Eucharist via one species...

[Walking_Home]

Woodstock again—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

 

[AlexV]

First off, I believe Woodstock to be a provocateur. He has now stated the quite orthodox doctrine that the fullness of the Eucharist is received under either form. That does not accord with his earlier expressed views. The contradiction is welcome, since he’s now admitted Catholic doctrine.

Finally, and for the umpteenth time. WE ARE following Christ’s COMMAND to drink his Blood when we receive under EITHER form. Period. We’re not ignoring his command. We’re not downplaying it. We’re OBEYING it. The Church has defined that we eat his Body and drink his Blood whenever we receive Communion…under EITHER form. The EUCHARIST IS NOT DIVISIBLE.

As for the literalist argument…which is all Woodstock really has in his hand of cards…I come back to my point. Gouge out your eye lately? What, no? Then either you’ve never sinned with it (congratulations), or you are not obeying a “positive command” of Christ, who quite clearly said to gouge out eyes and chop off hands if you offend with them.

Woodstock clearly thinks something’s less than “right” or “ideal” or “perfect” with Communion under one species. Again, his view is not Catholic.

 

[Walking_Home]

Woodstock again—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

Quote=Woodstock
Tee,

I’m happy to oblige.

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

---

Woodstock—since you have answered tee. How about another question.

When the Chalice is not proffered—what % of God’s grace is denied to the faithful.

 

[Woodstock]

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

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

I’ll take this opportunity to point out that the East also requires the Eucharist be offered under both species. I don’t have time now but see that Alex also wrote again. However, I wanted to point out to WH my previous response found above.

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.

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 again—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

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ll take this opportunity to point out that the East also requires the Eucharist be offered under both species. I don’t have time now but see that Alex also wrote again. However, I wanted to point out to WH my previous response found above.

---

I already acknowledged your responsed to tee in post 83.

I now asked you the following question:

When the Chalice is not offered—what % of God’s grace is denied to the faithful.

 

[st_bernard]

---

I already acknowledged your responsed to tee in post 83.

I now asked you the following question:

When the Chalice is not offered—what % of God’s grace is denied to the faithful.

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

This is how scholasticism erodes Tradition…

1.) Establish a dualism (species vs. essense).

2.) The dualism separates what is ‘seen and definable’ (i.e. species: bread and wine) from what is ‘unseen and undefinable’ (divine element).

3.) By creating the dualism and establishing a distinction between what is species and essense one has already done grave harm to the value of the ‘signs’.

Once the signs have been devalued for what they are and what we are called to do with them we no longer appreciate the ‘act’ and seek only the acquirement of the ‘essense’ or ‘divine element’.

This is how Traditions are eroded and how Mysteries are destroyed.

We are called to be participates in the life of our Lord and Saviour. We are called to ‘eat and drink the Body and the Blood’ of Jesus Christ in the ‘eating and drinking of the bread and wine’.

There is no means of measurement of these things no matter how thoughtful the Latin Schoolmen were at the end of the day we are called to ‘eat and drink the bread and wine’.

To separate the species from the essense is the grave matter under discussion here and I and a handful of others lament the establishment of this dualism in the most Holy of Sacred Mysteries given to us by Christ.

If any true catechsis is in need is for us to cease to see these modest signs as a dualism and through that dualism to devalue them for what they are and what we have been called to do with them, ‘eat and drink the bread and wine’.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[HailMary]

Is the Blood not the cup of the New and Everylasting Convenant? Why should this be kept from us? Why would anyone not take it?

When Jesus said, “take this all of your” He was not talking to everyone in the world, just those who were the Priests of the New Covenant. The priest is req’d to drink from the chalice but we are not.

 

[AlexV]

Now “Mysteries are being destroyed”.

Now, once again, claims are made that we’re somehow not doing what Christ commanded.

Spare us your outrage. Spare us your heresy. Spare us your criticism of how the Angelic Doctor and others of his day have ruined “the Mysteries.”

I’ll stick with Aquinas…and the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

This is how scholasticism erodes Tradition…

1.) Establish a dualism (species vs. essense).

2.) The dualism separates what is ‘seen and definable’ (i.e. species: bread and wine) from what is ‘unseen and undefinable’ (divine element).

3.) By creating the dualism and establishing a distinction between what is species and essense one has already done grave harm to the value of the ‘signs’.

Once the signs have been devalued for what they are and what we are called to do with them we no longer appreciate the ‘act’ and seek only the acquirement of the ‘essense’ or ‘divine element’.

This is how Traditions are eroded and how Mysteries are destroyed.

We are called to be participates in the life of our Lord and Saviour. We are called to ‘eat and drink the Body and the Blood’ of Jesus Christ in the ‘eating and drinking of the bread and wine’.

There is no means of measurement of these things no matter how thoughtful the Latin Schoolmen were at the end of the day we are called to ‘eat and drink the bread and wine’.

To separate the species from the essense is the grave matter under discussion here and I and a handful of others lament the establishment of this dualism in the most Holy of Sacred Mysteries given to us by Christ.

If any true catechsis is in need is for us to cease to see these modest signs as a dualism and through that dualism to devalue them for what they are and what we have been called to do with them, ‘eat and drink the bread and wine’.

Pax Vobiscum

---

So then—did our Lord devalue His Blood when He said to eat His flesh and did not mention His Blood.

Was it grave matter for our Lord to not mention His Blood.

Did our Lord express dualism --and with this --devalue His Blood.

(DR) John 6

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.

 

[st_bernard]

---

So then—did our Lord devalue His Blood when He said to eat His flesh and did not mention His Blood.

Was it grave matter for our Lord to not mention His Blood.

Did our Lord express dualism --and with this --devalue His Blood.

(DR) John 6

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.

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not up for dissection and neither is the Sacred Word of God.

You cannot force Sacred Scripture to contradict Sacred Scripture. Your point is made mute in the very passages you fail to both which affirm and clarify the necessity of the ‘eating and drinking of the bread and wine’.

Your deception is offensive and your dualism is injurious to the Holy Sacrament.

If one desires not to participate in the whole Mass, and leaves early, such an act is injurious to the whole Mass. This is whither one has participated in the Holy Eucharist or not. The same act of discard toward the consecrated bread and wine is in the same light injurious to the whole Mass. To amend, cut short, discard the Order of the Sacraments can and I would posit is injurious to the faithful execution of the Sacraments by the Church.

I’m shocked that Traditionalists only exercise a limited appreciation of the Order of the Sacraments. As true Traditionalists we should always seek to secure the full Order of the Church and not only seek to establish what was tradition a generation ago.

The early Church, with the disciples, ate and drank the bread and wine. That example alone should be enough for us to know what is proper and just for the Church to do.

To fog this simple example of the execution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not proper. All the arguments and all the declarations fall which what was taught through example fails to be done in the Church of the Living God.

Vatican II knew this and humbly reinstitute a Liturgy which restored the Eucharist to it’s earlier form of ‘eating and drinking bread and wine’. The Church has spoken on this and has shown wisdom. I see no reason to make the Eucharist under one species ‘normative’ for it is not ‘normative’. It is enough to say that it is not ‘normative’. We need not speak of anything else. It is normative to encounter the Holy Eucharist under two species (bread and wine).

The Church for sometime has exercise ‘economy’ to serve the Holy Eucharist under one species. Yes it is within it’s ‘right’ and ‘power’ to exercise such ‘economy’ but we must recognize that in doing so the Church finds itself serving the Holy Eucharist by non-normative means (i.e. economy). Such economy should never be confused with what is normative for the Church and the Church, as a faithful Steward of the Sacred Sacraments, should always desire to return, in it’s own wisdom and through it’s own means to what is normative. I believe that Church has done just that by re-instituting the Holy Eucharist under two species.

To look at what is an exercise of ‘economy’ and claim it to be ‘normative’ is a grave error and allows for the erosion of ‘normative’ tradition and practice. This must be safeguarded by all means for the ‘normative’ tradition and practice is the rule not the exception.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[CatholicNick]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not up for dissection and neither is the Sacred Word of God.

You cannot force Sacred Scripture to contradict Sacred Scripture. Your point is made mute in the very passages you fail to both which affirm and clarify the necessity of the ‘eating and drinking of the bread and wine’.

Your deception is offensive and your dualism is injurious to the Holy Sacrament.

If one desires not to participate in the whole Mass, and leaves early, such an act is injurious to the whole Mass. This is whither one has participated in the Holy Eucharist or not. The same act of discard toward the consecrated bread and wine is in the same light injurious to the whole Mass. To amend, cut short, discard the Order of the Sacraments can and I would posit is injurious to the faithful execution of the Sacraments by the Church.

I’m shocked that Traditionalists only exercise a limited appreciation of the Order of the Sacraments. As true Traditionalists we should always seek to secure the full Order of the Church and not only seek to establish what was tradition a generation ago.

The early Church, with the disciples, ate and drank the bread and wine. That example alone should be enough for us to know what is proper and just for the Church to do.

To fog this simple example of the execution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not proper. All the arguments and all the declarations fall which what was taught through example fails to be done in the Church of the Living God.

Vatican II knew this and humbly reinstitute a Liturgy which restored the Eucharist to it’s earlier form of ‘eating and drinking bread and wine’. The Church has spoken on this and has shown wisdom. I see no reason to make the Eucharist under one species ‘normative’ for it is not ‘normative’. It is enough to say that it is not ‘normative’. We need not speak of anything else. It is normative to encounter the Holy Eucharist under two species (bread and wine).

The Church for sometime has exercise ‘economy’ to serve the Holy Eucharist under one species. Yes it is within it’s ‘right’ and ‘power’ to exercise such ‘economy’ but we must recognize that in doing so the Church finds itself serving the Holy Eucharist by non-normative means (i.e. economy). Such economy should never be confused with what is normative for the Church and the Church, as a faithful Steward of the Sacred Sacraments, should always desire to return, in it’s own wisdom and through it’s own means to what is normative. I believe that Church has done just that by re-instituting the Holy Eucharist under two species.

To look at what is an exercise of ‘economy’ and claim it to be ‘normative’ is a grave error and allows for the erosion of ‘normative’ tradition and practice. This must be safeguarded by all means for the ‘normative’ tradition and practice is the rule not the exception.

Pax Vobiscum

Ohhh… boy

You are treading a thin line. Your whole explanation is a reason why the Chalice was withheld from the laity in the first place.

There is no Dualism about recieveing only the Host, Our Lord is Truely present Body and Blood as the host. Truely, as Alex said, are drinking his Blood and eating his Body when we recieve the host.

No dualism whatsoever. None.

You are also falling pray to the prevalent error in this post-VII mindset, of archaelogism or antiquarianism. ‘Because of the way it used to be done, it is automatically better and must be done that way - and we must go back to that way’.

 

[CatholicNick]

May I suggest you read this st_bernard:

latin-mass-society.org/sanct8.htm

 

[Walking_Home]

st_bernard:
In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not up for dissection and neither is the Sacred Word of God.

You cannot force Sacred Scripture to contradict Sacred Scripture. Your point is made mute in the very passages you fail to both which affirm and clarify the necessity of the ‘eating and drinking of the bread and wine’.
Your deception is offensive and your dualism is injurious to the Holy Sacrament.

If one desires not to participate in the whole Mass, and leaves early, such an act is injurious to the whole Mass. This is whither one has participated in the Holy Eucharist or not. The same act of discard toward the consecrated bread and wine is in the same light injurious to the whole Mass. To amend, cut short, discard the Order of the Sacraments can and I would posit is injurious to the faithful execution of the Sacraments by the Church.

I’m shocked that Traditionalists only exercise a limited appreciation of the Order of the Sacraments. As true Traditionalists we should always seek to secure the full Order of the Church and not only seek to establish what was tradition a generation ago.

The early Church, with the disciples, ate and drank the bread and wine. That example alone should be enough for us to know what is proper and just for the Church to do.

To fog this simple example of the execution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not proper. All the arguments and all the declarations fall which what was taught through example fails to be done in the Church of the Living God.

Vatican II knew this and humbly reinstitute a Liturgy which restored the Eucharist to it’s earlier form of ‘eating and drinking bread and wine’. The Church has spoken on this and has shown wisdom. I see no reason to make the Eucharist under one species ‘normative’ for it is not ‘normative’. It is enough to say that it is not ‘normative’. We need not speak of anything else. It is normative to encounter the Holy Eucharist under two species (bread and wine).

The Church for sometime has exercise ‘economy’ to serve the Holy Eucharist under one species. Yes it is within it’s ‘right’ and ‘power’ to exercise such ‘economy’ but we must recognize that in doing so the Church finds itself serving the Holy Eucharist by non-normative means (i.e. economy). Such economy should never be confused with what is normative for the Church and the Church, as a faithful Steward of the Sacred Sacraments, should always desire to return, in it’s own wisdom and through it’s own means to what is normative. I believe that Church has done just that by re-instituting the Holy Eucharist under two species.

To look at what is an exercise of ‘economy’ and claim it to be ‘normative’ is a grave error and allows for the erosion of ‘normative’ tradition and practice. This must be safeguarded by all means for the ‘normative’ tradition and practice is the rule not the exception.

Pax Vobiscum

---

You call me deceptive. Your are the one pitting the Church against God. God’s word against God’s word.

I hope the Church soon realizes—the deception that is brewing within.

 

[st_bernard]

Ohhh… boy

You are treading a thin line. Your whole explanation is a reason why the Chalice was withheld from the laity in the first place.

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

Recognizing the ‘normative’ practice of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist should never be a reason to withhold anything.

There is no Dualism about recieveing only the Host, Our Lord is Truely present Body and Blood as the host. Truely, as Alex said, are drinking his Blood and eating his Body when we recieve the host.

So our Lord and Saviour was being redunant when he gave bread and wine to the disciples?

No dualism whatsoever. None.

When one separates the bread and wine from the salvific nature which they take upon themselves during the Sacrament I have to affirm that such is the creation of a dualism.

You are also falling pray to the prevalent error in this post-VII mindset, of archaelogism or antiquarianism. ‘Because of the way it used to be done, it is automatically better and must be done that way - and we must go back to that way’.

I have to disagee with you here. Sacred Scripture does not instruct us to error. There is a normative practice of the Holy Eucharist and it is under two species.

To suggest that we cannot practice the Sacrament in it’s normative form is absolutely absurd.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Walking_Home]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

Recognizing the ‘normative’ practice of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist should never be a reason to withhold anything.

So our Lord and Saviour was being redunant when he gave bread and wine to the disciples?

When one separates the bread and wine from the salvific nature which they take upon themselves during the Sacrament I have to affirm that such is the creation of a dualism.

I have to disagee with you here. Sacred Scripture does not instruct us to error. There is a normative practice of the Holy Eucharist and it is under two species.

To suggest that we cannot practice the Sacrament in it’s normative form is absolutely absurd.

Pax Vobiscum

---

I have a question for you.

When the Chalice is not offered —Do the laity recieve ALL the benefits of our Lord’s Grace . Yes or No.

 

[Resurrexit]

Walking home - yes.

Look, this really is not complicated.

One particle of either the Body or the Blood of Our Blessed Lord is the fullness of the sacrament. Only one is necessary for the grace and whatever else you’d care to mention.

It doesn’t matter what scripture says, the church has defined solemnly and infallibly that if you say differently, you’re a heretic.

End of thread methinks…

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking home - yes.

Look, this really is not complicated.

One particle of either the Body or the Blood of Our Blessed Lord is the fullness of the sacrament. Only one is necessary for the grace and whatever else you’d care to mention.

It doesn’t matter what scripture says, the church has defined solemnly and infallibly that if you say differently, you’re a heretic.

End of thread methinks…

---

Resurrexit—you may have misunderstood my intent. As a Catholic—I know full well what the Church teachings are on this matter.

I was asking St. Bernard—since He has a BIG MAJOR problem with the Chalice not being offered.

 

[Resurrexit]

Oh ok. Sorry.

 

[Walking_Home]

Oh ok. Sorry.

---

No problem —Resurrexit.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is really disturbing, coming from Catholics. It is Catholic teaching, to which we must submit, that the fullness of Divine Grace, Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is truly present in Both of the Sacred Species Together and Seperately, and that it is sufficient for the faithful to receive one* or* the other, or one and the other (where it is offered). It is a pastoral decision left to bishops as to whether the Chalice is offered to the laity or not. If not, it is not a less complete Sacrament and the laity, in receiving One of the Sacred Species instead of Two, have participated no more or less completely than their fellows in the neighboring diocese where the Chalice IS permitted to the laity. The Church teaches that it is a fuller sign, but she nowhere teaches that receving from only One is a lesser participation. Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if everyone who received Holy Communion at HH Pope John Paul II funeral also received from a chalice?

(And I receive from the Chalice every Sunday, so I’m not saying that the laity SHOULDN’T be given the Chalice)