No wine at first communion mass?

[triumphguy]

Here is the website for St. Stephen’s Byzantine Catholic Church in Calgary

protomartyr.ca/St_Stephen_Protomartyr/Home.html

Thanks Brendan.

 

[arkwright]

He said, “Take and eat, this is my Body” and “Take and drink, This is my Blood”

.

Exactly .

Jesus took the consecrated bread and commanded that it be eaten .

Then He took the consecrated wine and commanded that it be drunk .

He did not just offer the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine . He commanded that both species be consumed .

It is high time that some on this forum had a close look at what Jesus commanded .

He is Lord and God to whom all are subject . His commands on this matter are clear and concise , and are to be obeyed .

 

[Brendan]

Exactly .

Jesus took the consecrated bread and commanded that it be eaten .

Then He took the consecrated wine and commanded that it be drunk .

He did not just offer the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine . He commanded that both species be consumed .

It is high time that some on this forum had a close look at what Jesus commanded .

He is Lord and God to whom all are subject . His commands on this matter are clear and concise , and are to be obeyed .

The Church already did look at this commandment. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church issued the results of that ‘close look’ at the Council of Trent

Here was what the Church determined

Council of Trent - Session 21

Canon 1. If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species, let him be anathema.
.

Take special note of Canon 2.

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[superamazingman]

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly. The church is here to interpret scripture for us, and in this case, she has made it clear that the correct interpretation is that receiving the eucharist under one form fulfills then obligation to “eat and drink.”

 

[arkwright]

The Church already did look at this commandment. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church issued the results of that ‘close look’ at the Council of Trent

Here was what the Church determined

Council of Trent - Session 21

Take special note of Canon 2.

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

 

[Brendan]

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

In which case, people on this forum HAVE looked at Christ’s command, and we agree with the Church (via Trent) that Christ’s command is fulfilled in the reception of a single species.

 

[superamazingman]

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

Are you a protestant? If not, then can you just trust the interpretation of the church, even if you don’t understand or agree? We are not a church of sola scriptura.

 

[arkwright]

In which case, people on this forum HAVE looked at Christ’s command, and we agree with the Church (via Trent) that Christ’s command is fulfilled in the reception of a single species.

You have not responded to my request , but never mind .

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ’s command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

 

[Brendan]

You have not responded to my request , but never mind .

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ’s command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

Can the Church, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fail to fulfill a command of Christ in matters of Faith or Morals?

 

[thistle]

You said:

It is not exactly what you said. You said suggesting to receive both plainly is heresy. If you meant otherwise, it is not clear by your statement, especially since you put the two sentences in separate paragraphs.

Wrong. My post meant that it is heresy to think that you must receive both species in order to receive the body AND blood of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why not?

As I said a few posts ago, our practices were made that way for a reason. Every action of every tradition has a symbolic meaning which points us to the spiritual truth. Often we do not perceive it intellectually, but the actions speak to the depths of our soul.

Wrong. My post meant that it is heresy to think that you must receive both species in order to receive the body AND blood of Christ.

Well, like I said, if that is your intention it is not clear by your post.

 

[jilly4ski]

Both species are not required because we receive the body AND blood of Jesus when consuming the Host.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.

Well, like I said, if that is your intention it is not clear by your post.

So I went back a reread what thistle posted, and quoted it above, as I thought I understood it the way thistle claims and didn’t know why you were objecting. If you read carefully, thistle says exactly what he meant to say. The use of the word “required” is the key word, and unless you missed that word, the meaning is clear.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.

I think you are being disingenuous to thistle and merely misread the post or was reading your own bias into it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So I went back a reread what thistle posted, and quoted it above, as I thought I understood it the way thistle claims and didn’t know why you were objecting. If you read carefully, thistle says exactly what he meant to say. The use of the word “required” is the key word, and unless you missed that word, the meaning is clear.

I think you are being disingenuous to thistle and merely misread the post or was reading your own bias into it.

No, I’m saying that his posts suggest that the teaching is merely about suggesting that receiving both species as a requirement is a heresy. That is not true, there are other qualifiers that form what is condemned and one of the posters here outlined it.

I am a business analyst by profession and writing to communicate things clearly is part of my job. I think the first biggest mistake by thisle here is separating the two sentences as two paragraphs. I don’t know if you did not take the paragraph separation into account. But to someone in my profession, that makes a world of difference.

 

[thistle]

No, I’m saying that his posts suggest that the teaching is merely about suggesting that receiving both species as a requirement is a heresy. That is not true, there are other qualifiers that form what is condemned and one of the posters here outlined it.

I am a business analyst by profession and writing to communicate things clearly is part of my job. I think the first biggest mistake by thisle here is separating the two sentences as two paragraphs. I don’t know if you did not take the paragraph separation into account. But to someone in my profession, that makes a world of difference.

You should probably change your profession then. I was a director of one of the world’s biggest investment banks and head of credit risk management for Asia so clarity in communication was vital.
Seems sad that you have drawn us into what our jobs are/were to make a point about something that was clear to everyone else except you.

 

[arkwright]

Can the Church, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fail to fulfill a command of Christ in matters of Faith or Morals?

Again you have avoided responding to another request I have made .

I take your evasion as an indication that you are unable to give a response because it would contradict some of the things you have said .

The following two posts are my requests .

 

[arkwright]

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

Please respond …

 

[arkwright]

You have not responded to my request , but never mind .

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ’s command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

Please respond .

 

[sasg]

I have followed this discussion closely as it is a topic that frequently comes up in my circles. When I discuss communion under both species with “traditional” Catholics, I often find myself defending communion under both species. And when I discuss it with so-called “liberal” Catholics, I find myself quoting the Council of Trent and defending the utter sufficiency and completeness of communion under only one species.

We should not change the traditions handed down to us by those who knew God and the Apostles more intimately than we do. There are reasons why traditions were established as such, why do we think we know better than those who lived in the First Century, those who actually interacted with the Apostles?

The ‘we’ you are referring to here is the college of Bishops acting in one accord with the Holy Father. Yes, I believe the Church knows more about how contemporary people should worship than the Apostles did. The Bishops are responsible for prescribing our form of worship in a way that will give the greatest spiritual benefit. If they see fit to withhold the Precious Blood from the people, for example to fight heresy, or to preserve the sanctity of Holy Communion, the Church has that right. So in response to your question, why do we think we know better, the answer is: because ‘we’ (the Church) is the Body of Christ, and is competent to prescribe such things.

The mere fact that there are Catholics who come on these forums and wonder if they are not saved because their parish does not offer communion under the species of wine, or who are inclined to believe that the Church is deviating from Jesus’ commandment in any way by not offering both species, is strong evidence that the Latin Church is, for whatever reason, inclined to a very particular heresy, the heresy of utraquism. It sprung up for a time 600 years ago, and after a mere 40 years of having both species seems to have re-emerged. If the Bishops see fit to take away the chalice for that reason (or any other), why do we think we know better?

Constantine, your line of thinking with regard to strict deference to ancient traditions sounds more Eastern than Latin. That may be the right course of action for the East, but in the west our tradition (if you will) is to be more flexible in terms of worship, for the greater benefit of the faithful. We should respect our traditions I know that you are not trying to “impose” an Eastern practice on the west, but in a way you are “imposing” Eastern thought to a Western question. You see this as theology “trumping” tradition, but we see this as theology illuminating what is essential in the sacrament and what is not, in order to both faithfully follow the tradition (of receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which we do under either or both species) as well as providing the most spiritual benefit to the faithful (or avoiding spiritual detriment).

My argument is based on the Council of Trent Session 21 Chapter 2:

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.

Now, on the question of whether there is any benefit to receiving under both species:

CCC 1390 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."222 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

This says a few things: 1) Communion under solely one species was legitimately established for pastoral reasons, meaning the Church judged that it was to our benefit to receive under only one species. 2) Receiving under both kinds is a “more complete” sign; therefore there are also benefits to the faithful to receiving under both kinds.

Now, is communion under one species contrary to Christ’s institution? Council of Trent Session 21:

Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species, let him be anathema.

It is a false assertion that under one species Christ is not received in accordance with his institution. This means that communion under one species absolutely is in accordance with Christ’s commandment to “take and eat” and “drink from it”. Although the sign is “more complete” under both species, it is no less a fulfillment of Christ’s commandment under one kind.

Is it possible to claim that communion under one species was an error, a mistake, or was done unjustly? Council of Trent Session 21:

Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Definitively, the Church was not in error to deny communion under both species, and was “moved by just causes and reasons.” To claim otherwise is to deny the teaching of the Council of Trent. You may claim that the conditions that justly moved the Church to restrict the chalice no longer exist; but you cannot claim that always and everywhere it is, was, and will be “better” to receive under both species, because at least at the time of the Council of Trent, it was not. In any case, that judgment is left to the Church, and if your opinion is contrary, you have a very high burden of proof to show that the Bishops are in error and you are correct. Not impossible, but a very high bar indeed.

 

[sasg]

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ’s command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

See the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 1. I’ve highlighted sections that may be helpful:

This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>,[4] also said: ;[5] and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,>[6] also said: ;[7] and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,[8] said, nevertheless: [9]

Christ commanded us not to eat bread and drink wine, but rather to eat his body and drink his precious blood. He provided two species for this sacrament, bread and wine; but (by the doctrine of concomitance) both his body and blood are present in either species. This is confirmed by the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 3:

It declares, moreover, that though our Redeemer at the last supper instituted and administered this sacrament to the Apostles under two forms, as has already been said, yet it must be acknowledged that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone,[12] and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation.

 

[superamazingman]

As I said a few posts ago, our practices were made that way for a reason. Every action of every tradition has a symbolic meaning which points us to the spiritual truth. Often we do not perceive it intellectually, but the actions speak to the depths of our soul.

And correct theology does not?