A
AlexV
Guest
The truth doesn’t need dialogue. The truth doesn’t need defense. The truth doesn’t need justification.
- Status
A
AJV
Guest
I was refering to certain arguments made on page 3 or 4 not the entire thread. As many of the Catholic posters made clear, they don’t hold that communion under one kind deprives one of the graces so yes, I suppose some of the arguments made were directed at the wrong thing.
C
corvidae
Guest
In my dicoese there is a necessity to with hold one species but it will not be done because people might be offended.
For example, I used to volunteer with a youth minister in a nearby parish. One day the youth minister talked about her recovering alcoholic friend who could not recieve from the chalice. She claimed that her friend was missing out on something completely by only recieving the body (her words not mine). I wrote an email pointing out the ultraquist (sp?) heresy and saying that she needed to be careful in her teaching so as never to teach error, and was simply asked never to return to youth group.
In addition, many who I have talked to in the parish seem confused as to the issue if one species confers the same grace as both species. I believe that the with holding of one species would show the people in no uncertain terms what the teaching is.
The Church with-holds no grace from the faithful by with-holding one species and so in the areas where it is needed to teach people it is perfectly acceptable to with-hold one species.
I think many fear that the heresy will continue to grow if both species are offered, as many who subscribed to the heresy when only one species was offered either learned, or left the Church, but now some have no reason to be confronted with their beliefs.
A lone Raven
For example, I used to volunteer with a youth minister in a nearby parish. One day the youth minister talked about her recovering alcoholic friend who could not recieve from the chalice. She claimed that her friend was missing out on something completely by only recieving the body (her words not mine). I wrote an email pointing out the ultraquist (sp?) heresy and saying that she needed to be careful in her teaching so as never to teach error, and was simply asked never to return to youth group.
In addition, many who I have talked to in the parish seem confused as to the issue if one species confers the same grace as both species. I believe that the with holding of one species would show the people in no uncertain terms what the teaching is.
The Church with-holds no grace from the faithful by with-holding one species and so in the areas where it is needed to teach people it is perfectly acceptable to with-hold one species.
I think many fear that the heresy will continue to grow if both species are offered, as many who subscribed to the heresy when only one species was offered either learned, or left the Church, but now some have no reason to be confronted with their beliefs.
A lone Raven
W
Woodstock
Guest
This was in a parish where both species were being received. Do you believe this misunderstanding is common among those parishes where one species is only being received?
I thank you for your willingness to dialogue! The questions which concern me follow:
Do you believe the people who need this message (on average, such as your friend) are currently receiving it?
Do you believe the people who are currently receiving this message (on average, such as the basic TLM-goer) are in need of it being reinforced?
Do you believe the parish where your friend was apparently malformed in her faith instruction was teaching people accurate theology?
Do you believe withholding the chalice would do any good in an average parish without instruction on why it is being done?
Do you believe once the error is overcome that the reception under both species should be reinstituted?
Do you believe the prominent heresy among those Americans who identify as Roman Catholic is the same as the Ultraquist heresy?
W
Woodstock
Guest
Do you believe the Truth is that the Eucharist should only be offered under one species?
A
AlexV
Guest
It’s perfectly fine, normative, full, whole, graceful. And doctrinally erroneous to argue otherwise.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Dialogue, defense and justification sure help, though, if truth is going to survive in this world. The Church should not hide away, refusing to explain its teachings to outsiders.
This whole website is about dialogue, defense and justification, and I, for one, am glad it is here.
God bless!
P
palmas85
Guest
Why do we keep bringing up what occurs in the eastern Churches? It kind of sounds like you are saying that the eastern Churches adhered to true teaching and understanding while the Roman Rite spun out of control. With the exception of the Maronites, all of the eastern Churches returned to Rome after periods of separation, some short others longer, and are the result of an incomplete communion with their Orthodox counterparts, They were not at all times faithful to Rome. What they do and how they do things should not be the benchmark of how the whole Church should operate… People need to remember that.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.
500 years of doing something doesn’t make it traditional? Well how long does it take? 600, 800, 1,000 5,000 years, how long? If that is the case then many on this forum are in serious error as they claim that certain pecularities of the Pauline Rite should not be changed because it has become traditional having been around for 40 years or so.
W
Woodstock
Guest
Do you mean to imply that the Latin rite is superior to all other Catholic rites and churches?
Do you imply that the eastern and oriental Catholic churches somehow are in an imperfect communion to this day?
Do you mean that the rites and traditions of the east, as strongly praised in Orientalum Lumen, should be discarded out of hand for not being Latin?
The irony is amusing. You wish to argue in favor of traditions that are 45 years old as opposed to 44 years, but you object to a priest pointing out that the same tradition was held for 1500 years as opposed to 500?
J
jco2004
Guest
Neither St. Augustine, or any other Father, ever said the words “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” Joe
A
AlexV
Guest
They weren’t infallible. The pope is. The dogmatic council of Trent’s statements are.
W
Woodstock
Guest
Trent did not say that we should commune under only one species or that doing so was the ideal devotional model of those who were saddened by any raging heresy of the day.
A
AlexV
Guest
Trent didn’t say we should commune under both species or that such would be the “ideal devotional model” either.
W
Woodstock
Guest
I’m glad that we’ve now been able to clarify throughout the course of this thread that none here are Hussite, Taborite, or Ultraquist heretics and now also that the anathemas of Trent do not speak about the issue at hand. We are making progress back toward the original point of dialogue.
Could it be that the Tridentine worship is so rooted in the Council of Trent (from whence it came) that those who feel called to worship in it, in a climate where such a desire is often met with great disdain, must have immediate catch-phrases and proof texts at the ready to defend themselves? That this climate leads to them placing such a strong emphasis upon Trent and against Vatican II that they become blind to any need for growth among traditions in their own usage?
S
st_bernard
Guest
Regardless, it is the ‘more complete sign’…
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
Such comments in the CCC gives the impression that there is an ‘ideal’ out there for the Sacrament and the most common form in the Latin rite isn’t it.
If such is the case, why don’t we, as the Catholic Church, offer the ‘more complete sign’? What is the point of offering under one species, because we can?
Gratias
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Because the Church with Her Christ given authority has legitimately established communion under the species of bread as the most common in the Latin rite. Anyone who continues to argue against this—is just showing dissent to the legitimate authority of the Church.
A
AlexV
Guest
Anyone reading this pathetic, tedious, frankly disgraceful thread can see why Trent was right.
The heresies and errors posted on this board show very clearly that the same heresies and errors of yesteryear are alive and well.
Only the heretics and erroneous posters keep assuring us the past is the past and everything is better now.
Blasphemy, eh Chris? Disobedient, eh St. Bernard? Or shall we hear from the Eastern chorus that will next be criticizing the Immaculate Conception as being “only” 150 years old as an infallibly defined dogma? Since to them “tradition” seems to be only that which THEY accept?
The heresies and errors posted on this board show very clearly that the same heresies and errors of yesteryear are alive and well.
Only the heretics and erroneous posters keep assuring us the past is the past and everything is better now.
Blasphemy, eh Chris? Disobedient, eh St. Bernard? Or shall we hear from the Eastern chorus that will next be criticizing the Immaculate Conception as being “only” 150 years old as an infallibly defined dogma? Since to them “tradition” seems to be only that which THEY accept?
C
CatholicNick
Guest
I must remind you, despite what many ‘neo-conservaive’ Catholics think, the CCC is not Infallible. Trent is.
J
jco2004
Guest
I didn’t say the Church declared Trent to be “invalid”. Please read my posts. I said that the status of post-schism councils is not the same as pre-schism. It goes along with JPII’s statement that the Church needs “both lungs”- east and west. The eastern "lung’ was not present at Trent. Joe
P
palmas85
Guest
In the first place, I’m not arguing anything. It just amuses me when posters bring up the statements that seem to say look at the Eastern Rites. thats the way things should be done.
As to the rites and traditions of the eastern Churches they are indeed fine but they are the rites and traditions of those particular Churches and they do vary from Church to Church. I don’t think they should be changed to reflect a more Latin Rite mentality any more than I think the Latin Rite should change to reflect a more eastern Rite mentality.
As far as imperfect communion, the churches that returned are in full communion. However their mother churches which did not are not in communion at all. Therefore the communion with the entirity of the eastern Rite Churches is imperfect because we are are only in communion with some of them and branches of the others.
As to the 1500 vs 500 years of tradition I’ll say this:
The Church has always accepted the validity of Holy Communion under both or either species. . It never was the universal practice to receive under both. Both methods were used depending on where you were. One of the truths that many don’t seem to be aware of. Much the same as the rationale for receiving in the hand as being an early church practice. Many don’t know the reasons the early church did it in the first place.
Getting back to reception under both species. Many places distributed under only one species and that had been going on for centuries. This was seen as a matter of discipline. It became a real problem in the early 1400’s when Jacobo da Mies began to preach that Communion under both species was necessary for salvation. Da Mies violently attacked the Church for withdrawing this esential right from the faithful. Other reformers jumped on the bandwagon at this opportunity to attack the Church and the Papacy…Many people agreed, how dare the Church refuse us the Precious Blood!!! Scandalous!!! Blasphemous!!! Uncharitable:bigyikes:
So the Council of Constance, in its 13th Session in 1415, totally rejected the need to** reintroduce** the practice of receiving under both species to the laity , and prohibited it, not so much because was wrong , but because of the errors Jacobo da Mies and others used to justify their arguments and their belief that reception under both species was in fact necessary . For instance they completely ignored scriptural references to the eating of the flesh or bread alone. We now arrive at the Council of Trent.
Trent, 1545-1563, was a Council that addressed many problems of its time, the Protestant heresies, differing approaches to the Mass. the status of vagabond Priests and mendicants, administration of the properties of monasteries, and , little known but interesting provided for excommunication of temporal rulers who permitted the practice of dueling in their territories.
among many other things,** including** reception under both species in which Trent merely reaffirmed the teaching and decrees of the Council of Constance…So far from being the universal practice prior to Trent, the practice of receiving under both species had already been on the decline prior to the 1400’s and had in fact been prohibited in places long before that. So to speak of the 1500 years of tradition of receiving under both species is not only erroneous but shows a lack of historic knowledge on the subject.
I don’t know why you felt the need to point out that a poster may be a Priest. Being a Priest does not cloak someone with infallibility. Just look at Father Leonardo Bof, Father Hans Kung or from my post Father Jacobo de Mies. All three were Priests, and all three wrong in many many areas.
- Status