Thank you, I honestly overlooked that post. Now, can you clarify further:
Modernism is a specific heresy condemned by the Church. It means what the Church says it means, not what some “traditionalists” like to think it means. I would urge you to read up on it. I have not offered any “modernist” opinion. Some “modernists” may hold the same opinion, but that does not LOGICALLY mean that the opinion is incorrect. I have maintained that communion in the hand is not inherently wrong or evil and neither is lay reception of the Chalice. It is not logical to assert that I am thereby a modernist or a protestant, though some modernists and protestants may hold the same opinion. This is just plain logic and I wish people would argue from that instead of just inflamed rhetoric. The “logic” you are employing is like this: Kirk believes birth control is wrong. Moslems believe birth control is wrong. Therefore, Kirk is a Moslem. Your assertion that the OF is a Protestant service is likewise logically flawed **if **you are asserting that it is ONTOLOGICALLY, that is to say, of itself or of its nature, Protestant, though I certainly concede that I have attended OF Masses (a few) whose spirit seemed to be similar to Protestant services. The written Mass, as it was meant to be celebrated and is celebrated in my parish and is becoming more and more celebrated elsewhere, does NOT in anyway resemble a Protestant service except insofar that it has things in common with the liturgical Protestant ecclesial communities because they have drawn on the same roots (which as Maurin has rightfully pointed out ARE CATHOLIC ROOTS). The EF has similarities with those same liturgical ecclesial communities.
/255_TeresaCommunion01.jpg)
again, only in your mind. your “modernist” “tactic” is ridiculous. twisting around what I said in order to try to make your point is, well, a modernist tactic which only works on those that Lily rightly labeled as “obtuse.”
The Eastern Churches do not extend the Chalice to the laity. Their manner of Holy Communion involves intinction in various forms, either by dipping or the use of a spoon. They do not receive in the hand and do not take the Chalice into their hands either.
I’ve followed the dialougue and I’ve responded appropriately and LOGICALLY. I have not employed what is, in essence, jingoistic nonsense that seeks to avoid having to confront the paucity of one’s own argument by villifying one’s opponent by name calling. Demonstrate where I did not respond in good faith.
With respect, Palmas, the issue was “both species to the laity.” In the West, that has generally meant that the laity drank from the Chalice, so that was the mode I spoke of. I have absolutely no problem with intinction either and generally believe that it would be a better idea (and the constant bickering about communion in the hand would also be dealt with, since the intincted Species could not be administered in any other way).The Eastern Churches do not extend the Chalice to the laity. Their manner of Holy Communion involves intinction in various forms, either by dipping or the use of a spoon. They do not receive in the hand and do not take the Chalice into their hands either.
So bringing them up as a comparison really doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Now if we in the Roman Church went to intinction, I would have no problem with that at all.
You have reworded the question. I asked nothing regarding the Church’s intent (the Church cannot intend for people to fall into error and it is classic Catholic teaching that Her disciplines, at the least, also cannot lead people into error). I asked, “Regarding the Church now, is She wrong in Her practice of generally extending the Chalice to the laity? Are the Eastern Churches wrong as well?”
YES, but only because it undermines the teaching that says our Blessed Lord is truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under both species. This means once you have taken of the precious body, you have taken of the whole sacrament.
No, Intinction is not wrong.
This cannot be correct according to classic, traditional Catholic teaching, which states that the Church can make no law, disciplinary or otherwise, contrary to Her Own teaching. If that is true and we are obligated to believe that it is, then we cannot believe that the extension of both species to the laity, in whatever form the Church elects to employ, is wrong.
Your “no” in this post contradicts your “yes” in the post immediately preceding it. Which is it?
Only some of the Eastern/Oriental Churches administer by intinction. All do not.
Well, YOU say that it is a better way of teaching. On the one hand, we have a tradition going back to Apostolic times of reception of both species, in the Eastern Church as well as in the Western Church up until the 1200s. We also have the Servant of God HH Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the “fuller sign.” On the other hand, we have the private opinion of a person on an internet forum, one who is frequently FACTUALLY incorrect. I think I’ll stick with the Church.
You’ve now gone and set yourself up as your own magisterium, Walking. That’s a dangerous place to be in.