There is no dogmatic teaching that the chalice must be offered to the laity. It is a disciplinary issue, and so may be debated as necessary. Otherwise, people might be able to push through changes in the Church behind everyone’s backs, and then hide behind the newly-created status quo claiming a fabricated moral high ground. We wouldn’t want that now, would we?In the spirit obedience and humility I accept the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church. Apparently you do not.
Actually, reading the last few posts, I contend that Walking_Home has been civilly debating with you the nature of “spiritual benefits”, the importance of “signs”, and what exactly the “sign” of communion under both species leads people to - a better understanding of Church theology, or misunderstanding?There is a teaching that the Church has unequivocally expressed that the body and blood MAY be offered at communion. Whether to do so may be debated, and the decision to do so or not rests witht he pastor as a disciplinary issue. That is not what Walking_Home is doing. Rather he is disagreeing that the option should be available and accusing those who don’t dane to question the right to the option of being heretics. That is simply failing to exercise the degree of humility we are called upon to exercise in deference to the Church.
Now, I have to admit that is one of the slickest ways of wiggling out of a question I have seen in a while. :clapping:
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable --because I don’t go falling into the presumption of using and manipulating our Lord Christ in such a manner.
Your analogy falls flat. Receiving once a year is a “minimum”. Receiving the whole Christ under one species is not a “minimum”; it’s all you need. You do not gain more, except perhaps psychologically out of misunderstanding doctrine, from receiving under both.I agree whole heartedly with the Church that one should not be required to receive the Cup; one is not even required to receive the Eucharist except once a year. That is the absolute minimum. But you are not required to receive more than once a year.
Your logical skills are severely lacking. The issue at hand is whether the Church should offer the chalice, not whether you should refuse it when offered. This is the last time I intend to correct you on this, because apparently you are immune to discourse.The issue I proposed is not about whether or not the apparition would be the cause of your receiving. The issue is if Christ presented it Himself, would you refuse Him?
My skills are not anywhere near as lacking as time to spend on these posts. Nor am I imune to discourse; I just don’t physically have much time right now.Your analogy falls flat. Receiving once a year is a “minimum”. Receiving the whole Christ under one species is not a “minimum”; it’s all you need. You do not gain more, except perhaps psychologically out of misunderstanding doctrine, from receiving under both.
Otherwise, your argument is vulnerable to reductio ad absurdum: perhaps everyone should be allowed to make several rounds at communion? After all, more is better, right?
Your logical skills are severely lacking. The issue at hand is whether the Church should offer the chalice, not whether you should refuse it when offered. This is the last time I intend to correct you on this, because apparently you are immune to discourse.
The Tridentine Rite does not have laity receiving under both species.Christ saw fit to give us the Eucharist under two species. It is simply eye wash that receiving from the Cup was only intended for the Apostles, or for the priest; history of 2000 years of actual Church practice shows otherwise.
I am aware of that; was that part of the discussion herein? I may have missed it.The Tridentine Rite does not have laity receiving under both species.
Yes.I am aware of that; was that part of the discussion herein? I may have missed it.
This is untrue if the Tridentine Rite, in practice for part of the history of the Church, did not provide the chalice to the laity.If Christ gave it to the Church in two species, and the Church for 2000 years has seen fit to provide it to the laity,
The Church does not consist totally of the Roman rite. It also consists of the Eastern rites, which have maintained itYes.
This is untrue if the Tridentine Rite, in practice for part of the history of the Church, did not provide the chalice to the laity.
I don’t think we know, conclusively, that the Apostles always administered both species. 1 Cor 11:27 implies otherwise:If Communion under both species was good enough for Christ, and good enough for the Apostles who distributed Communion under both species, and ggod enough for the early Church, then why is it no longer good enough for the Church?
By consistently using “The Church” you imply the whole Church. The whole Church has not offered both species to the laity for 2000 years. That part of it has does not imply that all of it should.The Church does not consist totally of the Roman rite. It also consists of the Eastern rites, which have maintained it
Now, I have to admit that is one of the slickest ways of wiggling out of a question I have seen in a while. :clapping:
**Manipulating Christ? Oh, please… **
Christ gave a long run up to the Last Supper; evidence of the Eucharist is scattered throughout the Gospels and the passage from John 6 is, IMHO the most powerful passage. That Christ intended the Eucharist as a sacred meal is without any doubt (and don’t bother coming back about the issue of sacrifice, because I am neither denying it nor is it an issue about receivinign the Cup).
I agree whole heartedly with the Church that one should not be required to receive the Cup; one is not even required to receive the Eucharist except once a year. That is the absolute minimum. But you are not required to receive more than once a year.
The issue I proposed is not about whether or not the apparition would be the cause of your receiving. The issue is if Christ presented it Himself, would you refuse Him? I asked it elsewhere; the person I proposed it to got what I was asking, which is to take a look at the issue from a different perspective. My question made sense to them. Maybe it doesn’t make sense to you. Or maybe, you just don’t wnat to answer it. That is fine too; I don’t need the answer. I already answered it.
I disagree with you: since part of it has all along, and part of it has for the majority of time, there is ample evidence that barring a specific issue such as the heretical problems at and near the time of Trent, that it is a good and worthy thing.By consistently using “The Church” you imply the whole Church. The whole Church has not offered both species to the laity for 2000 years. That part of it has does not imply that all of it should.
otjm-It is not required. It is what Christ did. If Christ did it and the Church - all of it - followed the practice for a very long time, the question needs to be asked: Why did Christ institute it that way, and since it is reasonable to presume the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit,** why did the Church follow Christ’s institution for so long if it is something that some feel should be reprobated**? I seriously doubt that any of the reasons to reprobate it which have been supplied herein are new ideas.
(Wording changed because you falsely imply that only offering under both species fulfills Christ’s institution of the Eucharist)the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit, why did the Church [offer under both species] if it is something that some feel should be reprobated?
You are casting your opinion as that of the Church, and then accusing people of disagreeing with the Church rather than with you. Make no mistake, otjm, any disagreement I voice is with you and people who share your belief. I am not arguing against the wisdom of Holy Mother Church.In essence, I am asking people to consider that maybe, just maybe, the Church has a bit more wisdom than they do.
Christ institued the Eucharist with both the Host and the Cup; He did not say “Either eat or drink…” and we can both agree that the theology of the Eucharist says that reception of one or the other form is receipt of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. I did not falsely imply anything; you are reading into my statement. Let me try it another way: He instituted it under two species. Why did He do that? If one was enough, don’t you think He could figure that out? And don’t you think he foresaw the Church doing likewise? I really get the feeling some in here don’t; I am also getting the feeling you are looking for an arguement.otjm-
In offering the Sacrament, the Church necessarily follows Christ’s institution because only God institutes the Sacraments. Whether the chalice is offered has no bearing on whether the Church is following Christ’s command
(Wording changed because you falsely imply that only offering under both species fulfills Christ’s institution of the Eucharist)
Since you and I both know the answer to that (the Tridentine Mass) - I had it in a previous post - your question is simply argumentative. And no, that does not turn the argument around. I am not portraying my ideas as the Church’s ideas; I have actually read what the Church has had to say about this. You might do so too, and then reflect upon it.Why did the Church, in the Tridentine Rite, not allow the laity to receive under the species of wine if it’s so good? See, your argument can be turned right around against you. It is highly advisable for you to stop portraying your ideas as those of the Church, because the Church has engaged in both practices (one and two species).
Christ institued the Eucharist with both the Host and the Cup; He did not say “Either eat or drink…” and we can both agree that the theology of the Eucharist says that reception of one or the other form is receipt of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. I did not falsely imply anything; you are reading into my statement. Let me try it another way: He instituted it under two species. Why did He do that? If one was enough, don’t you think He could figure that out? And don’t you think he foresaw the Church doing likewise? I really get the feeling some in here don’t; I am also getting the feeling you are looking for an arguement.
that is not my intent, and I think any plain reading of what I have said would only cause that in someone who doesn’t want to receive from the Cup and doesn’t want to really address the issue again.
It seems to be coming across – that reception via one species is “spiting” the gospel.
Sounds about the same as what Matin Luther wanted those of his time to do.that is not my intent, and I think any plain reading of what I have said would only cause that in someone who doesn’t want to receive from the Cup and doesn’t want to really address the issue again.
Faith is not an accumulation of information; nor is the practice of the faith the following of rules. Faith is a gift from God, and is in part the ability to accept what we cannot prove - the existence of God; His love for us; that Christ was both man and God; etc. etc.
Some seem to feel that rules are more important in and of themselves than what the rules are about.The church teaches that the Mass is the sum and summit of the faith. I am trying to get people out of the mechanics of the Mass and into the mystery of the Mass. Why did Christ do what He did? What does it really mean for us? Why has the Church done likewise for 2000 years? How does an issue of 500 years ago impact what we do today, and why, and what should be the impact?
Is faith reduced to a theological maxim about the Eucharist, or is there more to it than that? Or to put it another way, yes, theologically anyone is correct in receiving only one species; but did Christ ask us to be theologically correct, or did He provide something else , something more, that we can miss by trying to reduce it to a theologically correct position?
In the Gospel, we find that even the devil can quote Scripture - so we know even the devil knows Scripture. And the Pharisees were particularly good at knowing every possible in and out of Judaic Law. Christ had a few things to say to them about how they used that knowledge - is there any relevance between that and our postions today, of standing on a theologically correct position? Any at all? Maybe not. I would hope not. All I want to do is challenge people to look at the issue from some perspective other than a theologically defended position.