"Wherever I go in the whole world..."

[JKirkLVNV]

Ok, I think I understand what you’re asking now, and I hope this will serve as answer.

It should be understood that my take on the issue is an unqualified take and is not necessarily the right take, but I’ve come to that conclusion, it’s my conclusion, and it need not be anyone else’s, although I suspect I’m not the only one who has reached the same or similar conclusion.

And you’re welcome. You are a gentleman. Most of us recognize that even while opposing you vehemently.

Thank you for clarifying that this is a private opinion and conclusion. That makes a world of difference.

 

[maurin]

Thank you for clarifying that this is a private opinion and conclusion. That makes a world of difference.

But if you go back to my original post, kirk, I stated in so many words that it was a private opinion; I believe my exact words were “my take on the subject…”

This is what I mean about honesty. I’m honest as I’m able to be (stress on ‘able’, i mess up). I just wish more others were so. We wouldn’t get into some of these sniping matches.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But if you go back to my original post, kirk, I stated in so many words that it was a private opinion; I believe my exact words were “my take on the subject…”

This is what I mean about honesty. I’m honest as I’m able to be (stress on ‘able’, i mess up). I just wish more others were so. We wouldn’t get into some of these sniping matches.

Well, sometimes we skim instead of reading carefully, too, so again, my apology if I misread you.

 

[palmas85]

Only some of the Eastern/Oriental Churches administer by intinction. All do not.

Which do not? And if not, how do they do it?

 

[Walking_Home]

A) You said “the fuller sign of our doctrine - by administering Holy Communion via one species.”

B) That was how the Church decided to deal with it at the time, to address that one error/heresy. She has since permitted the discipline that BOTH Sacred Species may be received by the laity (and the Eastern Church always has permitted it). You have not logically demonstrated that what you suggest is the BEST mode of instruction. I acknowledge that it COULD be one mode, but the Church seems to disagree with you that it is the BEST. You cited the example of the Holy Father, but again, the Chalice is never given at the large papal masses and the fact that the Holy See continues to permit our bishops to make the decision seems to indicate that the Holy See doesn’t see the issue the way you do.

Quote=JKirkLVNV
Our doctrine is not “communion via one species” in the sense you state.

---

Yes I said that (the bold part above)-- but isn’t our doctrine that our Lord is whole and complete in just one species. What mode better represents the fuller sign of that doctrine. In a previous post I had already stated what our doctrine is. Yet you “modified” what I said to mean something different —that the doctrine is “communion via one species” --and this I did not say.

You think that the method the Church used then --is not now adequate to fight off error in our time. It worked for centuries – until the return of the Chalice --coupled with insufficient and/or bad teachings resurfaced the errors. I agree with Trent --not receiving the Chalice is the best mode to suppress error. The Church (Trent) has already spoken on what is the best mode --the Church today **has not **spoken against this - so you are putting words in the Church’s mouth when you say —“the Church seems to disagree with you that it is the BEST”.

Quote=Walking_Home
the fuller sign according to our own doctrine–that our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and all Grace) in just one species.

 

[palmas85]

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).

You brought up the Eastern Churches Kirk, not me. To use them in any discussion of reception in the west is totally non productive and quite frankly divisive. We are not of the eastern traditions nor are they of ours. We are united in allegiance to the Holy Father, and the the Holy Mother Church but just about everything else is different in varying degrees.

If you want to use historical precedent to claim the righteousness of reception under both forms by the laity, then you also of necessity must look at why the practice was stopped in the first place. You do know wht it was stopped don’t you Kirk? Then look at the situation today when many people apparently believe, as many of them did then that you MUST receive under both species in order to fully receive the graces of the Communion…

If I remember correctly Kirk, when permission was first given to allow this form of reception once again, it was predicated on the laity being well catechized in what exactly is going on in the process, so that they could understood it.

To date, that has not happened in the overwhelming majority of cases.

 

[maurin]

What makes you think that “modernist changes” are what attracted me to the Church? You very nearly sound as though you believe that those of us who converted since Vatican II are somehow lesser Catholics. You also have NO evidence that it was the changes that have reduced belief in the Real Presence

I missed this post yesterday, to my embarrassment. I would like to publicly apologize if I have given this impression to kirk, or to any convert to God’s Holy Faith. Although I understand how kirk, and maybe others, could reach the conclusion that I “believe that those of [you] who converted since Vatican II are somehow lesser Catholics,” I beg you to understand that I do NOT believe that, and I regret the wording of my post which may have lead you to conclude that.

Because you have witnessed my fault, I believe that you should also witness my penance. It shames me to think I may have offended anyone in this particular way, and I ask your forgiveness. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[AJV]

Which do not? And if not, how do they do it?

In many of the churches of the Byzantine tradition, it is a custom that when the liturgy of St. James is celebrated, Communion is administered separately. The Coptic and Assyrian churches do the same as do their Catholic counterparts (though for the Copts, sometimes the Coptic Catholics do receive by intinction). Likewise, receiving separately is also practised among some of the Syro-Malabar

 

[palmas85]

In many of the churches of the Byzantine tradition, it is a custom that when the liturgy of St. James is celebrated, Communion is administered separately. The Coptic and Assyrian churches do the same as do their Catholic counterparts (though for the Copts, sometimes the Coptic Catholics do receive by intinction). Likewise, receiving separately is also practised among some of the Syro-Malabar

So in other words some do and some don’t. Some do it sometimes and othertimes don’t. And in certain traditions some do it while others do not.

It really doesn’t sound as if it is very widespread.

I also just read through the rubrics of the Liturgy of Saint James and it says that communion is administered with a spoon.

Which is the way I have normally seen it done…

 

[AJV]

So in other words some do and some don’t. Some do it sometimes and some don’t. And in certain traditions some do it while others do not.

It really doesn’t sound as if it is very widespread.

My apologies if my earlier post seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

[nohamaria]

Yes. It didn’t make sense, partly because you have asserted something that you have yet to demonstrate. You said Our Lord suffered in our reception of Him in the host. How do you know? What can you cite as authoritative that supports your assertion?

You cannot ask the question this way.
If you beleive that Our lord , the Host is
the extreme purity, and you admit
that our hands, tongue , and hearts are
not pure to receive Him, you will shorten
the way to receive him and do it more
respectfully. Suffering cannot be proven,
because it is accompanied by God’s love
and mercy in his presence in the Host.
Hope you understand now my explanation.
Otherwise, i’ll ask the Holy Spirit
to help you understanding.
Peace and Good
Nohamaria