believe that there is no necessity to withhold one species, talk to your bishop.
A lone Raven
The Church has the power to regulate her sacraments, and if you believe that there is no necessity to withhold one species, talk to your bishop.
A lone Raven
W
Woodstock
Guest
I am not demanding. I am trying to dialogue with those who hold a differing opinion than I do on what is the ideal so that I can come to a most informed decision on the issue.
Raven,
I was hoping you wouldn’t avoid my question. My bishop shares the same opinion as me, so I have no need to discuss with him. I am trying to discuss this with those who believe that there is necessity to withhold one species.
- Status