Eucharist via one species...

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fr_Ambrose said:
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. …
Click to expand...
What’s next?
The SSPX is the Western kidney, the SSPV is the southern bladder.
Sounding like Sesame Street anatomy class.
I always thought we had an Eastern organ in the Eastern Rites. What is their organ called? Don’t answer. I don’t wanna know.
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is so,
  1. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith (as the Confession of Dositheus became more widely known after it was sent to the Anglicans fifty years after its 1672 adoption) states:
“Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine.” Thus the Lord is in the Eucharist with all His being, and He is in each and every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same worship and honor which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. "
  1. This is from the writings of the Greek theologian Dyobouniotes:–
"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence and worship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion. The faithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, by virtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread and wine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly but
concretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not as regarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union, so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence with soul and Divinity, in every particle of the Consecrated Elements.

“The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements are transmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undivided from His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituent elements, His soul and His Divinity, Body and Blood undivided.”
  1. Fr Michael Pomazansky’s “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (used as a textbook in some American seminaries):-
"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being, that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparably united to His humanity.

“… those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being, that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man.”

“… to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the same honour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”
 
TNT said:
What’s next?
The SSPX is the Western kidney, the SSPV is the southern bladder.
Sounding like Sesame Street anatomy class.
I always thought we had an Eastern organ in the Eastern Rites. What is their organ called? Don’t answer. I don’t wanna know.
Click to expand...
What would be your take on these words of the late great Pope John Paul II? He frequently used the expression about the two lungs of the Church. Sometimes he used it to refer to the Eastern Catholic Churches and sometimes the Orthodox.
  1. The other event which I am pleased to recall is the celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus’ (988-1988). The Catholic Church, and this Apostolic See in particular, desired to take part in the Jubilee celebrations and also sought to emphasize that the Baptism conferred on Saint Vladimir in Kiev was a key event in the evangelization of the world. The great Slav nations of Eastern Europe owe their faith to this event, as do the peoples living beyond the Ural Mountains and as far as Alaska.
**In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! **In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus’ it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus’.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Russians would send a gunboat to collect them all and relocate them in remote villages in the Caucasus. 😃
 
I had no idea that the catholic church was incomplete and missing a non-essential organ. I was never taught that.
In any case, since the catholic church is now incomplete I might as well add that the catholic church must operate with both kidneys; the SSPX being the western kidney. I hope to God people have 2 kidneys…or is it 2 livers or 2 bladders?
How about the Anglican high church? Let’s give them an organ so’s to get this defective church whole again. Their pretty close so we’ll offer to make them the right arm.
If the Lutherans would use more colorful robes or sport beards we’d make them the leftist arm.

BTW:
Didn’t Rome add both species to quiet all the nay-sayers? Here we are still angelqueen.org
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Yes, that is so,
  1. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith (as the Confession of Dositheus became more widely known after it was sent to the Anglicans fifty years after its 1672 adoption) states:
“Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine.” Thus the Lord is in the Eucharist with all His being, and He is in each and every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same worship and honor which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. "
  1. This is from the writings of the Greek theologian Dyobouniotes:–
"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence and worship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion. The faithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, by virtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread and wine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly but
concretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not as regarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union, so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence with soul and Divinity, in every particle of the Consecrated Elements.

“The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements are transmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undivided from His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituent elements, His soul and His Divinity, Body and Blood undivided.”
  1. Fr Michael Pomazansky’s “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (used as a textbook in some American seminaries):-
"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being, that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparably united to His humanity.

“… those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being, that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man.”

“… to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the same honour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church in Her history —has had to suppress what is known as the Ultraquist heresy. The Ultraquists held to a belief that only thru the reception of both species —would our Lord be entirely received. This led to the Chalice being withdrawn from the laity—so that in time the doctrine of our Lord being fully present in each species —be integrated back to the laity.
 
TNT said:
Boy, it’s gettin late. Even the adult clergy are crumbling.
Click to expand...
No, no! It happened less than a hundred years ago. The Name Worshipping heresy was spreading through the Russian monks on Mount Athos, the Holy Mountain full of monasteries in Greece. In 1913 the Russian tsar sent a few gunboats, rounded them all up and exiled them to remote Caucasian villages.

It’s quite exciting reading! 😃

Heresy on Mt. Athos:
Conflict over the Name of God
Among Russian Monks and Hierarchs,
1912-1914
samizdat.com/imiaslavtsy.html

But, we’re getting offtopic…
 
Walking_Home said:
The Catholic Church in Her history —has had to suppress what is known as the Ultraquist heresy. The Ultraquists held to a belief that only thru the reception of both species —would our Lord be entirely received. This led to the Chalice being withdrawn from the laity—so that in time the doctrine of our Lord being fully present in each species —be integrated back to the laity.
Click to expand...
It seems odd that in order to combat a heresy it was necessary to change the practice of the Church since apostolic times and ignore the instructions of “eat and drink” given by our Lord at the Last Supper.

I looked up Ultraquist and I see it was a 15th century heresy. After 1500 years of giving the laity communion in both kinds, surely some other way could have been found to fight the heresy than to deny the chalice to the laity?
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
It seems odd that in order to combat a heresy it was necessary to change the practice of the Church since apostolic times and ignore the instructions of “eat and drink” given by our Lord at the Last Supper.

I looked up Ultraquist and I see it was a 15th century heresy. After 1500 years of giving the laity communion in both kinds, surely some other way could have been found to fight the heresy than to deny the chalice to the laity?/QUOTE]​

I don’t know Fr. Ambrose. I can only put my faith in—that the Church did what was necessary. She could have tried other means —that did not work and were unsuccessful. Withdrawing the Chalice may have been the only way that enforced our doctrine.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn’t matter WHO denied what or whatever about the Immaculate Conception. Once the pope solemnly defined it as a dogma of the faith ex cathedra, it MUST receive the assent of all and it becomes the TRADITIONAL belief…from the Latin for that which is HANDED DOWN.

As for Communion under both species, IRRELEVANT what other churches do, Utterly irrelevant. Trent defined that you are anathema if you argue one species is against divine precept. Roma locuta est; causa finita est.

I suggest you spend more time critiquing those who think it “blasphemous” to receive under one species.
 
AlexV said:
It doesn’t matter WHO denied what or whatever about the Immaculate Conception. Once the pope solemnly defined it as a dogma of the faith ex cathedra, it MUST receive the assent of all and it becomes the TRADITIONAL belief…from the Latin for that which is HANDED DOWN.

As for Communion under both species, IRRELEVANT what other churches do, Utterly irrelevant. Trent defined that you are anathema if you argue one species is against divine precept. Roma locuta est; causa finita est.

I suggest you spend more time critiquing those who think it “blasphemous” to receive under one species.
Click to expand...
Well put.

A dogma is a truth that has been made known by the Teaching authority of the Church. No one can go to Heaven unless he consents to all of the Truth taught by the Church. At the times of men like St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma thus they were not bound to believe it. We are.
 
HailMary said:
Well put.

A dogma is a truth that has been made known by the Teaching authority of the Church. No one can go to Heaven unless he consents to all of the Truth taught by the Church. At the times of men like St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma thus they were not bound to believe it. We are.
Click to expand...
At the time of Saint John Chrysostom almost nothing was defined dogma. He lived before the great Ecumenical Councils and all the clarifications and definitions of dogma.

At one time the majority of Christians were Arian -they denied that Christ is divine. By your reasoning it would seem they were not bound to believe that Christ was God since it wasn’t yet a dogma? I am sure that there is a flaw in your reasoning somewhere? I think the problem is that you are not placing enough emphasis on Tradition as against dogma. After all, there is a lot in the Church which we believe because it comes to us from Tradition, but it has no dogmatic definition.
 
AlexV said:
I suggest you spend more time critiquing those who think it “blasphemous” to receive under one species.
Click to expand...
It is certainly a modern practice and outside the tradition of the Church -whether we are talking Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It is a practice only as old as 1450 (the time of the Ultraquist heresy if our correspondent is right.) That means that receiving in one species is only as old as Protestantism and for the overwhelminly majority of the Church’s history Catholics always received under both kinds.

Since this is such an untraditional practice why did you not return to communion in both kinds when the UItraquists had faded away?
 
AlexV said:
It doesn’t matter WHO denied what or whatever about the Immaculate Conception. Once the pope solemnly defined it as a dogma of the faith ex cathedra, it MUST receive the assent of all and it becomes the TRADITIONAL belief…from the Latin for that which is HANDED DOWN.
Click to expand...
This is where outsiders like me start to be bamboozled! If even Popes denied the Immaculate Conception in earlier times, how can it really be seen as traditional?

The council of Basel passed a decree in favor of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Eugenius IV (1431-47) had sent Cardinal Giovanni de Turrecremata to the council, and Turrecremata wrote a detailed treatise against the doctrine. Turrecremata was unable to present his dissertation to the council, as he was recalled because of a dispute between the council and the pope. **Pope Pius II **(1458-64) later honored Turrecremata with the title “Defender and Protector of the Faith.”

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono15.htm
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
This is where outsiders like me start to be bamboozled! If even Popes denied the Immaculate Conception in earlier times, how can it really be seen as traditional?

The council of Basel passed a decree in favor of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Eugenius IV (1431-47) had sent Cardinal Giovanni de Turrecremata to the council, and Turrecremata wrote a detailed treatise against the doctrine. Turrecremata was unable to present his dissertation to the council, as he was recalled because of a dispute between the council and the pope. **Pope Pius II **(1458-64) later honored Turrecremata with the title “Defender and Protector of the Faith.”

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono15.htm
Click to expand...
Your point is does not add anything to your argument since many of the Doctors of the Church were even wrong on this point.
The two referees at the council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious, consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
 
Walking_Home said:
The Catholic Church in Her history —has had to suppress what is known as the Ultraquist heresy. The Ultraquists held to a belief that only thru the reception of both species —would our Lord be entirely received. This led to the Chalice being withdrawn from the laity—so that in time the doctrine of our Lord being fully present in each species —be integrated back to the laity.
Click to expand...
Gratias et pax vobiscum,

Ah, now you have recognized that withdrawing the Chalice from the Laity was an Act of Economy by the Catholic Church, to be integrated back in time.

What you have written shows wisdom and an understanding of the powers and responsibilities of the Church as a guardian of the Norms of Traditional Doctrine (i.e. our Faith).

It is from this platform the Catholic Church builds a rational and insurmountable case for its judious exercise of Economy (economia) against this heresy and any critics of its execution of her canon but we and the Church cannot dispute our responsibility to return to enforce rigidly (akrivia) the Norm of the Eucharist under two species because ‘precision’ is the Norm. Any act of economy must always be drawn back to the norm. The Norm of our Sacramental Trust never changes, these were instituted by God, and they are sacred and immutable. Any deviation from that sacred Trust must be determined to be a valid act of economia or a breech but let us be clear that although any act of economia is valid in the eyes of the Church such leniency in our exercise of the Norms of Faith can never be seen nor spoken of as the Norm or Standard.

Again this is a discussion about validity or efficacy of our exercise of economy in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This is also ‘why’ the Church has Councils and Bishops to exercise economia when the rigid enforce of the Norm is not justified by the wisdom and mercy of God.

Again I continue to extend peace toward you and my other Catholic Brothers and Sisters.

Gratias et pax vobiscum
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
This is where outsiders like me start to be bamboozled! If even Popes denied the Immaculate Conception in earlier times, how can it really be seen as traditional?

The council of Basel passed a decree in favor of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Eugenius IV (1431-47) had sent Cardinal Giovanni de Turrecremata to the council, and Turrecremata wrote a detailed treatise against the doctrine. Turrecremata was unable to present his dissertation to the council, as he was recalled because of a dispute between the council and the pope. **Pope Pius II **(1458-64) later honored Turrecremata with the title “Defender and Protector of the Faith.”

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono15.htm
Click to expand...
Gratia vobis et pax adimpleatur in cognitione Domini nostri,

I find it unusual that you would turn to such an image of single-minded Papal Absolutism as Turrecremata as your advocate for Traditional Doctrine Father.

As much as I would like to discuss the Immaculate Conception of Mary and its roots within your own Troparia I would desire that we stay the course on this topic of the Eucharist via one species…

In my attempt to refocus this discussion back to the subject at hand let me ask if you agree that a valid Eucharist under one species as it has been practiced in the Tridentine Mass, is within the realm of Bishops right and power of economia in his exercise of canonical Norm of the Sacraments if such a heresy rose which appeared to split the unity of the divine nature found within the two species?

Is it within the realm of economia?

Gratias
 
I’d like to add a twist to this discussion, I know some people that think that when you receive under both species that you are receiving Our Lord twice! They think people are receiving two communions in the same Mass. Can anyone direct me to sources to refute this and help me to explain the Churches teaching on this(I tried the CCC but they don’t buy it) and show them how they are wrong? Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top