how do you feel about this Vatican II change?

[distracted]

Peccavi,

this is not accurate. It was the deformers of the Church who introduced Communion under both Species to the Faithful.

Allow me some time to find Cranmer’s writings on this issue in order to confirm. Thanks.

please do… I don’t know much about this except that it has only been done in the past, say 35 yrs or so…

and as stated elsewhere, the issue is REVERENCE… There seems to be so little reverence for the Host or the Prec Blood… People don’t even go to confession before receiving anymore… Priests don’t encourage confession… Its done @ Easter and Christmas only…

I find it hard to believe people are THAT holy…

(Understatement of the Year!!)

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re hysterical! Do you think Scripture would have mentioned it? Or at least it would have been part of the Oral Tradition?

c’mon, digger.

No, I’m not hysterical. Thanks for your concern. I take Scripture for what it is, I don’t suppose it should or shouldn’t have included things I want it to.

If you want to think like that, I’d suggest that scripture sure should have included a lot more about Jesus’ life. We know next to nothing about him from the Gospels before he begins his ministry. We read about his birth and one episode as a child (in the Temple). But good grief there are decades of his life that the Gospels tell us absolutely nothing about. Sure, I think Scripture would have mentioned it, or these details would have been part of oral tradition…but hey they’re not and I’m ok with that. Ditto for all other details that we might want or think should be there.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

. It was the deformers of the Church who introduced Communion under both Species to the Faithful.

What?

Are you serious?

Who, exactly are you crediting with this change? I thought the Magisterium was the only group/people that could make a change like that. Communion under both kinds is authorized and regulated by the Magisterium, as I understand it.

Are you saying the Magisterium are deformers? Or are you saying that the Magisterium lost such control of the Church that we’re celebrating liturgy contrary to the Magisterium?

Thanks for any clarification.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

What?

Are you serious?

Who, exactly are you crediting with this change? I thought the Magisterium was the only group/people that could make a change like that. Communion under both kinds is authorized and regulated by the Magisterium, as I understand it.

Are you saying the Magisterium are deformers? Or are you saying that the Magisterium lost such control of the Church that we’re celebrating liturgy contrary to the Magisterium?

Thanks for any clarification.

Cheers

oy vay. are you serious?

 

[Phemie]

They were.

Permit me to underline my point

1390 of the CCC

But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Anyone else reminded of Luther?

I’m not sure what you are implying by your statement.

If one didn’t know the history of the Church your statement would lead one to think that Catholics never received Communion under both species until the 1970s.

In fact, for centuries one had the option to receive either/or, then to combat heresy they had to receive both then further along in history they had to receive under the species of bread alone, again to combat heresy.

Since we are all free to receive under the species of bread alone, and know for a fact that Jesus is completely present Body, Blood and Divinity in each, why make such a fuss about those who receive under both?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I heardthat the presence of Jesus goes away as soon as the Host is fully digested… so any liquid in the mouth is obviously going to make that happen a lot faster than if not…

While it is true that the Real Presence endures only as long as the elements persist, I am not any kind of nutritional/digestive expert, so I do not know how I can disabuse you of the perception that the two species together are digested remarkably faster than either one alone. I can only encourage that perhaps you do some research into the matter.

But I shall restate my question in larger type:
Do you find it problematic that the celebrating priest is obliged to consume both species? Why or why not?

tee

 

[diggerdomer]

oy vay. are you serious?

Yes.

Are you? Or are you intentionally not responding to my sincere questions?

Cheers

 

[daughteroftruth]

I’m not sure what you are implying by your statement.

If one didn’t know the history of the Church your statement would lead one to think that Catholics never received Communion under both species until the 1970s.

In fact, for centuries one had the option to receive either/or, then to combat heresy they had to receive both then further along in history they had to receive under the species of bread alone, again to combat heresy.

Since we are all free to receive under the species of bread alone, and know for a fact that Jesus is completely present Body, Blood and Divinity in each, why make such a fuss about those who receive under both?

John Paul II said that it was a *privilege *of the ordained to *touch *the sacred vessels. As we know, what, or rather Who, is in the vessel is more important than the vessel itself. We’re not ordained.

A mother doesn’t require from her two year old what she requires from her 15 year old. To tell the15 year old that she can go back to her behavior as a toddler is stupid. Same thing in all other aspects of life, spirituality included.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not sure what you are implying by your statement.

If one didn’t know the history of the Church your statement would lead one to think that Catholics never received Communion under both species until the 1970s.

In fact, for centuries one had the option to receive either/or, then to combat heresy they had to receive both then further along in history they had to receive under the species of bread alone, again to combat heresy.

Since we are all free to receive under the species of bread alone, and know for a fact that Jesus is completely present Body, Blood and Divinity in each, why make such a fuss about those who receive under both?

The fact that for so many centuries laity did not have the option to receive under both species was not due to combating heresy. It was a matter of scrupulosity, the perceived danger of scandal should the precious blood be spilled. That’s why the cup was withdrawn from the laity.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Yes.

Are you? Or are you intentionally not responding to my sincere questions?

Cheers

because your question is insulting, digger.

if you don’t know who Cranmer was, which is a possibility, then you should ask–I mean if you’re too lazy to google him. I’ll grant you that asking is easier, but you just jump the gun; shoot first and don’t even think to ask questions later. way to go.

 

[maurin]

The fact that for so many centuries laity did not have the option to receive under both species was not due to combating heresy. It was a matter of scrupulosity, the perceived danger of scandal should the precious blood be spilled. That’s why the cup was withdrawn from the laity.

Cheers

offer your proof. although these may be lesser reasons, offer your proof that they were the only reasons.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The fact that for so many centuries laity did not have the option to receive under both species was not due to combating heresy. It was a matter of scrupulosity, the perceived danger of scandal should the precious blood be spilled. That’s why the cup was withdrawn from the laity.

Cheers

It is my understanding that for centuries the faithful did not receive the sacrament with any frequency at all.

I wonder if Catholics 100 years ago thought the frequent, even daily, reception encouraged by Pope St Pius X was irreverent?

tee

 

[diggerdomer]

because your question is insulting, digger.

if you don’t know who Cranmer was, which is a possibility, then you should ask–I mean if you’re too lazy to google him. I’ll grant you that asking is easier, but you just jump the gun; shoot first and don’t even think to ask questions later. way to go.

I sincerely apologize if what I wrote came across as insulting. I absolutely in no way intended that. I hope you can forgive me. I was merely asking you the same question you asked me, and I did not consider your question insulting.

I’m not asking about Cranmer. I know who he is (thank you). Your message that I responded to didn’t mention Cranmer, though maybe I misread it. I was sincerely asking a question, which I still think you haven’t answered. That’s fine, if you don’t want to. I’m just here to learn and discuss.

Again, I sincerely apologize if anything I typed came across as insulting.
Cheers

 

[Benadam]

It is my understanding that for centuries the faithful did not receive the sacrament with any frequency at all.

I wonder if Catholics 100 years ago thought the frequent, even daily, reception encouraged by Pope St Pius X was irreverent?

tee

I have an orthodox friend from Africa who told me that they don’t generally offer the Eucharist to unmarried lay members because of the risk of sacrelidge. He also told me it is common that the Eucharist is recieved only once during their life.

 

[Leopard]

I have an orthodox friend from Africa who told me that they don’t generally offer the Eucharist to unmarried lay members because of the risk of sacrelidge. He also told me it is common that the Eucharist is recieved only once during their life.

Why would there be a greater risk of sacrilege for a single layperson to receive the Eucharist than for a married layperson or for a non-layperson?

 

[Benadam]

Why would there be a greater risk of sacrilege for a single layperson to receive the Eucharist than for a married layperson or for a non-layperson?

My friend said it is because the social environment for single people is assumed to have a higher risk for occassions of sin. They feel there is going to be too much unconfessed mortal sin among the single crowd. He told me even if you ask a Priest he probably will say no unless he is convinced you have no unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have an orthodox friend from Africa who told me that they don’t generally offer the Eucharist to unmarried lay members because of the risk of sacrelidge. He also told me it is common that the Eucharist is recieved only once during their life.

That sounds really goofy (and I in no way mean any disrespect). It’s just completely not in accord with Catholic teaching. Do you mean “Orthodox” ( as in non-Catholic) or “orthodox” (as in “right-believing”)?

Cheers

 

[maurin]

I sincerely apologize if what I wrote came across as insulting. I absolutely in no way intended that. I hope you can forgive me. I was merely asking you the same question you asked me, and I did not consider your question insulting.

I’m not asking about Cranmer. I know who he is (thank you). Your message that I responded to didn’t mention Cranmer, though maybe I misread it. I was sincerely asking a question, which I still think you haven’t answered. That’s fine, if you don’t want to. I’m just here to learn and discuss.

Again, I sincerely apologize if anything I typed came across as insulting.
Cheers

yes, digger it most certainly did mention Cranmer, and if you know who Cranmer was, then you would know that he was the deformer of the Mass and renamed it the Lord’s Supper as part of his book of common prayer.

You’re tactics are boorish.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…**

**Eastern Churches (both those in union with Rome and those not) have always received under both kinds at every single liturgy. **

It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

**1. What do you mean by that?

1. Where did you get this idea?

Does He “go away sooner” from the celebrating priest when he receives in both kinds?**

 

[maurin]

Digger, to refresh your memory:

Peccavi,

this is not accurate. **It was the deformers of the Church who introduced Communion under both Species to the Faithful.

Allow me some time to find Cranmer’s writings on this issue in order to confirm. Thanks**

What?

Are you serious?

Who, exactly are you crediting with this change? I thought the Magisterium was the only group/people that could make a change like that. Communion under both kinds is authorized and regulated by the Magisterium, as I understand it.

Are you saying the Magisterium are deformers? Or are you saying that the Magisterium lost such control of the Church that we’re celebrating liturgy contrary to the Magisterium?

Thanks for any clarification.

Cheers