C
Catholic_Tom
Guest
I think you misunderstood…there is wine, but it’s not give to the laity.
- Status
H
hermit
Guest
Many parishes offer wine at communion, the communicant has a free choice to drink the wine or not. It does not invalidate reception of the eucharist.
Common sense - would you drink from a common chalice during flu season?
Common sense - would you drink from a common chalice during flu season?
E
Exporter
Guest
One poster said that they could never become a Catholic if the Church (Bishops) can decide what the Catholic practices will be.
I suppose the other option is that the Bishops shall not decide practices but the laity shall decide. That is preposterous. We don’t have the years of study, the office nor the state of mind to make those decisions. Holy Mother Church knows best!
Maybe that Protestant is displaying the trait of disobedience. It may be common in the Protestant realm.
I suppose the other option is that the Bishops shall not decide practices but the laity shall decide. That is preposterous. We don’t have the years of study, the office nor the state of mind to make those decisions. Holy Mother Church knows best!
Maybe that Protestant is displaying the trait of disobedience. It may be common in the Protestant realm.
C
Contarini
Guest
:
it comes down to a matter of authority. who do you trust?:
Well no, because this is a matter of discipline, not dogma. I’m not challenging the dogma that the Body and Blood are present under both species.
:so - we either trust the church that Christ instituted, or we do not.:
No, it’s not an either/or. Not all actions by the Church hierarchy have the same kind or level of authority. You know that quite well. You know quite well that Popes and bishops have made wrong decisions. I happen to believe that this was one.
:you either misunderstand the church’s reasons for doing this, or you’re ignoring them and misrepresenting them.:
Actually, I’m responding to the defense of communion in one kind presented on this board–that it was to “safeguard against heresy.” What that means is that because some people denied the Church’s power to depart from the apostolic practice in this regard, the Church essentially stuck its tongue out and said, “Na na na na!”
If heretics said that the celebration of Lent and Advent was essential to the Christian faith, would you throw the Christian year out the window?? If heretics said that baptism by immersion was invalid, would you stop using other methods? If heretics said that churches had to have spires, would you build all your churches without them? This is to hold the Church’s discipline hostage to any error people may fall into.
: the church doesn’t do things ‘just because it can’, it does things and teaches things to safeguard the faith of catholics worldwide.:
In this case it blew it. It fomented heresy and schism, scandalized thousands of sincere and pious souls, and contributed to the Christian world being torn apart for centuries.
: giving the eucharist in one species was to avoid heresy.:
Well, it didn’t work. The Church’s stubbornness in refusing to compromise on a matter of discipline only confirmed the “heretics” in their mistaken belief that the point was one of dogma.
: incidentally, one of the very heresies that it appears we have fallen into in modern times.:
No. Actually people like me have finally figured out that it was a matter of discipline largely in spite of your Church’s intractable stance over the centuries. The greater flexibility after Vatican II has helped, but post-Tridentine Catholicism created a whole set of confusions between discipline and dogma that still haunt us all.
The heresy of denying concomitance is less prevalent among Protestants than previously, in part because we see from the post-Vatican-II developments that in fact you do not put ecclesiastical traditions above Apostolic Tradition. Actions like insisting on communion in one kind made it look very much as if you did.
:it really does amaze me . . . that people really do believe that the church just goes around teaching things for no good reason.:
I believe that the Church thought it had good reason. But events have clearly shown the opposite.
: i accept what the church teaches on obedience to the authority given to it by Christ.:
But the Church never taught as a matter of doctrine that communion had to be in one kind. That would have been obviously heretical. The Church taught that the whole Christ was present under each species, and I accept that teaching as true.
Surely no one claims that the Church has been protected from bad judgment?
:i used to be pro-capital punishment. but after reading the church’s stance on the issue, and thinking through my previous notions, i see that the church is wiser and has a healthier and more balanced view of the issue than i did.:
Well, I can’t disagree with you there. I certainly agree that even when the Church speaks with less than full dogmatic authority it should be listened to very carefully. Part of my frustration on this issue is with the arguments people bring to justify communion in one kind, especially the “safeguarding against heresy” nonsense.
In Christ,
Edwin
it comes down to a matter of authority. who do you trust?:
Well no, because this is a matter of discipline, not dogma. I’m not challenging the dogma that the Body and Blood are present under both species.
:so - we either trust the church that Christ instituted, or we do not.:
No, it’s not an either/or. Not all actions by the Church hierarchy have the same kind or level of authority. You know that quite well. You know quite well that Popes and bishops have made wrong decisions. I happen to believe that this was one.
:you either misunderstand the church’s reasons for doing this, or you’re ignoring them and misrepresenting them.:
Actually, I’m responding to the defense of communion in one kind presented on this board–that it was to “safeguard against heresy.” What that means is that because some people denied the Church’s power to depart from the apostolic practice in this regard, the Church essentially stuck its tongue out and said, “Na na na na!”
If heretics said that the celebration of Lent and Advent was essential to the Christian faith, would you throw the Christian year out the window?? If heretics said that baptism by immersion was invalid, would you stop using other methods? If heretics said that churches had to have spires, would you build all your churches without them? This is to hold the Church’s discipline hostage to any error people may fall into.
: the church doesn’t do things ‘just because it can’, it does things and teaches things to safeguard the faith of catholics worldwide.:
In this case it blew it. It fomented heresy and schism, scandalized thousands of sincere and pious souls, and contributed to the Christian world being torn apart for centuries.
: giving the eucharist in one species was to avoid heresy.:
Well, it didn’t work. The Church’s stubbornness in refusing to compromise on a matter of discipline only confirmed the “heretics” in their mistaken belief that the point was one of dogma.
: incidentally, one of the very heresies that it appears we have fallen into in modern times.:
No. Actually people like me have finally figured out that it was a matter of discipline largely in spite of your Church’s intractable stance over the centuries. The greater flexibility after Vatican II has helped, but post-Tridentine Catholicism created a whole set of confusions between discipline and dogma that still haunt us all.
The heresy of denying concomitance is less prevalent among Protestants than previously, in part because we see from the post-Vatican-II developments that in fact you do not put ecclesiastical traditions above Apostolic Tradition. Actions like insisting on communion in one kind made it look very much as if you did.
:it really does amaze me . . . that people really do believe that the church just goes around teaching things for no good reason.:
I believe that the Church thought it had good reason. But events have clearly shown the opposite.
: i accept what the church teaches on obedience to the authority given to it by Christ.:
But the Church never taught as a matter of doctrine that communion had to be in one kind. That would have been obviously heretical. The Church taught that the whole Christ was present under each species, and I accept that teaching as true.
Surely no one claims that the Church has been protected from bad judgment?
:i used to be pro-capital punishment. but after reading the church’s stance on the issue, and thinking through my previous notions, i see that the church is wiser and has a healthier and more balanced view of the issue than i did.:
Well, I can’t disagree with you there. I certainly agree that even when the Church speaks with less than full dogmatic authority it should be listened to very carefully. Part of my frustration on this issue is with the arguments people bring to justify communion in one kind, especially the “safeguarding against heresy” nonsense.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Catholic_Tom
Guest
I think that is rather harsh, these are questions from someone raised Protestant, no harm in asking and offering opinion…I think like the previous person noted, authority is the real issue here, but some of the answers provided as to the “why” the church changed this practice is interesting.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Let me add this: that we don’t know that in the early church that they always took bread and wine. A common name for the mass in Acts is “the breaking of the bread.”
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
I personally prefer they Byzantine method of distributing communion.
C
Catholic_Tom
Guest
Psalm45:9:
I personally think this inconsistancy between the different Catholic rites is confusing and tends reduce credibility in those who determine practices…some do, some don’t, etc…just my opinion.
C
Contarini
Guest
Oh good heavens. The obsession some of you guys have with uniformity is really amazing–and deeply saddening. The variety of rites doesn’t discredit Catholicism. The perceived insistence of the Vatican on a locked step even with regard to matters of discipline does discredit Catholicism.
In Christ,
Edwin
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Catholic_Tom
Guest
Hey Contarini, I suppose you are right, I guess if someone from outside the Catholic faith were to try and understand this, it would likely confuse them and make them wonder why the differences…it’s no big deal for me as I understand and accept, but I’m just saying
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Catholic Tom:
It is in our church. I would also ask your protestant friend why so many protestant churchs give out grape juice instead of wine–why do they believe that is valid? And why do so many do it so infrequently when Christ clearly commanded us to?
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
you do understand, catholic tom, that in many churches wine IS given to the laity, right? like in my church, we lay people receive wine in mass. i’m suspecting that they don’t do that where you live. but in some parishes, many i understand (almost everyone i’ve ever been to, actually, except for the ones i visited in mexico), they DO give wine to the laity.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Catholic Tom:
We do receive both at our parish. I would also ask you friend why so many protestants use grape juice instead of wine–is that scriptural and valid? Also why do they do it so infrequently when Christ commanded us to do it?
Tom,
We do receive both at our parish. I would also ask you friend why so many protestants use grape juice instead of wine–is that scriptural and valid? Also why do they do it so infrequently when Christ commanded us to do it?
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
edwin - you said: 'No. Actually people like me have finally figured out that it was a matter of discipline largely in spite of your Church’s intractable stance over the centuries. ’
you do realize that this sounds absurd, right? you’re basically saying ‘i’m right and all of you are wrong. i’m the only one (and people like me) who realizes what’s going on here, and the church is just blind to the whole thing.’ doesn’t it strike you as improbably that there are ‘only a few’ who understand this issue, and that the church, who spends so much time and prayer on it, is so greatly mistaken?
also - let me ask - why is it always MY church? you keep saying ‘your church does this’, etc. why is it our church? is it not your church?
you do realize that this sounds absurd, right? you’re basically saying ‘i’m right and all of you are wrong. i’m the only one (and people like me) who realizes what’s going on here, and the church is just blind to the whole thing.’ doesn’t it strike you as improbably that there are ‘only a few’ who understand this issue, and that the church, who spends so much time and prayer on it, is so greatly mistaken?
also - let me ask - why is it always MY church? you keep saying ‘your church does this’, etc. why is it our church? is it not your church?
E
Exporter
Guest
Down here in South Texas we take the Eucharist under both species, the cup and the Host.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
I’m actually very much inclined to agree with Edwin on this, were it not for the fact that the Council of Trent declared:
Still, this practice does seem to me to be awfully stupid.
The universal practice of the Eastern Churches, as well as Anglo-Catholics and others, is proof positive that Communion under both kinds can be done reverently, and in such a manner as to render unintentional sacrilege nearly non-existent.
The fact that it took 500+ years for the Church to come around is even stupider.
Granted, Communion under both species is today done in a manner that is almost always irreverent, even sacrilegious. But it need not be this way. This is not an all-or-nothing scenario. We Latin Catholics could very easily take cues from our Eastern and Anglo-Catholic brethren and do this in a reverent way; we simply choose not to.
We either deny the chalice completely, it seems, or we make sure that, when we do dispense it, it’s in the most tacky, irreverent way possible.
I hope that Tridentine anathema doesn’t still apply . . .
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
In all fairness, Edwin, the Council of Trent itself declared that the Latin Church’s decisions regarding this were merely disciplinary. Following these very same canons, the Council declared:
And earlier the Council had said:
This is all from Session 21.
I can’t think of a single Catholic work that ever claimed that this was a matter of doctrine, and not discipline. Do you have documentation to show otherwise?
As far as obedience is concerned, historical Christian orthodoxy (in other words, pre-Protestantism) has always recognized that Christians are obliged to obey their lawful pastors in all matters save sin, no matter how stupid these matters may seem to us. Communion under one kind is one of these.
Pick-and-choose obedience is not traditional, and it’s not Catholic, Anglo or otherwise.
A
Aris
Guest
Please clarify this as I have not found it enlightening the root of the Latin Rite practice.
- What was the reason Catholics do not ordinarily drink the wine during Mass? I said ordinarily so I didn’t say can not.
- Was this disciplinary or was this doctrine? who declared it disciplinary or doctrine.
R
Rae
Guest
When Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he was not divided up so that, after consecration, he was in one and not the other.
He also gave the Church the authority to make decisions (whether they are moral, disciplinary, or doctrinal), with the promise of the Holy Spirit for guideance and protection. That’s all I need to know.
I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Perhaps Protestants should be more prepared to answer more WHY’s… than we should about whether it’s a discipline or doctrine. It would seem the much more important question as to whether He is present in the Eucharist or not. Let’s get rid of the smoke screens and admit that authority (and the rebelling of) is the real issue at hand.
He also gave the Church the authority to make decisions (whether they are moral, disciplinary, or doctrinal), with the promise of the Holy Spirit for guideance and protection. That’s all I need to know.
I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Perhaps Protestants should be more prepared to answer more WHY’s… than we should about whether it’s a discipline or doctrine. It would seem the much more important question as to whether He is present in the Eucharist or not. Let’s get rid of the smoke screens and admit that authority (and the rebelling of) is the real issue at hand.
R
Rae
Guest
In other words, if the discussion isn’t about a denial that the
bread and wine become, after consecration, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ–then it’s not about anything of much importance, in my opinion. Like I mentioned, Christ wasn’t divided up into portions at the Last Supper…so I’m sure that when the Apostles drank of that Cup, and ate of that Bread, they were receiving, in both, his entire being.
So, it seems the debate is whether or not ‘men’ (his Church) has the ability to make decisions. If, in fact, Christ is present, wholly, within the bread and wine (which is the Body and Blood)…so it would seem that this debate is, as some have recognized, a debate about authority. And what really bothers some Protestants is that anyone (besides themselves as individuals) has authority. What is forgotten is that the authority is that of God. And it was given. It was given, even with the knowledge that men are sinful and sometimes erroeous beings…but, with that full knowledge, the Holy Spirit guides and protects these sinful and sometimes erroneous beings from harm, from destruction from without or within.
So the question isn’t about ‘wine’. The question is do you believe that Christ turned wine and bread into his very own Body and Blood. The question is about whether you will entrust your will to God’s, even if it appears to be in the hands of men. Do you believe, in fact, that he instituted a church and promised the Holy Spirit to be with that Church until the end of time. The question is whether or not you can let go of your own will and decision making and trust on God completely. For the pillar and foundation of Truth is His Church.
Don’t overlook such a miraculous and beautiful gift that is the Eucharist, in discussion over things of a MUCH lesser significance…profoundly insignificant in comparison.
Just my opinion.
bread and wine become, after consecration, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ–then it’s not about anything of much importance, in my opinion. Like I mentioned, Christ wasn’t divided up into portions at the Last Supper…so I’m sure that when the Apostles drank of that Cup, and ate of that Bread, they were receiving, in both, his entire being.
So, it seems the debate is whether or not ‘men’ (his Church) has the ability to make decisions. If, in fact, Christ is present, wholly, within the bread and wine (which is the Body and Blood)…so it would seem that this debate is, as some have recognized, a debate about authority. And what really bothers some Protestants is that anyone (besides themselves as individuals) has authority. What is forgotten is that the authority is that of God. And it was given. It was given, even with the knowledge that men are sinful and sometimes erroeous beings…but, with that full knowledge, the Holy Spirit guides and protects these sinful and sometimes erroneous beings from harm, from destruction from without or within.
So the question isn’t about ‘wine’. The question is do you believe that Christ turned wine and bread into his very own Body and Blood. The question is about whether you will entrust your will to God’s, even if it appears to be in the hands of men. Do you believe, in fact, that he instituted a church and promised the Holy Spirit to be with that Church until the end of time. The question is whether or not you can let go of your own will and decision making and trust on God completely. For the pillar and foundation of Truth is His Church.
Don’t overlook such a miraculous and beautiful gift that is the Eucharist, in discussion over things of a MUCH lesser significance…profoundly insignificant in comparison.
Just my opinion.
- Status