Eucharist via one species...

[AlexV]

Trent does NOT have lesser status than other councils.

Period.

 

[Walking_Home]

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

---

Whether the “eastern lung” was not present at Trent is of no consequence. What JPII said about the eastern lung–has no relevence in this discussion. It is what the Church with Her God given authority says —that counts.

 

[Woodstock]

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.

1. The Church hasn’t established frequency of the practice; the people have*.* The Eucharist is a sacrament of the people and belongs in the body of believers.
2. If you wish to base the reception of the Eucharist on numbers, I could also claim reception in the hand without confession while standing without a headcovering is more common in the US and therefore should be the way all Catholics in the US receive. Thankfully, I find the premise underlying it ridiculous. Hopefully you share my opinion and would like to return to why TLMs withhold the chalice from all the laity as a matter of course and why you apparently believe that method of reception should not be changed.
3. It is not dissent to have an opinion that a lower-case t tradition should be reviewed and possibly changed.

I must remind you, despite what many ‘neo-conservaive’ Catholics think, the CCC is not Infallible. Trent is.

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.

I thought we just established that Trent doesn’t have anything to do with this issue and that we had previously established that none here are espousing hussism. Your post reinforces the question I wondered aloud about the identity of TLM goers being so rooted in Trent to the exclusion of all else until 1961 coming from the climate of aspersions being cast upon any who attend a TLM in favor of a modern NO Mass.

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?

 

[palmas85]

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

That would actually be debatable.

 

[AlexV]

Do you think Communion under one species is disobedient to Christ?

If so, you’re a heretic.

Period.

The Church doesn’t teach that councils where Easterners were not present are somehow inferior to those where they were present.

The Church doesn’t need to “review” Communion policies to suit anybody.

The Church has solemnly defined that there were good reasons to have Communion under one species. Those reasons have NEVER been declared null and void. Though, of course, some heretics on this thread seem to be quick to claim they are.

On the doctrines surrounding the Holy Eucharist, Trent HAS been the most recent DOGMATIC set of pronouncements. It’s quite relevant to this issue. Period.

 

[st_bernard]

---

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.

Gratias et pax vobiscum Walking_Home,

You are correct but that same Church in Her Christ given wisdom recognizes that although such is ‘valid and efficacious’ is also not the more complete sign…

Trent establishes the ‘validity of the Eucharist under one species’. It didn’t ‘command or establish’ the practice of offering the Eucharist under one species because as many have already pointed out this ‘economia’ was already in practice in many parishes but continued to be criticized.

The problem here isn’t ‘What Trent said’ but ‘Why Trent said it’. When we understand the context of the Council we understand more fully what they were establishing. They were establishing the clear and undeniable validity of the Holy Eucharist under one species as efficacious. Period.

What we are talking about here has nothing to do with the efficacious nature of the Holy Eucharist under one species but the fact that although it may well be efficacious, it is not the more complete sign of the Sacrament as the CCC also asserts.

Zealous individuals like to hide this fact because they seek to establish a more simplistic authority for the Church than what is the divine reality.

Gratias

 

[AlexV]

MORE of the same heresy.

You’re saying, “St.” Bernard, that one species isn’t obedient to divine decree. You’ve said it before, and you haven’t abjured your error.

Trent declared you ANATHEMA for that view.

Your views are erroneous, insulting to Catholics, and accomplish zero other than fan the flames of confusion, dissent, and provocation.

Trent has greater authority than the CCC, as has been correctly pointed out, and Trent did NOT say reception under one species was “economical” or the result of any exigencies.

 

[st_bernard]

MORE of the same heresy.

You’re saying, “St.” Bernard, that one species isn’t obedient to divine decree. You’ve said it before, and you haven’t abjured your error.

I’m just curious as to exactly where you fail to understand what efficacious, valid and undeniable mean and how you determine from these descriptors that I believe the Holy Eucharist under one species isn’t obedient to divine decree?

If it is a valid use of Church economia then it is obedience but the point which eludes you is that such obedience isn’t the ‘more complete sign’.

Trent declared you ANATHEMA for that view.

No, you are in error.

Trent has greater authority than the CCC, as has been correctly pointed out, and Trent did NOT say reception under one species was “economical” or the result of any exigencies.

So are you suggesting that the CCC is in error?

All that Trent said was that it was valid and efficacious. Their leniency in exercising the strict canonical rule for the Holy Eucharist forces their declaration to be a work of economia.

The fact that Trent was called as a response to the Reformation gives us ample argument to claim its urgency.

Gratias

 

[Walking_Home]

1. The Church hasn’t established frequency of the practice; the people have*.* The Eucharist is a sacrament of the people and belongs in the body of believers.

I thought we just established that Trent doesn’t have anything to do with this issue and that we had previously established that none here are espousing hussism. Your post reinforces the question I wondered aloud about the identity of TLM goers being so rooted in Trent to the exclusion of all else until 1961 coming from the climate of aspersions being cast upon any who attend a TLM in favor of a modern NO Mass.

---

The sacraments of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for the benefit of the people. Just as He instituted this sacrament—He instituted the Church to which he gave the authority to bind and loose. To the Church —He entrusted this sacrament. Holy Communion is for our benefit—but it is the Church who dispenses the sacrament. She decides how, where, when , and to whom. Believing anything other is dissention.

I do not attent the TLM—and do believe in giving my assent to the Church.

 

[AlexV]

It doesn’t matter WHY Trent was called. It’s decrees don’t have little footnotes, heretic, that say “whenever St. Bernard and his pals decide our decrees are no longer necessary according to circumstance, they may be challenged.”

The CCC is not infallible. Trent’s declarations on the Eucharist are.

Go reread the sorry history of this thread, heretic. Plenty of people…including you…have made the claim that it’s “disobedient” to divine decree to administer under one species. One person called it “blasphemy” to pass up the Chalice.

THAT’S the problem. Not “sign value”.

Trent wasn’t “lenient”, heretic. They declared 3 or 4 of you anathema.

Trent didn’t fudge or mitigate ANYTHING. It defined precisely Eucharistic dogma.

In the face, I might add, of heresies alive and well today…

 

[st_bernard]

It doesn’t matter WHY Trent was called. It’s decrees don’t have little footnotes, heretic, that say “whenever St. Bernard and his pals decide our decrees are no longer necessary according to circumstance, they may be challenged.”

The CCC is not infallible. Trent’s declarations on the Eucharist are.

Go reread the sorry history of this thread, heretic. Plenty of people…including you…have made the claim that it’s “disobedient” to divine decree to administer under one species. One person called it “blasphemy” to pass up the Chalice.

THAT’S the problem. Not “sign value”.

Trent wasn’t “lenient”, heretic. They declared 3 or 4 of you anathema.

Trent didn’t fudge or mitigate ANYTHING. It defined precisely Eucharistic dogma.

In the face, I might add, of heresies alive and well today…

Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Tell me do you believe Pope Benedict XVI to be a heretic also?

Gratias

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m just curious as to exactly where you fail to understand what efficacious, valid and undeniable mean and how you determine from these descriptors that I believe the Holy Eucharist under one species isn’t obedient to divine decree?

If it is a valid use of Church economia then it is obedience but the point which eludes you is that such obedience isn’t the ‘more complete sign’.

No, you are in error.

So are you suggesting that the CCC is in error?

All that Trent said was that it was valid and efficacious. Their leniency in exercising the strict canonical rule for the Holy Eucharist forces their declaration to be a work of economia.

The fact that Trent was called as a response to the Reformation gives us ample argument to claim its urgency.

Gratias

---

Even when the Church talks about the sign —She emphasizes the dogmatic Council of Trent. Once a person starts putting more importance on the sign vs. doctrine—it reflects a major problem —in that doctrine is undermined by the sign.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

1. Communion under Both Kinds

[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.186]

 

[Woodstock]

Is it me, or does it seem like we aren’t getting far? I feel like I’m watching that Badger video.

Heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, lying schismatic… Heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, lying schismatic…

…heretical… Heresy, plain and simple

…outrageous… utterly un-Catholic… ludicrous

…unCatholic… deplorable… anathema… Protestant heretics

…deplorable… archaeologism… bliblical literalism divorced from Sacred Tradition… nuttiness … obstinate… Lies. Heresy… heresy… offense… erroneously… slanderous, erroneous, skirts the line of heresy

…offensive… erroneous… very dangerous… quite close to heresy. Heresy indeed… outrageous… archaeologism

…heresy… Plain and simple heresy… also heresy.

…blasphemy… liars and heretics… heretical, erroneous views

…Period… false… Erroneous

…not Catholic…heretical… outrageous… false.

…heretical statements. I stand by my use of “heresy” as a charge…a spade is a spade… errors are numerous and outrageous… h-e-r-e-s-y… HERESY

…Heresy, plain and simple… Period… Period… you are indeed in heresy, plain and simple… obstinate

…objective heresies… massively faulty premise… False, and false. Heresy to claim otherwise.

…provocateur… Period… literalist argument… not Catholic

…outrage… heresy

…disturbing… outrageous, indeed heretical…heresy

…Gnostic

…heresies…

…Anti-Catholic hogwash… not Catholic… More heresy. More offensive slander…

…offensive… outrageous… not Catholic… offensive… errors… full of errors… outright lies

…division, falsehood, and malicious slander… false and erroneous… irrelevant… Utterly irrelevant… your views need to be condemned as the errors they are.

…manipulated… Orthodox schismatics

Eastern schismatic… Eastern schismatic… heresies and division

IRRELEVANT… Utterly irrelevant… you are anathema

Eastern schismatics… You must assent to it, or you’re not Catholic. Period, again… ANATHEMA… your views on this issue are irrelevant, quite frankly. That’s heresy. Case closed.

you’re in a state of schism… you’re a heretic in the strict and objective sense… Period… Period… You are in serious error… offensively… That’s offensive and erroneous… Take your schismatic errors elsewhere.

…doctrinally erroneous…

…pathetic, tedious, frankly disgraceful… heresies and errors… heresies and errors… heretics and erroneous posters

…If so, you’re a heretic. Period… heretics on this thread… Period.

MORE of the same heresy… ANATHEMA… erroneous… dissent, and provocation.

…heretic… heretic… heretic… anathema.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

It doesn’t matter WHY Trent was called. It’s decrees don’t have little footnotes, heretic,

Go reread the sorry history of this thread, **heretic.
**
Trent wasn’t “lenient”, heretic.

I spend most of my time with the Eastern Christianity section. Anybody there who used the term “heretic” in the appalling manner which you do against your fellow Catholics would be suspended. Is this not a rule for all the Forum?

 

[jco2004]

---

Whether the “eastern lung” was not present at Trent is of no consequence. What JPII said about the eastern lung–has no relevence in this discussion. It is what the Church with Her God given authority says —that counts.

No relevance? Trent is being heavily relied on here, and the East was not present at Trent. Interesting the way you can just blow off what JPII said. Joe

 

[Walking_Home]

No relevance? Trent is being heavily relied on here, and the East was not present at Trent. Interesting the way you can just blow off what JPII said. Joe

---

Last I looked—we are the Catholic Church. As such Trent did define doctrine. The lack of Eastern presence is still of no relevance–except to those who are trying to diminish a Council. As to JPII —what he said concerning the eastern lung --is still irrelevant to this discussion—but he did mandate for the instruction RS-2004 —which in matters concerning communion under both kinds—does call for the dogmatic principles of the Council of Trent.

 

[AlexV]

Trent trumps John Paul’s comments on the East…

 

[jco2004]

---

Even when the Church talks about the sign —She emphasizes the dogmatic Council of Trent. Once a person starts putting more importance on the sign vs. doctrine—it reflects a major problem —in that doctrine is undermined by the sign.

I find the empahsis on the sign vs. substance to be disturbing. I submit that Jesus and the apostles, who initiated the sacraments, would not have been in agreement with it. Outward signs were of the utmost importance in their culture. I further submit that the divorce between sign and thing signified whihc began in the middle ages was partly responsible for the growth of nominalism, which laid the groundwork for the secular rationalism and the Protestant Revolt/reformation. Joe

 

[jco2004]

Me: the east was not present at Trent.

That would actually be debatable.

Ok, show me where I’m in error. Joe

 

[AlexV]

What Joe fails to grasp is, any absence of the East at Trent is utterly irrelevant.

Joe also shows a rather faulty knowledge of Medieval philosophy and theology. Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure…all were quite interested in lots of diverse topics.

But, like a true provocateur, the real import of Joe’s posts is that somewhere along the road…of course, in the Middle Ages…the Western Church went astray.

That’s erroneous.

The only “divorce between sign and things signified” is in Joe’s head. Unless he wants to argue that Communion under one species is such a divorce…in which case his view is heretical.

As for calling people heretics…Augustine did it. Ditto Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Aquinas, etc. etc…if the shoe fits…and in this case, ANATHEMA is a nice Greek word. Look it up.