Is this a “Sacred Tradition”?

[Cachonga]

davidv:

That is not what has been offered to you. That is what you interpreted it to mean.

I have not been shown anything from Scripture (other than 1 Cor 11:27, which I’ve already shown to have been taken out of context). I have been offered Church teaching, some references to ECF’s (I am still waiting to see exactly where this is addressed), and “an historical process” (as explained by diggerdomer). What else can these “explanations” mean?

davidv:

The Church has not altered Jesus’ teaching. In fact, the Priest must consecrate both bread and wine for the Sacrament to be valid.

Good for him. But Jesus and Paul clearly showed that all the members of the body were to receive both kinds, not just the consecrating priest. Why are the lay people denied both kinds when Jesus instituted it that way, and Paul affirms that this is how it is to be enacted?

 

[tcm22]

Cachonga:

I have been offered what boils down to “Because the Church says so”, and I can’t accept that argument! If the “Church” is willing to alter the very teaching of Jesus, as well as the clear Apostolic tradition as shown from Sacred Scripture, then how can it be trusted to teach correctly on anything?

You’ve been offered much more than that, but choose to reject it. Your personal interpretation of scripture seems to imply that communion must be under both species. That isn’t, nor does it appear to have ever been the Church’s position. You’ve offered Scripture to support your position, and I’ve offered you alternative’s that support otherwise.

You dismiss the notion “because the Church says so,” yet fail to deal with the fact that faithful Catholics view the teachings of the Church to be as authoritative as the Scriptures.

As for the form of the Mass, you glossed over that point. While we are clearly instructed in several places in Scripture how we should worship, we certainly don’t maintain the same forms. The Apostles broke bread in their homes and the homes of believers. Are we somehow instituting some sort of non-Apostilic tradition by conducting Mass in a Church?

This is the danger of individual interpretation of Scripture without authority. If it was just a debate between you and I, we could agree to disagree. Unfortunately in this case, there is sound theology and history to back the Church’s current practice. You reject it based on your own specific interpretation of Scripture. That’s your choice. If you are looking for a Catholic explanation of communion in one specie, you’ve been given it.

Clearly this thread has turned into a venue for you to argue the point that the Catholic Church’s position regarding the form of communion is unscriptural vs a sincere effort to understand. Fine, point made.

 

[Cachonga]

tcm22:

You’ve been offered much more than that, but choose to reject it. Your personal interpretation of scripture seems to imply that communion must be under both species. That isn’t, nor does it appear to have ever been the Church’s position. You’ve offered Scripture to support your position, and I’ve offered you alternative’s that support otherwise.

I believe Scripture is inspired by God (if I’m not mistaken, this is accepted by the Catholic Church as well). Scripture clearly states that it is “God-Breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). If Scripture clearly shows that the people received both kinds, and this is how Jesus instituted the Eucharist, how can I trust any “alternative” authority that contadicts the written word?

tcm22:

You dismiss the notion “because the Church says so,” yet fail to deal with the fact that faithful Catholics view the teachings of the Church to be as authoritative as the Scriptures.

If the Church contradicts what is clearly stated in Scripture, how can it be considered authoritative?

tcm22:

As for the form of the Mass, you glossed over that point. While we are clearly instructed in several places in Scripture how we should worship, we certainly don’t maintain the same forms. The Apostles broke bread in their homes and the homes of believers. Are we somehow instituting some sort of non-Apostilic tradition by conducting Mass in a Church?

You say I glossed over the form of the Mass (which is not the topic of this thread), but then you state “we are clearly instructed in several places in Scripture how we should worship”, and yet you give no references.

tcm22:

This is the danger of individual interpretation of Scripture without authority. If it was just a debate between you and I, we could agree to disagree. Unfortunately in this case, there is sound theology and history to back the Church’s current practice. You reject it based on your own specific interpretation of Scripture. That’s your choice. If you are looking for a Catholic explanation of communion in one specie, you’ve been given it.

Why was it changed from both kinds to one? That is the question.

tcm22:

Clearly this thread has turned into a venue for you to argue the point that the Catholic Church’s position regarding the form of communion is unscriptural vs a sincere effort to understand. Fine, point made.

I am trying to understand why a Sacrament instituted by Jesus Himself is not being practiced in the way He established it (as confirmed by Paul).

 

[tcm22]

Please tell me what in Scripture dictates that valid communion REQUIRES both species? You cite scripture that shows that is how it was instituted, and that is how it is offered in the RCC. You haven’t substantiated my you feel communion in both forms is required to receive grace.

Your interpretation is that because John teaches communion of both body and blood that it HAS to be that way. That’s fine. Go ahead on your merry Protestant self-interpreted way. Others and I have shown you where, how and why the Church does not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture and offered logical reasons why communion in one form is acceptable. If you don’t accept that, fine.

If you don’t like the info you are getting here you should post a question in the “Ask an Apologist” forum. You won’t be able debate them, but they can offer great information.

 

[DOShea]

You misunderstand my question. Jesus instituted this sacrament with both bread and wine. Paul affirms this is to be the practice of the Church. Why is it no longer a common practice to receive both species? It’s not a question of receiving fullness of grace (though that seems a bit confusing as stated in the Catechism, and I am still curious how you can receive the “fullness of grace” by just receiving one species, but it’s “more complete” when you receive both. How can you be “more complete” if you’ve already received the “fullness of grace”?).

The reason cited for the single species versus both being the most common form is “for pastoral reasons.” This should not be too hard to imagine situations where requiring both could cause difficulty. If it’s one thing the Church is very consistent about, it is not making this sacrament into a sideshow. By that I mean, causing more or less attention focused on any one individual receiving it. So think about this… people take all kinds of prescription drugs for any number of reasons. Some of those medications lose their entire effective dose if taken with the slightest bit of alcohol. Some meds, like Antibuse, can cause one to become violently ill if alcohol is so much as sipped. Everyone under such treatment would be forced to forego the sacrament, or it could lead to focus on the individual as they publicly “deviate from the norm” in full view of a gathered congregation by “bypassing the cup” (if normally required of everyone else) as it were. That’s just one possibility; I’m sure there are many other good reasons for not turning sacramental celebration into circus.

The other part of your question, asking about how can something be “full” in one instance and “more complete” in another is explained very simply. You are making a presumption that both statements are referring to the exact same thing (grace), but they are not. The “full” refers to the Eucharistic grace, but the “more complete” refers to the “sign.” Remember, sacraments are outward, visible signs of the inner, invisible grace. So what the Church is saying is that while the grace in either case is identical, that outward sign is more complete in the case of both species.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1390, spells this out: (Italics mine)

Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. 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." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

If you compare this with some of the unusual circumstances where other sacraments are given, you will see there is a consistent emphasis on the inner grace as the most important part, while sometimes, out of necessity, letting the “usual” outward sign part of the sacrament be relaxed or even done away with.

Hope that helps you.

 

[wmscott]

Please tell me what in Scripture dictates that valid communion REQUIRES both species? You cite scripture that shows that is how it was instituted, and that is how it is offered in the RCC. You haven’t substantiated my you feel communion in both forms is required to receive grace.

Your interpretation is that because John teaches communion of both body and blood that it HAS to be that way. That’s fine. Go ahead on your merry Protestant self-interpreted way. Others and I have shown you where, how and why the Church does not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture and offered logical reasons why communion in one form is acceptable. If you don’t accept that, fine.

If you don’t like the info you are getting here you should post a question in the “Ask an Apologist” forum. You won’t be able debate them, but they can offer great information.

tcm, this may have already been stated, however one more time for those who just cannot get it. Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in either species. The person you are arguing with is an anti-Catholic who could really care less about what the Church teaches. He or she has an agenda to try to debunk Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Catholic Church using their own special brand of fallible impetrations of Sacred Scripture.

 

[tcm22]

tcm, this may have already been stated, however one more time for those who just cannot get it. Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in either species. The person you are arguing with is an anti-Catholic who could really care less about what the Church teaches. He or she has an agenda to try to debunk Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Catholic Church using their own special brand of fallible impetrations of Sacred Scripture.

:banghead:

Thanks for bringing me back to earth. I’m certainly no great apologist, but I thought I was responding to a sincere effort to understand. This is Catholic Answers Forums, right?

 

[tcm22]

To avoid being uncharitable or uncivil, I would offer the following as the best resource I’ve managed to find on the web. I thought it covered the question quite well. Interestingly (and like most present day questions of the faith) this is question that was answered centuries ago.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

This one is pretty succinct as well:
cathcorn.org/foof/22.html

 

[Corki]

Why was it changed from both kinds to one? That is the question.

I know this is a waste of time but just in case some one finds this thread later…

It wasn’t changed.

The only Communion that matter to the Mass is the priest’s Communion which is ALWAYS done with **both species **after **both species **are Consecrated. The custom of how Communion is shared with the faithful has changed many times. The answer to “why” has been different at different times in the last 2000 years. Sometimes, it was for pastoral reasons, sometimes for practical reasons, sometimes for theological concerns (to combat the ultraquist heresy, for example) and sometimes to gain a different sign value. But through all of these centuries and millions of Consecrations, the Eucharist remains the same: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Christ’s sacrifice cannot be divided.

 

[scrap_iron]

I feel that tmc answered the first question clearly in post #2
I think the answer to questions 2 & 3 is found in Luke 24: 29-32

**]But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” **

Since I see no mention of blessing the cup. I will answer the question this way:

1. When (and where) was bread only first practiced? (Or, When did the Church “infallibly” declare this to be acceptable?) On the road to Emmaus, at table by the risen Christ
2. If this is an Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition), which Apostle taught it? If it wasn’t practiced or taught by an Apostle, how can it be considered a “Sacred Tradition”? It is scriptural and not the result of any tradition.

 

[NHInsider]

Needless to say, anyone who has engaged Cachonga in “dialogue” knows that he/she has no actual interest in discussion or understanding, only in “scoring points.” However, it appears from the statement below that he/she thinks he/she requested documentation for my statement about Ireneus. (I’ve looked back and I don’t actually see any request, but nevermind that).

Meanwhile, I notice numerous suggestions that current practice denies the Cup to the faithful. At present I believe there are some dioceses where Communion is being offered only under the Host and in the hand because of the Swine Flu, is that what is being referrd to? Because otherwise Communion in the Cup is offered to the faithful in almost all dioceses in the United States and most other countries I’ve visited. It is at the discretion of the bishop and is only to be offered if it can be done practically and in an orderly fashion, but it is definitely not prohibitted as Cachonga seems to be suggesting.

If it wasn’t taught by the Apostles, how can it be anything else?

And I’ll say it again, I am not questioning the presence of Jesus in the species.

not in this thread, anyway. . . .

Since Jesus gave both bread AND wine, and Paul affirmed that this is to be the practice within the Church, why is it not the practice today?

see above - what makes you think it’s not?

What is unclear about this teaching in Scripture? Were Jesus and Paul ambiguous in what they clearly said and did? You make it very clear that you also rely on the “teaching of the Church”

Just curious - do you also insist on worshipping on the Sabbath, refrain from consuming foods that have not been slaughtered under kosher inspection, and regard only the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired? Because if not, one might well ask where in the pages of the New Testament you see either Jesus or the Apostles doing/approving any of those “changes.”

(even though no one has yet pointed to a single ECF that practiced the Eucharist as it is practiced today, although NHInsider made a reference, and I am waiting for the specific book and chapter to review it myself).

Because as with the interpretation of Scripture, only YOU are infallible?

Anyway, that would be Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 67. Reference is to deacons bringing “a portion” from the Eucharistic celebration to those unable to attend.

Why are the lay people denied both kinds when Jesus instituted it that way, and Paul affirms that this is how it is to be enacted?

They are not. This is a straw argument (but coming from you, that’s not a surprise.)

 

[Cachonga]

I apologize to everyone. Apparently I haven’t been very clear. I believe we all agree that, at the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the sacrament of communion, and that He did so with both bread and wine. It is also clear that both kinds were given to those present. In 1 Cor 11, we see Paul, first of all, upbraiding the Corinthians for not conducting themselves properly (some go hungry, some are drunk), and this is in the context of communion. He then explains, referring back to the Last Supper, how this sacrament is to be performed in the Church. While verse 27 says, “bread or wine” (paraphrased), it is not intended to stand alone. To read it as such is to remove it from the context of what Paul was addressing. To point to Luke 24:29-32 as evidence that it was OK to receive one kind only doesn’t work, unless you also want to claim that when your priest says grace over his meal and breaks bread, that this is also consecrated. I was looking for NHInsider to give his specific reference from Justin Martyr (sorry if I indicated it was from Iranaeus). I have looked at Chapter 67 in his first Apology, but I don’t see how “and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” indicate that only one kind was sent.

What I was trying to do was to see if it was possible to identify a truly Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. The sacrament was certainly instituted by Jesus, and practiced by the Apostles and the early Church. Doesn’t this qualify as a “Sacred” Tradition? Since Catholics accept “Sacred Tradition” as part of the Word of God (along with Sacred Scriptures), I would think you would want to be able to know what it is (or at least a part of it). As no one seems to be able to answer the question, and some of you feel you are banging your head against a wall, I will end my participation in this thread.

Pax!

 

[tcm22]

unless you also want to claim that when your priest says grace over his meal and breaks bread, that this is also consecrated

Another strawman. You’ve made your point and been offered explanations and resources to clarify and substantiate Church teaching on the matter. Clearly you choose not to accept those and seem adamant in asserting your own interpretation. I suspect you are not unclear on the Church’s reasoning, but are instead looking for someone to validate your own interpretation of the Scripture.