Eucharist via one species...

[chrisb]

By the way, your disdain for doctrine confuses me. Are you Catholic, do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I don’t have disdain for doctrine and yes I am Catholic and attend Tridentine Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on occasion but primarily attend a Novus Ordo Parish, St. Michael’s Catholic Church.

BTW, I love our Holy Father and I hold a deep affection for our Roman Catholic faith I just believe that we should be the presenters of the full faith.

 

[corvidae]

your ‘doctrine’ creates a dualism between the two species where one is of no value. -quoted from chrisb

This is what I meant by disdain for doctrine. You say the doctrine says something it most definately does not. Both in the form of bread, or the form of wine are complete, you are fre to recieve either, or both if offered, but you do not need to. Those who are allergic to gluten often recieve of the Chalice only, and those who are recovering alcholics often recieve the host alone. Neither recieves any more or any less than the other. In the same way, one who recieves both species does not recieve more or less than either of them.

If you require that both be recieved, what of the people who cannot recieve both?

A lone Raven

 

[chrisb]

your ‘doctrine’ creates a dualism between the two species where one is of no value. -quoted from chrisb

This is what I meant by disdain for doctrine.

You say the doctrine says something it most definately does not. Both in the form of bread, or the form of wine are complete, you are fre to recieve either, or both if offered, but you do not need to.

I said ‘your’ doctrine. I believe you are twisting the Church’s teaching on ‘shared essense’ to discard the Sacred Blood of Christ when it is offered or to rationalize not offering it to the laity.

I don’t believe that the Church should alter the Sacraments.

Those who are allergic to gluten often recieve of the Chalice only, and those who are recovering alcholics often recieve the host alone. Neither recieves any more or any less than the other. In the same way, one who recieves both species does not recieve more or less than either of them.

Personally I don’t believe that the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ can harm the faithful. This appears to be an excuse to hide a lack of faith.

I know alcholics who have taken the Blood of Christ for 40 years and have never lapsed into alcholism.

If you require that both be recieved, what of the people who cannot recieve both?

Nothing is impossible with Jesus Christ. Do you believe the Sacred Body and Blood would really harm the faithful children of our Lord and Saviour?

 

[corvidae]

I believe that because the accidents remain the same, the accidents could cause injury. The host is not bread, but still acts as bread.

What you see as a lack of faith, many see as not testing the Lord their God.

A lone Raven

p.s.- Our doctrine is the doctrine of the Church, if you submit to that authority, you must submit to that doctrine

p.p.s. Again, no one is discarding the sacred blood of Christ, both species are wholly Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity

BOTH are

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t have disdain for doctrine and yes I am Catholic and attend Tridentine Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on occasion but primary attend a Novus Ordo Parish.

BTW, I love our Holy Father and I hold a deep affection for our Roman Catholic faith I just believe that we should be the presenters of the full faith.

---

No disdain-- “blesphemous” comes to mind.

You hold deep affection for the Roman Catholic faith—but believe we should present the “full faith”.

What “full faith” would this be --chrisb. Since the more you delved into Catholicism --it was revealed we are no longer Catholic. That the changes the last 50 yrs are an attempt for the Western Church to return to Orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1784204&highlight=chrisb#post1784204

Quote=chrisb
Yes I own Father Pomazansky’s book.

This is my point… the Roman Catholic Church ‘Post-Vatican II’ has moved away from Classic Catholic Scholasticism and frankly looks more Orthodox than Catholic in our modern day catechism.

We’re not the same Church as the one criticized by Father Pomazansky. Either he was right then and we were wrong then or we both are lost now.

The more that I’ve delved into Catholicism the more it has been revealed we are no longer Catholic.

That leaves only one conclusion… Catholicism was wrong and Orthodoxy was right and the Western Church has been seeking to return to Orthodoxy.

It explains all the changes over the last 50 years.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[AlexV]

ChrisB’s views, simply put, are not Catholic.

He has openly said, more than once, that refusal to receive the offered Chalice, or refusal to offer the Chalice, is somehow not the expression of the “full” faith in the Eucharist.

That view is heretical.

Further, he has called it “blasphemous” not to receive from the offered Chalice.

That view is, frankly, outrageous.

He has further argued that refusal to offer the Chalice is a disobedience to Christ.

That view is also quite false. The Church has the power to regulate Sacraments. She acts in nomine Christi.

Nor am I “twisting” any Catholic doctrine. What I have posted is sound and, yes, orthodox.

I didn’t “discard” the Precious Blood today. I received it, in the form of bread.

 

[Woodstock]

You’re actually arguing that people attending Tridentine Masses are less fully participating in the Mass than Novus Ordinarians who receive under two species. Heresy indeed.

You sure are quick to label people heretics. Nothing I’ve said has been heretical. How about we just decide to not call each other heretics?

When was the golden age of the Eucharist? When was it as it should have been? When it was instituted! Since then, oral and written traditions have been instituted in order to protect and preserve the Eucharist. Those traditions, however, had to respect and preserve the Eucharist in its wholeness: it belongs in the liturgy, it belongs in the context of a meal, and it belongs in the context of a body of believers. That is the traditional understanding of the Church, which was only altered in recent centuries. It was only altered in response to a heresy raging through the church. The heresy is no longer a problem. In addition, the places where the Chalice is being withheld are far less likely to have such problems because of lengthy formation (which is good).

As for the idea that the concerns of centuries are no longer valid or worthy of worry…some of the outrageous posts on these fora prove exactly the opposite.

I agree. Yours are such proof. That the church’s concern for the Eucharist being preserved for the strengthening and santification of the body of believers could somehow morph into the present situation where a) the full body of believers are not being allowed to receive because they can’t comprehend how the Mystery is enacted (mentally disabled, children) and b) that the fullness of the Eucharistic celebration is withheld even among those who can receive (Bread and Wine) is outrageous. That there are people who will willingly defend these stances as worthy and good today, despite the concern of the centuries, of the Fathers, and the concerns of Christ himself fly in their face, is outrageous.

The Tridentine practice of reception under one species does NOT countermand the divine decree. Christ said receive his Body and Blood. And we do indeed receive it. Indeed, we can even say we eat and drink it, since we are receiving the Blood, even when we take the Host, and nobody would say we’re “eating” the Blood, or “drinking” the Body…EITHER SPECIES IS COMPLETE. Get it, yet?

Christ did not tell you to* receive* his body and blood. He said to eat the bread and drink the wine. He then explained why we are to do this.

St. Matthew 26:26-32
*26- While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” **27- Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, **28- for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. *29- I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father

1 Corinthians 10:16
*The cup of blessing we bless, is it not a communion with the blood of Christ? And the bread that we brake, is it not a communion with the body of Christ? *

If a person came in and saw you receive the Bread, would that person reasonably believe you had just drunk from the cup of salvation? I don’t get how you can believe it is fulfilling the decrees of Christ to follow one Biblical proof text and to ignore the many other explicit Biblical texts which do not even contradict the one you quote, the writings of the fathers, and the long-standing practice of the church because of a relatively recent response to a heresy no longer plaguing the church.

The cup of salvation is highly important to the Church’s theology and faith. It has a strong symbolism both in Jewish and Christian contexts. Christ himself relied on this theology when he said he would not drink of the wine again (the last cup of the seder and the indication that it was finished) until he was able to share it with all in the New Covenent. That covenent is now and Christ’s cup of salvation is for ALL of us, the body of believers.

Your Last Supper details bit is what we call archaeologism. Shall we eschew electric lights and start speaking in Hebrew/Aramaic as well?

By those standards, using only wheat flour or only grape wine would be archeologism. I do not call for a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, nor do I expect the church to set some modern date after which no further development of little t traditions can occur. On the contrary, that seems to be your approach. In any case, I’d like to know how respecting the words of institution, so important that tampering with them invalidates a Mass, is equivalent to eschewing electricity.

 

[Woodstock]

The sacraments are very truly a gift. I am not, nor will I ever be worthy to recieve my Lord, unless He makes me worthy.

Ironic then that a baptized minor is not allowed to receive. Surely he is more worthy than you and I, he being unable to sin.

The Church has every right to withold a “more complete sign” in order to teach something about the Eucharist, and look at the need for it.

Ironic again. What do you teach when you withhold the Cup of Salvation from the body of believers? What do you teach when you divorce Christianity from its Jewish roots? What do you teach when you withhold the sign of the New Covenant from the laity? What do you teach when you say it is more important to impart an intellectual lesson than it is to follow the very words of Christ? Mass isn’t the time for instruction in the faith. We do it because that is what Christ told us to do. We do it to worship Him. We do it to re-live his institution of the life giving Body and Saving Blood. We go to Tuesday evening Bible Study to learn. Maybe the modern church should worry more about what is being taught there.

As a matter of fact, with the deplorable state of catechesis in the average American RC church, I would say it is ever more important to have the liturgy be reflective of the fullness of belief. Lex orandi Lex credendi, no? (How a person worships not only shows what the person really believes, but can ultimately decide what that person really believes.) How can the people know of the importance of the New Covenant, of the commandments Christ gave them, of the fulfillment of the Judaic Law by Christ, if they are not seeing that in the liturgy? These are all reflected in the offering of the Chalice to the body of believers. I would think those who are strongly formed in Augustine’s and Aquinas’ theology would see this connection of the Blood as ever more important to impart.

Question: Do you believe the average TLM attendant is likely to be ignorant of the teachings of the church concerning the Eucharist? Do you believe the average TLM attendant is likely to blaspheme the Lord through unworthy reception? Do you believe the average TLM attendant believes God owed him salvation? Do you believe the average TLM attendant has trouble understanding or believing that the Lord is fully present in both species? If these are not problems in the TLM community, and your reasoning for withholding the chalice is in response to these problems, then what rationale is there for the average TLM to withhold the chalice?

the Church does not owe you the sacraments, they are God’s gift through the Church, and the Church can bind them.

We agree in full. I emphasize that the church is the body of believers. The Eucharist is for the church. Why does only the priest receive then?

For example, the Church can refuse to marry someone, or can refuse to give someone any of the sacraments (excommunication) or in rare times, the Church may deny all sacraments to an entire country (this happened most often in the middle ages as use against an obstinate ruler).

Because the church determined that a person or region was not part of the body of believers and therefore it protected the sacraments from blasphemy. You don’t see the church saying a couple may marry in the church, but can only have half the wedding vows. You don’t see priests telling catechumens that they’ll baptize them up to the waists. You don’t see people being 22% absolved of their sins. It is all or nothing.

You’re still drinking his Blood, even if you receive only the one species, and vice versa. The Blood is there, in the Host, fully. Completely.

He didn’t tell you to receive his Blood, then institute the Eucharist to give a way to do it. He told you to drink. Then he told you what it is you are drinking: the blood of the New Covenant. You aren’t drinking the bread, no matter how you want to twist it. More importantly to this thread, you aren’t even being given the option to partake of his saving cup.

Yet our Lord Himself —at various times—sad to eat His flesh—without saying to drink His Blood.

He also said

John 3: 5-6
“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

Does that mean that receiving the body of Christ is not important since he talks against the flesh? Or that we don’t have to worry about receiving the Eucharist because he doesn’t say anything about it here? No, we look to the words of institution of the sacrament of Baptism for the doctrine on baptism. We look to the words of institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist for the doctrine on communion.

If you require that both be recieved, what of the people who cannot recieve both?

I’m not talking about receiving both, but offering them.

 

[LuxAurumque]

Not taking into account all of the theological arguments for Communion under one species, I can say that after seeing a woman spill the Precious Blood all over herself, her daughter, the EMHC, and the carpeted floor… I can say without any qualms that I would not think twice about having the Chalice never offered to the laity again. The Chalice should never leave the altar strictly because the chance of a horrible accident. It is much easier to recover from a dropped Host, but it is an alltogether different story when you have the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinty of the God of the Universe dripping from a lady and soaking into the carpet of a Church.

 

[Woodstock]

It is much easier to recover from a dropped Host, but it is an alltogether different story when you have the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinty of the God of the Universe dripping from a lady and soaking into the carpet of a Church.

Good evidence for intinction, as I mentioned before. Only the priest may intinct. The faithful may only receive on the mouth. If done from behind an altar rail, the faithful don’t even get anywhere near the chalice.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Ironic then that a baptized minor is not allowed to receive. Surely he is more worthy than you and I, he being unable to sin.

Of course baptized minors may receive!

Because the church determined that a person or region was not part of the body of believers and therefore it protected the sacraments from blasphemy. You don’t see the church saying a couple may marry in the church, but can only have half the wedding vows. You don’t see priests telling catechumens that they’ll baptize them up to the waists. You don’t see people being 22% absolved of their sins. It is all or nothing.

What percentage of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful if the species of wine be not proffered?

tee

 

[AlexV]

What “Woodstock” has consistently ignored, forgotten, eschewed, or whatever you want to call it is the simple fact/truth that the CHURCH determines and regulates the Sacraments, and She does it in Christ’s Holy Name.

1. Woodstock consistently argues that there is no longer Eucharistic heresy out there that would justify current Catholic practices. This is his opinion and nothing more.
2. Woodstock consistently argues that it is somehow disobedient to Christ’s own commands if we do not drink from the Chalice. The Church disagrees. She interprets Christ’s commands; not Woodstock.
3. ChrisB has stated things on these fora that are heretical statements. I stand by my use of “heresy” as a charge…a spade is a spade.

Again, the very fact that anyone would post on a traditional Catholic forum anything like what has been seen the last few days from Woodstock and ChrisB is AMPLE evidence of the wisdom of the Church in not mandating Communion under both species. Such a position is NOT contrary to Christ’s commands…Catholics don’t read the Bible literally and then question everything that isn’t literally followed.

I wonder if Woodstock has ever lusted after everyone. If so, I hope he gouged out his eye.

Woodstock’s errors are numerous and outrageous, including his new denial that the Mass is a time for instruction of the faithful. It does indeed have a didactic import.

Further, we are not denying the faithful anything. The faithful at a Tridentine Mass receive the FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY.

Period.

And, Woodstock, if you think receiving one species is contradictory to the command of Christ, or that not having the option of communion under both species is contradictory to the command of Christ, your view WOULD INDEED be h-e-r-e-s-y. It is also HERESY to argue that the “fullness” of the Holy Eucharist is not obtained if you receive under one species.

 

[Woodstock]

Of course baptized minors may receive!

I should have been more specific. Baptized infants, which according to canon law are age 0-7.

What percentage of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful if the species of wine be not proffered?

tee

Precisely one half of the commandment of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist is apparently denied and withheld from the body of believers this gift was given to in a TLM. Those commandments were to take and eat (the Bread which is His body) and to take and drink (the Wine which is His Blood, the blood of the new Covenant.) The laity are not being given the opportunity to drink from the cup of salvation, which Christ said he would come to drink with us in the Kingdom of his Father. This, like Christ’s baptism we just celebrated, was an epiphany or a revelation of Christ’s divinity and of the Trinity. With the calling down of the Holy Spirit, and the partaking of Christ’s blood, we will drink of the cup of salvation with the Father. By partaking of the Bread, we join in Christ’s life-giving death. It is like going down in the waters of Baptism. By drinking from the chalice, we join in the life of the Trinity and rejoice in his saving Blood. We rise from the waters with Christ, cleansed of our sins, and strengthened with the grace of our Lord. That the fullness of Christ is present in both does not negate that he instituted two species for the reception of the Eucharist, which the church continues to uphold and proclaim. The question is why the laity would be barred from partaking of it.

I’m seeing four reasons offered here to deny the laity the opportunity to receive this saving cup.

1. Christ’s Blood is in the consecrated Bread, so the people don’t need to be offered the Chalice as well.

My questions:
Then why did Christ give us the chalice as well?

Then why is the consumption of the Wine from the chalice required for a valid Mass?

Then what do you have to say about the depth of symbolism (more so than the bread even) Christ went into about the contents of the Chalice?

How does consuming the Bread fulfill Christ’s command to take and drink from this chalice? Does he not command to take and drink first and foremost, and only then explain what it is you are drinking?

1. The church can and did validly withhold the chalice in response to a heresy which held that only Christ’s Body was in the Bread and only Christ’s Blood was in the wine.

My questions:
Is this heresy common among the TLM congregations today who are being denied the Chalice?

Is this response to the heresy preferable to the original method of reception? Should it be presumed as good for the souls of the faithful to only receive under one species as opposed to both and need considerable evidence to overturn it, or should the original method of reception be presumed the preferable method which needs grave reason to overturn it?

Since the current problem facing the American RC church is a lack of belief in the True Presence in either species, does this previous response actually encourage the current heresy?

The Church has since returned to the original method where both species are preferably offered to the laity. The canons covering the TLM do not contain this allowance, making such a move an impossibility according to those here, because they are from the 1960s. Is it preferable to keep the church’s response to problems and heresies rooted in the problems it once faced or the problems it now faces? If new canons are drawn up for the TLM, will you support or deny the church’s valid redaction of this particular ruling?

Do you not believe that the liturgy is the place where the fullness of the faith can and should be lived? If that is the case, how does withholding the cup of salvation play in to* lex orandi, lex credendi*?

1. It is unwise to offer the chalice to communicants because of the possibility of them spilling it.

My questions:
Then why did Christ institute the Eucharist with Bread and Wine?

Would intinction not solve this practical problem while also maintaining the traditional role of the priest and laity?

1. You are such a literalist. You are taking the words of Institution way too seriously. The Church has since refined what Christ said.

My questions:
Do you believe the positive commandments of Christ (be baptized, do good works, have faith, eat of his body, drink of his cup) to be suggestions?

Do you not see the irony in your upholding local traditions (headcoverings, no pants for women–which I am not opposed to, fwiw) of Christ’s disciples over the modern traditions of your own land when you are willing to eschew the tradition of Christ himself (Bread and Wine offered to all) for a local and modern tradition?

 

[AlexV]

“The laity are not being given the opportunity to drink from the cup of salvation, which Christ said he would come to drink with us in the Kingdom of his Father.”

Heresy, plain and simple. If you receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, you ARE receiving the cup of salvation, the Blood of Christ. Period.

Nice of you to ignore my perfectly relevant comparison. Gouge your eye out lately? What, no? Wasn’t that a POSITIVE COMMAND of Christ? Picking and choosing, eh?

The CHURCH regulates Sacraments. Period. Your whole problem is you don’t accept that.

Thank God she does. If She didn’t, we’d have to scramble every single time someone read the Bible literally and thought “Hey…why don’t we do this? We’re disobeying Christ if we don’t!!”

The Church isn’t wrong, Woodstock. You are.

And remember…NOBODY BUT THE PRIEST has to receive Communion under EITHER species in order for the Mass to be valid. The faithful’s reception is not required for validity.

Finally, you are indeed in heresy, plain and simple, in your (obstinate) statements that it is not a “full” celebration, “full” anything unless both species are offered in Communion.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I should have been more specific. Baptized infants, which according to canon law are age 0-7.

Perhaps in the west, but not in the east. Nor, I believe, is viaticum withheld from infants, even in the west.

Precisely one half of the commandment of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist is apparently denied and withheld from the body of believers this gift was given to in a TLM.

Hmm, that didn’t answer my question. Please try again, with this fill-in-the-blank:

When the species of wine is not proffered, ___ % of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful.

tee

 

[Woodstock]

Alex,

I did not ignore you, but simply had not read your post when I started composing my own. However, I do not believe your post offers anything that your previous posts did not already state. I do not know of any questions in this thread which I have overlooked but can point out probably 2 dozen direct questions you have avoided. Now that we’ve clearly established that all here believe the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fully present in both the Bread and the Wine, would you please consider systematically answering the above questions as to why you believe it best to withhold the chalice from the laity? My most recent post is probably configured the easiest to determine and respond to the questions. I thank you in advance.

 

[AlexV]

I haven’t avoided anything…I’ve stated the Truth, while you have expressed objective heresies.

The Chalice can be withheld for any number of valid reasons (and again, with people running around claiming it’s “blasphemy” not to receive the Chalice, need we say more?), at the CHURCH’S disciplinary discretion. Not yours, not mine.

We’re not disobeying Christ’s commands.

There’s nothing left to answer here since your posts have a massively faulty premise:

1. We’re being disobedient if we don’t offer the faithful the Chalice and
2. The Eucharist isn’t “full” unless both species are offered.

False, and false. Heresy to claim otherwise.

Got it?

 

[Woodstock]

When the species of wine is not proffered, ___ % of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful.

Tee,

I’m happy to oblige.

When the species of wine is not proffered, 0% of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful.

Out of concern for the way others in the thread might respond, I want to clarify again that I believe the fullness of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity is found in both species and therefore the fullness of the Eucharist AND I believe that the fullness of the Eucharistic celebration (which includes the prayers of the faithful past, present, and future, the prayers of the angels and saints, the anemnesis of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, the partaking of His life-giving Body and His Saving Cup, the santification of our bodies, the remission of sins, etc, etc) is found in the Bread and in the Chalice.

 

[Walking_Home]

Woodstock----how about an answer to tee_eff_em’s question.

tee_eff_em Quote:

When the species of wine is not proffered, ___ % of the Eucharist is denied to the faithful.

tee

 

[Woodstock]

Got it?

No, Alex. I haven’t got your point. Why don’t you start talking about your beliefs and practices instead of mine, so that I might? A good place to begin a dialogue would be your response to the above questions. I need to go for a while, so don’t feel rushed. Just take them one at a time, please. Feel free to point out if I’ve misrepresented your position (the red) as well. Thanks!

I’m seeing four reasons offered here to deny the laity the opportunity to receive this saving cup.

1. Christ’s Blood is in the consecrated Bread, so the people don’t need to be offered the Chalice as well.

My questions:
Then why did Christ give us the chalice as well?

Then why is the consumption of the Wine from the chalice required for a valid Mass?

Then what do you have to say about the depth of symbolism (more so than the bread even) Christ went into about the contents of the Chalice?

How does consuming the Bread fulfill Christ’s command to take and drink from this chalice? Does he not command to take and drink first and foremost, and only then explain what it is you are drinking?

1. The church can and did validly withhold the chalice in response to a heresy which held that only Christ’s Body was in the Bread and only Christ’s Blood was in the wine.

My questions:
Is this heresy common among the TLM congregations today who are being denied the Chalice?

Is this response to the heresy preferable to the original method of reception? Should it be presumed as good for the souls of the faithful to only receive under one species as opposed to both and need considerable evidence to overturn it, or should the original method of reception be presumed the preferable method which needs grave reason to overturn it?

Since the current problem facing the American RC church is a lack of belief in the True Presence in either species, does this previous response actually encourage the current heresy?

The Church has since returned to the original method where both species are preferably offered to the laity. The canons covering the TLM do not contain this allowance, making such a move an impossibility according to those here, because they are from the 1960s. Is it preferable to keep the church’s response to problems and heresies rooted in the problems it once faced or the problems it now faces? If new canons are drawn up for the TLM, will you support or deny the church’s valid redaction of this particular ruling?

Do you not believe that the liturgy is the place where the fullness of the faith can and should be lived? If that is the case, how does withholding the cup of salvation play in to* lex orandi, lex credendi*?

1. It is unwise to offer the chalice to communicants because of the possibility of them spilling it.

My questions:
Then why did Christ institute the Eucharist with Bread and Wine?

Would intinction not solve this practical problem while also maintaining the traditional role of the priest and laity?

1. You are such a literalist. You are taking the words of Institution way too seriously. The Church has since refined what Christ said.

My questions:
Do you believe the positive commandments of Christ (be baptized, do good works, have faith, eat of his body, drink of his cup) to be suggestions?

Do you not see the irony in your upholding local traditions (headcoverings, no pants for women–which I am not opposed to, fwiw) of Christ’s disciples over the modern traditions of your own land when you are willing to eschew the tradition of Christ himself (Bread and Wine offered to all) for a local and modern tradition?