Novel Catholic Practices

[japhy]

The Catholic Church is likewise a COMMUNION of 23 (or so) Churches, so by the same token, you cannot refer to “the Catholic Church” as a single entity, either.

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. There is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Yes, this Church is a communion of 23 or so churches, but the Church is one, as the body is one though it has many parts. The confusion comes in, I suppose, because both the whole and the parts are called “church”, whereas in the body, the whole is called the “body” and the parts are called the “members”.

The Church is one because Christ is one, and His bride is one, and HIs body is one.

 

[Tepeyac]

That is, itself, questionable.

However, one of the Synoptics refers to the “Eortis tis Azymoi” (Feast of Unleavened Bread) and says Our Lord took ARTOS.

Note the contrasting words.

Doesn’t this imply that (even if “artos” originally meant “unlevened bread”) by this time there was a shift in meaning and “artos” had a broader meaning? Otherwise that Gospel would be stating that the Lord took unleavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and so he would be breaking the Law. I’d be surprised if that’s how the evangelist or his original readers understood it.

Besides the Latin Church, the Maronites and the Armenians also use unleavened bread.

 

[m134e5]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.
2. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

So…this forces the question: is the Orthodox Church, in fact, more in tune with original Christian litergical practice? Which leads to: is not the Orthodox Church the True Church? (I write this as a Catholic…one who is very curious as to what original Christianity was and one who believes that whatever original Christianity was…is what current Christianity should be…)

–Tex

It doesn’t matter to me if the Latin Church’s use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist isn’t apostolic. It’s been a part of the Latin Tradition for centuries, & has served it well.

It doesn’t matter to me if Baptism, Confirmation,& Eucharist are given to infants in other rites, and were in this one up to a certain time. Except for baptism, they are not given to infants anymore in the Latin Rite. I know many Latin Catholics who treasure the memory of their First Communion & Confirmation, who are very thankful they remember them. As an an adult convert, I’m very thankful that I can remember all three.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is, itself, questionable.

However, one of the Synoptics refers to the “Eortis tis Azymoi” (Feast of Unleavened Bread) and says Our Lord took ARTOS.

Note the contrasting words.

Also, of course, originally the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were separate and distinct. Passover had nothing to do with unleavened bread originally.

 

[japhy]

Also, of course, originally the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were separate and distinct. Passover had nothing to do with unleavened bread originally.

I don’t know why you preface that with “of course”. According to Exodus 12-13, the first Passover lamb was eaten with unleavened bread, and it was established by God that they should celebrate it every year with a week of unleavened bread.

So how were these two feasts originally separate and distinct?

 

[benedictgal]

Also, of course, originally the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were separate and distinct. Passover had nothing to do with unleavened bread originally.

Oh yes it did. The Lord commanded that Ancient Israel eat the Passover meal with unleavened bread. This Passover meal reached its ultimate fulfilment through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. He was both the True Lamb and the True Bread come down from heaven. Plus, because the Father dictated these norms to Moses, Jesus was not likely to disregard them since that would mean He, as God, would have to contradict Himself. And, that was not likely to ever happen.

 

[5Loaves]

catholics, correct me if i am wrong

we are one Church, however we celebrate it in different forms

The Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous particular Churches, churches sui iuris, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. In his Decree Ecclesiarum Orientalium on the Eastern Catholic Churches, Pope Paul VI repeatedly refers to the “individual Churches”, as does Venerable Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter *Orientale Lumen * refer to the “Eastern Churches”. We have our code of Canon Law: Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, CCEO, separate from the CIC Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church: CIC “Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.”

 

[5Loaves]

The poster referred to the Orthodox churches…’. But they still are in schism.

That is a Catholic perspective. The Orthodox perspective is that the Catholics left Orthodoxy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Oh yes it did. The Lord commanded that Ancient Israel eat the Passover meal with unleavened bread. This Passover meal reached its ultimate fulfilment through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. He was both the True Lamb and the True Bread come down from heaven. Plus, because the Father dictated these norms to Moses, Jesus was not likely to disregard them since that would mean He, as God, would have to contradict Himself. And, that was not likely to ever happen.

Jesus “disregarded” many commandments of the Old Testament.

Regardless of the account in Exodus 12, the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are widely considered to have originally been separate feasts. Of course, there are differences of opinions here, and anyone is free to believe what they want on that point. The Church doesn’t require either.

 

[japhy]

Regardless of the account in Exodus 12, the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are widely considered to have originally been separate feasts. Of course, there are differences of opinions here, and anyone is free to believe what they want on that point. The Church doesn’t require either.

Yes, let’s disregard Sacred Scripture, especially Exodus 12-13 and Exodus 23 and Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23 and Numbers 9 and Numbers 28 and Deuteronomy 16, all of which are describing times before Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan (regardless of when these texts were written).

When were they separate, diggerdomer?

 

[benedictgal]

Jesus “disregarded” many commandments of the Old Testament.

Regardless of the account in Exodus 12, the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are widely considered to have originally been separate feasts. Of course, there are differences of opinions here, and anyone is free to believe what they want on that point. The Church doesn’t require either.

That is not an accurate, let alone, true statement. Jesus never had any issues with the cultic, sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel. After all, His own Father dictated these norms and these rites foreshadowed the Sacrifice of Jesus, which translates into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What Jesus spoke out against was the Pharisees for taking the Levitical laws and precepts (applicable only to the priests) and forcing the people to adopt them as requirements.

1 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: 2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year. 3 Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. 5 And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year: according to which rite also you shall take a kid.

6 And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and **unleavened bread **with wild lettuce. 9 You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. 10 Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning. If there be any thing left, you shall burn it with fire.

This is an exerpt of the First Reading from the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper. The Synoptic Gospels do not mention a lamb being there, per se, because the True Lamb, the one foreshadowed in the first Passover, was already present, Jesus.

Therefore, with all due respect, your argument really does not hold much water.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, let’s disregard Sacred Scripture, especially Exodus 12-13 and Exodus 23 and Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23 and Numbers 9 and Numbers 28 and Deuteronomy 16, all of which are describing times before Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan (regardless of when these texts were written).

When were they separate, diggerdomer?

I’m not disregarding Scripture.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is not an accurate, let alone, true statement. Jesus never had any issues with the cultic, sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel. After all, His own Father dictated these norms and these rites foreshadowed the Sacrifice of Jesus, which translates into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What Jesus spoke out against was the Pharisees for taking the Levitical laws and precepts (applicable only to the priests) and forcing the people to adopt them as requirements.

This is an exerpt of the First Reading from the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper. The Synoptic Gospels do not mention a lamb being there, per se, because the True Lamb, the one foreshadowed in the first Passover, was already present, Jesus.

Therefore, with all due respect, your argument really does not hold much water.

Well the first easy example that comes to mind is Matthew 5 ff. Note how often Jesus says “you have heard it said” --meaning and referring to laws in the Pentateuch – “but I say…” meaning Jesus is authoritatively interpreting the Law in ways that might have been new to them and different than written in the Torah.

Laws not just for Levites/Priests, but for all bound by the covenant.

 

[EasterJoy]

Either
a) The Lord meant it when He told the Apostles that what they held loose on earth was held loose in Heaven AND later bishops in college with the Successor of Peter, hold that authority via Apostolic Succession, so that they have authority to lay down the norms of sacrament and liturgy even to this day
OR
b) surely the rites of the Church were so different by the time of the Schism compared to the same rites as practiced immediately after Pentecost that no one was truly “orthodox” by that time and, the line of succession having been broken, no one ever will be, so that nobody is Catholic any more and never will be.

I vote for (a).

 

[Alethiaphile]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.
2. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

I would add one more, which is the withholding of Chalice from the laity. That has no precedent in the apostolic Church, and it violates Christ’s command to “Eat… drink, all of you**”

 

[benedictgal]

Well the first easy example that comes to mind is Matthew 5 ff. Note how often Jesus says “you have heard it said” --meaning and referring to laws in the Pentateuch – “but I say…” meaning Jesus is authoritatively interpreting the Law in ways that might have been new to them and different than written in the Torah.

Laws not just for Levites/Priests, but for all bound by the covenant.

Again, Jesus was not referring to the Sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel, which was pointing and foreshadowing Him. Jesus was not speaking about these precepts and norms. After all, His own Father dicated them and God is not about to contradict Himself. Furthermore, the priestly class was bound by the ritual laws of purification.

Again, with all due respect, your argument really does not hold much water.

 

[benedictgal]

I would add one more, which is the withholding of Chalice from the laity. That has no precedent in the apostolic Church, and it violates Christ’s command to “Eat… drink, all of you**”

Actually, what you might have forgotten was that this was also an ordination liturgy. The only ones who should be eating and drinking are the priests. In fact, it is a reprobated abuse for the celebrant not to eat the Sacred Host nor drink the Precious Blood; he must consume both.

Furthermore, you also fall into heresy by not believing that the entir and complete Christ is fully present under either species.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, Jesus was not referring to the Sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel, which was pointing and foreshadowing Him. Jesus was not speaking about these precepts and norms. After all, His own Father dicated them and God is not about to contradict Himself. Furthermore, the priestly class was bound by the ritual laws of purification.

Again, with all due respect, your argument really does not hold much water.

What about the Last Supper? Jesus (as a Jewish lay man, not a priest) did something completely revolutionary and new in the context of a traditional Jewish ritual/liturgy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, what you might have forgotten was that this was also an ordination liturgy. The only ones who should be eating and drinking are the priests. In fact, it is a reprobated abuse for the celebrant not to eat the Sacred Host nor drink the Precious Blood; he must consume both.

Furthermore, you also fall into heresy by not believing that the entir and complete Christ is fully present under either species.

In the Bible, the Last Supper is not an ordination liturgy.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Quote:
Originally Posted by benedictgal
Actually, what you might have forgotten was that this was also an ordination liturgy. The only ones who should be eating and drinking are the priests. In fact, it is a reprobated abuse for the celebrant not to eat the Sacred Host nor drink the Precious Blood; he must consume both.

Furthermore, you also fall into heresy by not believing that the entir and complete Christ is fully present under either species.

In the Bible, the Last Supper is not an ordination liturgy.

Thank you. It is really disheartening sometimes how far afield some e-pologists go to defend the indefensible.