Pope Gregory I..Innocent III "contradiction"

[MarcoPolo]

Can someone link me to a thread (I could not find one) or to something that can clarify the supposed contradiction between Popes Gregory I and Innoncent III???

This website reads: “Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated” as one of several examples of supposed Papal contradiction on faith or morals.

Obviously these statements are contextless, and I couldn’t find anything searching briefly myself. Are they legit? What is the context? Help, thanks.

 

[Evan]

I could see where both of these are true.

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated

because it is necessary that both bread and wine be available for the mass to be offered. These are the substances of the sacrament. It is also necessary that they are received by the celebrant in every mass.

Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated

because it is not required that everyone receive both accidents. I receive the entire body/blood/soul/divinity in any crumb of bread or drop of wine. If I do not receive the bread (as at Easter) or the wine (as I do other weeks of the year) I still receive Christ in his entirety.

I would guess that was the context of the messages being given by the popes. However, I would opine that neither was spoken infallibly by the popes, but as part of the ordinary teaching of the Church: infallible not due to papal proclamation but due to the Holy Spirit guided teaching of the Church into all truth.

Taught since the time of Christ, by all the bishops and popes.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would guess that was the context of the messages being given by the popes. However, I would opine that neither was spoken infallibly by the popes, but as part of the ordinary teaching of the Church

I like your explanation, and find it entirely plausible. I was just wondering if anyone knew where I could read the entire contexts since the anti-Catholic site that posted them provided no such quote or link.