Eucharist via one species...

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
What I derive from reading your post is that the Church has been negligent in Her administration of the sacraments. This is just another ploy to cast doubt in the Church’s ability to abide by our Lord Christ.

That is how heresies start and florish. By casting doubt on the Church----thru the manipulation teachings, scripture and people.
Click to expand...
In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I wonder your response had you lived before the Holy Council of Trent? Would you have exercised such contempt toward the Counter-reformers of the Catholic Church when negligence had truly brought her dignity and holiness into dispute?

Would you have argue against such righteous reforms? Was the Church immune from such abuse then as you are so assured it is now? Is your knowledge of Church history so limited as to not have encountered evidence of periodic need for correction and reform?

Surely such need was a sign of past negligence of her shephards and the abuse and misuse of her flock.

Recognizing such realities is merely honesty and to deny them grave blindness. We can love the Church and be guardians of her as well.

You and some of the others here are too much the partisan and have allowed that role to fog your understanding of the Church and her need for vigilance of those who would protect her and keep her well.

Again Pax Vobiscum
 
chrisb said:
In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I wonder your response had you lived before the Holy Council of Trent? Would you have exercised such contempt toward the Counter-reformers of the Catholic Church when negligence had truly brought her dignity and holiness into dispute?

Would you have argue against such righteous reforms? Was the Church immune from such abuse then as you are so assured it is now? Is your knowledge of Church history so limited as to not have encountered evidence of periodic need for correction and reform?

Surely such need was a sign of past negligence of her shephards and the abuse and misuse of her flock.

Recognizing such realities is merely honesty and to deny them grave blindness. We can love the Church and be guardians of her as well.

You and some of the others here are too much the partisan and have allowed that role to fog your understanding of the Church and her need for vigilance of those who would protect her and keep her well.

Again Pax Vobiscum
Click to expand...
All you have done with this post is to verify—that some of you believe the Church has been negligent with Christ’s sacraments.

It does not matter how you phrase it. While you declare love for the Church—underneath—you are tearing at Her foundations.

I will say again:

That is how heresies start and florish. By casting doubt on the Church----thru the manipulation of teachings, scripture and people.
 
This is really getting good. I would have to say that I’m impressed by how interesting my little inquiry has become. 😛
 
Well, to get back to your orig. point + your devotion to Jewish practices…did the Jews eat the sacrifice & then drink its blood?
Just curious as I know little of phariseeisms
 
TNT said:
Well, to get back to your orig. point + your devotion to Jewish practices…did the Jews eat the sacrifice & then drink its blood?
Click to expand...
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Not I do believe that this is quite original to Christianity and the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, at least with the scope of semetic traditions.

Gratias
 
chrisb said:
This is really getting good. I would have to say that I’m impressed by how interesting my little inquiry has become. 😛
Click to expand...
I would say—It has been educational. I hope that all–who read this thread—come to realize—what is really going on in the Church.
 
AlexV said:
As for Bernard and the Immaculate Conception…the doctrine was not proclaimed until 1854. Before then, differences of opinion were permitted.

On the Eucharist…no such wiggle room exists.
Click to expand...
Until what century was it considered a sin not to receive both species?

What Council or papal declaration allowed the clergy to stop offering both species to the laity while still keeping both species as mandatory for the clergy? I am sure that the clergy would not have stopped giving the laity the precious Blood without a papal order.
 
AlexV said:
As for Bernard and the Immaculate Conception…the doctrine was not proclaimed until 1854. Before then, differences of opinion were permitted.
Click to expand...
And yet, Saint Bernard’s very vitriolic attack on the new doctrine of the Immaculate Conception shows us one thing - that it did not form part of the ancient tradition of the Church. If it did he would never have spoken as he did. He even speaks of it as an innovation invented in spite of the Church.

He said such things as “the Queen of Heaven does not need to be glorified with false glorifications.”

And “No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit…”

And “She [Mary] cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness.”
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Until what century was it considered a sin not to receive both species?

What Council or papal declaration allowed the clergy to stop offering both species to the laity while still keeping both species as mandatory for the clergy? I am sure that the clergy would not have stopped giving the laity the precious Blood without a papal order.
Click to expand...
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Not to avoid your inquiry Father but do you mind offering what you know was articulated in the Synod of Jerusalem regarding the Eucharistic teachings of the Council of Trent?

Gratias
 
st_bernard said:
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Not to avoid your inquiry Father but do you mind offering what you know was articulated in the Synod of Jerusalem regarding the Eucharistic teachings of the Council of Trent?
Click to expand...
Bernard, I am only a humble* tecum*! 🙂

Here is something on topic which was written to Pope Pius IX in response to a letter he had sent to the Eastern Patriarchs

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

" Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West."

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
 
Here is a second example of the Eastern Patriarchs making a strong protest to Rome about communion under one species. This one was in reply to a letter which Pope Leo XIII had sent them in 1895.

“XI. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord’s command, ‘Drink ye all of it,’ [12] imparted also of the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord’s command and the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient orthodox bishops of Rome.”

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
 
Now the truth begins to become more apparent: this thread has been manipulated by those who…judging from their posts on other fora…are basically partisans of the position that Rome…at least from Trent to Vatican II…wasn’t very Catholic…at least not “fully” Catholic…the way the Orthodox schismatics allegedly are.

As for the Immaculate Conception…Bernard wasn’t infallible. Pius IX was. Oh…but you Easterners have a problem with that, too.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Bernard, I am only a humble* tecum*! 🙂

Here is something on topic which was written to Pope Pius IX in response to a letter he had sent to the Eastern Patriarchs

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

" Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West."

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
Click to expand...
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

A very sobering read Father and much to be reflected upon.

gratias
 
Very sobering indeed.

An Eastern schismatic is listened to…the Holy Father ignored.

An Eastern schismatic is apparently exhibiting “authentic”, “full”, “obedient” Catholic orthopraxy…the Church of Rome isn’t.

Take your heresies and division elsewhere. In plain English.
 
AlexV said:
Now the truth begins to become more apparent: this thread has been manipulated by those who…judging from their posts on other fora…are basically partisans of the position that Rome…at least from Trent to Vatican II…wasn’t very Catholic…at least not “fully” Catholic…the way the Orthodox schismatics allegedly are.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa from me, and God bless you Alex. I am trying to make an intelligent contribution. I am emphasising the*** traditional*** side of things, in the Eastern lung of the Catholic Church. Their practices coincide with the Orthodox schismatics almost 100%.

When one stacks up the numbers the Roman Catholic Church is the odd man out when it gives comunion under one species only. The other 22 Catholic Churches (Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, etc) follow the traditional way and give both species.
As for the Immaculate Conception…Bernard wasn’t infallible. Pius IX was.
Click to expand...
My point was that when some of the greatest theologians such as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (not to mention Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Siena - all Doctors of the Church) deny the Immaculate Conception - it is difficult to maintain that it has always been the traditional belief.
 
AlexV said:
Very sobering indeed.

An Eastern schismatic is listened to…the Holy Father ignored.

An Eastern schismatic is apparently exhibiting “authentic”, “full”, “obedient” Catholic orthopraxy…the Church of Rome isn’t.

Take your heresies and division elsewhere. In plain English.
Click to expand...
I have spoken no heresy, dear Alex.

I wanted to draw the readers’ attention to the practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches (which are identical to the Orthodox in this respect.)

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches united with the Pope in Rome and these Churches give communion under both species and in the Catholic world it is only Rome which has another custom.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Until what century was it considered a sin not to receive both species?

What Council or papal declaration allowed the clergy to stop offering both species to the laity while still keeping both species as mandatory for the clergy? I am sure that the clergy would not have stopped giving the laity the precious Blood without a papal order.
Click to expand...
Fr. Ambrose. It is my understanding that the Orthodox just as we–hold to the doctrine that our Lord Christ is present in His entirety with all grace in each of the species.

What would the Orthodox do --if it became known—that within the Orthodox Church there was a movement teaching that the Precious Blood was our Lord’s Blood only and that the Bread was our Lord’s Body only. That only by consuming both species would He be entire.

How would the Orthodox Church deal with a situation like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top