OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 08:24:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Eucharist and Catholicism.  (Read 569 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« on: February 14, 2014, 10:03:48 PM »

Hi.

I only took the Holy Communion about 3 or 4 times, at that time I had no idea that I SHOULD NOT take from it. I just had to do what I saw people doing.

Only one time when I took Holy Communion, there was a taste of wine I guess, even though I never drank wine at that time but I felt a very strong taste on the bread that I took. But that was the only time, the other times was only the bread.

I'm still not sure if what I tasted is wine, and I don't know why it was only on that mass.

Watch out, from now on I'm going to sound harsh, but this is my type, I need to be harsh to get to the real point and to let you guys know what I'm thinking.

So, turns out that Catholicism for centuries and centuries prevented the public from drinking the wine! Which I really really do not know why ? Why breaking God's command that we all should drink from the one cup.

So, why the Catholic Church prevented people from drinking the wine ? Even today, people are just taking one thing and that is the bread, but where is Jesus's blood ? I don't think the bread contain both, the body and the blood. or Jesus would just give us the bread.

To me, when I want to be able to take from Holy Communion, I want to have both, the bread and the wine, the blood and the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, NOT half of it.

So, what the the reason Catholic Church for doing what she did ? What is going to happen to the poor people who never had a chance to drink from the blood of the Lord ?

Peace.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 10:09:15 PM by Raylight » Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2014, 01:19:37 AM »

If you do a google search under 'communion in both kinds' and go to one of the (Roman) Catholic - don' forget that we are -the- Catholic Church, you will find a long and convoluted explanation summed up by the ruling of the Council of Trent ca. 1550 that each 'specie' (both bread and wine) contains both the Body and the Blood of the Lord and that therefore Communion in (either) one is a complete Communion, in no way deficient for the salvation of the recipient.
Why it took them weeks, if not months, to decide this I have no idea; but they were Cardinals and Bishops, so I leave the rest to your own conclusion.
peace.
kyril
Logged

kyril
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2014, 01:27:16 AM »

If you do a google search under 'communion in both kinds' and go to one of the (Roman) Catholic - don' forget that we are -the- Catholic Church, you will find a long and convoluted explanation summed up by the ruling of the Council of Trent ca. 1550 that each 'specie' (both bread and wine) contains both the Body and the Blood of the Lord and that therefore Communion in (either) one is a complete Communion, in no way deficient for the salvation of the recipient.
Why it took them weeks, if not months, to decide this I have no idea; but they were Cardinals and Bishops, so I leave the rest to your own conclusion.
peace.
kyril

True, they say that each kind contains the blood and the body. But if that is the case, doesn't that contradict what The Lord did, he gave us the bread and said this is my body, then he gave us the cup of wine and said this is my blood.

Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2014, 02:09:13 AM »

well, yes.
If you do the google search, you will find the convoluted and at various places contradictory within itself; and (to my way of thinking, at least, but what would I know with a mere M.Th) contrary to the teachings of the Holy Gospels - as you have pointed out- and to St. Paul's recounting of Holy Tradition in I.st. Corinthians --I pass on what I have received - ...He took bread &c (not the exact wording.)

So if you have made proper preparation, you have no need to worry about the 'validity' of your Communion.
Peace in Christ our Lord
Kyril
Logged

kyril
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2014, 02:39:04 AM »

I read this link

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/10/10/reader-question-is-the-catholic-church-ignoring-christs-will.htm


I just want to inform you that I'm not criticizing Catholicism all together, but I'm criticizing the Latin Rite. As I know Eastern Catholics have the Eucharist under both kinds.

Now, the article says that the Priest drink the blood and that is enough for the unity of the Church in the Mass. Well, I say NO! Jesus when gave the cup of wine, he is not the only one who drank, after he did, he gave the 12 Apostles the cup. If we are going by the Latin Rite logic, then Jesus must be the only one drank the wine.

Again, why ? Why did they change it ? Why they prevent the people from drinking ? What could be this important reason to break the Lord's command ?
Logged
Jovan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Scandinavia
Posts: 515



« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2014, 03:24:30 AM »

That's a really good question that the orthodox still asks today Tongue Both have always been kept in the orthodox church.

Pray for me and forgive me, a sinner
Logged

“Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2014, 03:52:18 AM »

Raylight, your argument is about 46 years too late. Roman Catholics give the bread and wine out at mass. Have been since the current mass came out in 1967.
Logged

Antonis
Prodigal
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 997



« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2014, 03:53:21 AM »

I read this link

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/10/10/reader-question-is-the-catholic-church-ignoring-christs-will.htm


I just want to inform you that I'm not criticizing Catholicism all together, but I'm criticizing the Latin Rite. As I know Eastern Catholics have the Eucharist under both kinds.

Now, the article says that the Priest drink the blood and that is enough for the unity of the Church in the Mass. Well, I say NO! Jesus when gave the cup of wine, he is not the only one who drank, after he did, he gave the 12 Apostles the cup. If we are going by the Latin Rite logic, then Jesus must be the only one drank the wine.

Again, why ? Why did they change it ? Why they prevent the people from drinking ? What could be this important reason to break the Lord's command ?
Probably for practical reasons. It is much easier to hand out wafers than a liquid to mass amounts of people, especially when you have to be extremely careful with both.
Logged

For peace in the whole world,
for the stability of the holy churches of God,
and for the unity of all,
let us pray to the Lord.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2014, 04:00:23 AM »

One more time, Roman Catholics give out both wine and bread during communion. -username!section moderator.
Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2014, 04:05:15 AM »

One more time, Roman Catholics give out both wine and bread during communion. -username!section moderator.

I've been to perhaps to a dozen RC masses for various reasons, and in several parishes, in the past twenty years, and in only barely half were people communed with both species.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2014, 04:17:08 AM »

What are you talking about ?! I went to a Catholic Mass several times, ONLY ONE time they used both kinds. The rest of it was dry white bread.

I even have the Bishop of my city book where he answered this question and said that after Vatican II, some Churches do gave it under both kinds, but still many give it under one kind. And he says that the reason they stopped giving the blood is the fear of some of it spell on the floor!! Well, that is just ridicules, What about Orthodox Churches ? Eastern Catholic Churches ? Aren't they also concern about that ? Or they don't care about it so they give it under both kinds ? What the Bishop said doesn't make any sense.

So, yes, there is might be some Catholic Churches give it under both kinds, and maybe some do that in some important events, but still the majority give the communion under one kind. Why ? Because what the Bishop said is not enough and logical explanation to change something this vital.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2014, 04:20:42 AM »

Raylight, your argument is about 46 years too late. Roman Catholics give the bread and wine out at mass. Have been since the current mass came out in 1967.

If you don't believe me, then just google it and you will find plenty of articles on the issue, which shows that many Catholic Churches still give it under one kind.

Here is an article from 2008 and also says that the Pope himself at that time gave the communion under one kind.

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/04/11/reader-question-why-do-catholics-receive-only-the-host.htm
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2014, 04:28:34 AM »

Here is one of the comments on the article says


Quote
    good anwer, Scott! I might amend it to say that “Many” churches offer Holy Communion under both species – the consecrated Host and the Precious Blood. One of the main reasons why it isn’t done all the time is simple logistics. Usually, if the cup is offered, there need to be two cup ‘stations’ for each station offering the Host. Often, that’s simply impossible! Imagine what kind of organized chaos might result if they tried to offer the cup to the 56,000 people at Yankee Stadium, for example! And imagine how much wine they’d need!

    When we go to Orlando, my wife and I often attend Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady, Queen of the Universe. It’s a beautiful church, seating a couple of thousand, and it’s frequently full for the many masses every weekend. They usually have a dozen or more communion ministers, and distribute only the Host. I kidded the rector after mass one Sunday about not offering the cup, and he good-naturedly answered that they couldn’t afford the wine bill, and couldn’t find enough people to help with communion!

    Peace,
    Deacon Bob

Again, this is also ridicules. We all know that the Vatican is one of the richest institutes in the world. Can't they afford buying wine for their churches for the sake of keeping and protecting the Lord's command ?!?! What about the plenty of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches that also have thousands of members, or they get wine for free or something. There MUST be logical reason to do such thing, you can't just simply change one of the MOST important Holy Sacraments like that for such ridicules reason.

PS: I have to remind you that I'm not criticizing the whole Catholic Church, I'm criticizing the Latin Rite.

Peace.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2014, 08:03:32 AM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: It's an old one!
Jurisdiction: Less old.
Posts: 562


Hae bae, did u mis mae?


« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2014, 08:33:50 AM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 08:35:17 AM by Hawkeye » Logged

When I die, I figure the worst I'll get is what I deserve. Any injustice on the part of God will certainly be because He is all too merciful.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2014, 09:06:40 AM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.

The reaction in the 1200s served its purpose to prove a point and that point is still true today and forever. Whatever your opinion on the issue is, both practices are valid. God is not limited by what we determine is the correct way or the way we have always done things especially when these things do not affect the salvific effect on the laity. The Latin tradition allows for both practices as both are fully salvific.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 09:07:35 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2014, 11:16:18 AM »

If you do a google search under 'communion in both kinds' and go to one of the (Roman) Catholic - don' forget that we are -the- Catholic Church, you will find a long and convoluted explanation summed up by the ruling of the Council of Trent ca. 1550 that each 'specie' (both bread and wine) contains both the Body and the Blood of the Lord and that therefore Communion in (either) one is a complete Communion, in no way deficient for the salvation of the recipient.
Why it took them weeks, if not months, to decide this I have no idea; but they were Cardinals and Bishops, so I leave the rest to your own conclusion.
peace.
kyril

If, as what Trent says is true, then why the need for the chalice on the altar.  Would not the bread suffice?  After all, it "contains both species", or does it......
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2014, 11:58:33 AM »

One more time, Roman Catholics give out both wine and bread during communion. -username!section moderator.


I've been to perhaps to a dozen RC masses for various reasons, and in several parishes, in the past twenty years, and in only barely half were people communed with both species.

I've been to thousands of Catholic masses and both have been given out.  So what, if they give out both snd some don't the argument is null. The fact that most give out both establishes the fact they give out both.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2014, 01:34:04 PM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.
The Vatican is good for combating heresy by creating a new one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2014, 01:48:36 PM »

Hi Wandile.

Glad to see here my friend Smiley

Now, I need to tell you what I think.

I don't have problem with the filique anymore as you know, however, it was added to the creed because of a heresy in the past.

Now with the Eucharist, they gave it under one kind just because of a heresy.

Do we need to change our beliefs in order to challenge a heresy ?!?! I don't think so, there are better ways to defeat heresies without the need to change our beliefs every once a while.

I still disagree on this issue, because the Eucharist is the most fundamental Holy Sacrament, and it should not be changed with time nor change it with every time face us a challenge.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 01:49:44 PM by Raylight » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2014, 01:59:48 PM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.
The Vatican is good for combating heresy by creating a new one.

Nope, with orthodoxy thank you Smiley

Lol so I'm guessing you believe in the heretical position that Christ is not fully present in the bread or the wine individually and as such we need to receive both to receive him fully?

If not, then your objection has absolutely no doctrinal ground to stand on other than mere polemics

« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 02:03:23 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2014, 02:01:01 PM »

Hi Wandile.

Glad to see here my friend Smiley

Now, I need to tell you what I think.

I don't have problem with the filique anymore as you know, however, it was added to the creed because of a heresy in the past.

Now with the Eucharist, they gave it under one kind just because of a heresy.

Do we need to change our beliefs in order to challenge a heresy ?!?! I don't think so, there are better ways to defeat heresies without the need to change our beliefs every once a while.

I still disagree on this issue, because the Eucharist is the most fundamental Holy Sacrament, and it should not be changed with time nor change it with every time face us a challenge.



No beliefs were changed, practice was changed... There is a difference Smiley

And today the old practice is allowed and encouraged. Either is valid so nothing is wrong with either. Its like the use of leavened vs unleavened bread. Both are valid and encouraged.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 02:02:10 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2014, 02:23:31 PM »

One more time, Roman Catholics give out both wine and bread during communion. -username!section moderator.


I've been to perhaps to a dozen RC masses for various reasons, and in several parishes, in the past twenty years, and in only barely half were people communed with both species.

I've been to thousands of Catholic masses and both have been given out.  So what, if they give out both snd some don't the argument is null. The fact that most give out both establishes the fact they give out both.

When I used to attend Mass the distribution in both forms was just beginning to take shape.  The faithful were very hesitant to say the least in taking the wine after receiving the host.  I guess its going to take some time before both species is acceptable in the RCC.  What I don't like is that the Wine is given second stage since the Host in most cases is distributed by the priest and the wine is somewhat off to the side and administered by either a male or female as if this is anymore less significant in the receiving of the Holy Eucharist.  Why not deliver the host by the priest by dipping the host in wine prior to its reception thereby eliminating the host being handled by the laity.HuhHuh?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2014, 03:19:00 PM »

Why not deliver the host by the priest by dipping the host in wine prior to its reception thereby eliminating the host being handled by the laity.HuhHuh?

This can be done.  However, in countries that have an indult for reception in the hand, the priest cannot force reception by mouth by using intinction since the intincted Host cannot be placed in the hand.  The communicant must be free to choose reception by hand.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2014, 03:31:30 PM »

Why not deliver the host by the priest by dipping the host in wine prior to its reception thereby eliminating the host being handled by the laity.HuhHuh?

This can be done.  However, in countries that have an indult for reception in the hand, the priest cannot force reception by mouth by using intinction since the intincted Host cannot be placed in the hand.  The communicant must be free to choose reception by hand.

"Do this in remembrance of Me, but if you prefer bread alone, its ok".   Roll Eyes
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2014, 04:07:29 PM »

Why not deliver the host by the priest by dipping the host in wine prior to its reception thereby eliminating the host being handled by the laity.HuhHuh?

This can be done.  However, in countries that have an indult for reception in the hand, the priest cannot force reception by mouth by using intinction since the intincted Host cannot be placed in the hand.  The communicant must be free to choose reception by hand.

"Do this in remembrance of Me, but if you prefer bread alone, its ok".   Roll Eyes
Just reporting the facts.  I don't agree with the practice myself.   However, the laity once took the un-intincted Gifts home to commune with during the week.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,238


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2014, 04:29:46 PM »

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread, and it's not exclusively or even mostly on the RC side of the argument. 

Both RC's and Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ.  Christ is alive and not dead, so it cannot be that those who receive only the bread or only the wine are receiving only a part of Christ: they receive the one, whole, living Christ.  If you're Orthodox and you don't get that, please put down the Philokalia and start reading the New Testament...and make an appointment to speak with your priest.

Some are asking the question why Christ offered the cup if the bread was sufficient.  The Eucharist is both sign and reality.  The separate blessing/"consecration" of the bread and the cup, following the example of the Lord, signify the separation of blood from flesh, which indicates death--the Eucharist is the memorial of the sacrificial death of Christ.  But since Christ is risen from the dead, we unite the body and the blood to signify the living, risen Christ.  When the gifts are transformed by the Holy Spirit's descent, they are not transformed into the dead body and dead blood of Christ, but into the body and blood of the Christ who was dead and now lives, never to die again.  The act of mingling the gifts is a visible sign of this reality.  As I wrote elsewhere:

For me, the most important "unification" of the Body and the Blood is in the ritual intinction.  In the Byzantine rite, I think this happens after "Holies for the holy", when a particle of the Lamb is placed within the chalice.  This precedes the Communion of the clergy.  After this, the particles for the laity are placed in the chalice and most people receive from this mixture.  But it is not so in all rites.  The Roman rite practices this intinction at roughly the same moment in the Liturgy, but without necessarily communing the faithful under both species.  In the Syriac and Coptic rites, a particle of the holy bread is placed in the chalice, and another particle is dipped into the Blood and is used to anoint the rest of the Body (which the Byzantine rite basically does when preparing the Presanctified Gifts).  After this, they can either receive both separately (Coptic) or receive what basically looks like Communion under one species but is really not (Syriac).  Whether a particular tradition habitually communes with one species or both, the gifts have been consecrated separately (death) and then reunited (resurrection), so that there is no longer two, but one.  Again, for me, this is the most important consideration.  All of our traditions allow communing under one species given specific reasons, and I think part of the reason this is acceptable is because of this rite.  

Since we are speaking specifically of the Roman rite, this action takes place at (OF) or shortly before (EF) the Agnus Dei: the Host is broken, and a piece of it is dropped into the chalice.  By the operation of the Holy Spirit and through ritual actions, the fact that the transformed gifts are really the body and blood of the living Christ has been signified.  Whether you receive one or the other "species" or both, it is one and the same undivided Christ.  Certainly, it is preferable and normative to receive "both species", separately or combined, because of the value of that sign.  But even Orthodox will make exceptions to accommodate certain pastoral circumstances (e.g., communing of infants).  These exceptions are not the norm in Orthodoxy, but neither is it the case that those communicants are "missing out" on half the sacrament.   

So we cannot say that the centuries old RC practice of communion under one species is absolutely wrong: it does not deprive the faithful of a portion of the sacrament.  In studying the history of how this practice came about, we might conclude that it was ill-advised, an overreaction, etc., and we might support a return to communion under both species, but there is no justification for some of the comments that appear in this thread.  I think some are being intentionally obtuse in order to stick it to the RC's, and it just makes us look like idiots to criticise something we also practice from time to time (possible only because our underlying belief is the same) when there is plenty of substantial difference over which we ought to focus.         
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,238


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2014, 04:33:19 PM »

No beliefs were changed, practice was changed... There is a difference Smiley

While in this particular case (i.e., communion under one species) I agree with you, I would caution you not to divorce faith and praxis in this way.  Changes in practice can and often do lead to changes or deviations in belief. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2014, 05:13:41 PM »

No beliefs were changed, practice was changed... There is a difference Smiley

While in this particular case (i.e., communion under one species) I agree with you, I would caution you not to divorce faith and praxis in this way.  Changes in practice can and often do lead to changes or deviations in belief. 
Indeed, to the point of some Latin traditionalists refusing the Chalice under any circumstances because the Chalice is supposed to be reserved to the priest in their confused thinking.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2014, 05:39:12 PM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.
The Vatican is good for combating heresy by creating a new one.

Nope, with orthodoxy thank you Smiley
Little or no evidence of that, no thank you.
Lol so I'm guessing you believe in the heretical position that Christ is not fully present in the bread or the wine individually and as such we need to receive both to receive him fully?
You guess wrong, again: I don't belief the heretical excuses the Vatican came up with to withhold the chalice from the laity, making it an issue with the Utraquists (who, while the apostates from Constantinople were submitting to the Vatican in Florence, were embracing Orthodoxy at Constantinople and talking about rejoining the Orthodox).
If not, then your objection has absolutely no doctrinal ground to stand on other than mere polemics
Yes, but that is only because the Vatican has no doctrinal ground to stand on.

Quote
the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 05:49:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2014, 01:12:19 AM »

Here is an answer from CAF that accurately sums up the Latin position :

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. "

Whether both forms are necessary or not, it seems like such an overreaction to suddenly limit the universal practice to just one. It flies in the face of much of church history, if nothing else.
The Vatican is good for combating heresy by creating a new one.

Nope, with orthodoxy thank you Smiley
Little or no evidence of that, no thank you.
Lol so I'm guessing you believe in the heretical position that Christ is not fully present in the bread or the wine individually and as such we need to receive both to receive him fully?
You guess wrong, again: I don't belief the heretical excuses the Vatican came up with to withhold the chalice from the laity, making it an issue with the Utraquists (who, while the apostates from Constantinople were submitting to the Vatican in Florence, were embracing Orthodoxy at Constantinople and talking about rejoining the Orthodox).
If not, then your objection has absolutely no doctrinal ground to stand on other than mere polemics
Yes, but that is only because the Vatican has no doctrinal ground to stand on.

Quote
the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

So like I said, no doctrinal grounds to uphold your objection. Roll Eyes Got it. I'm already used to your anti Catholicism so it doesn't surprise me anymore when you object to anything catholic just for sake of it being Catholic. I see through you and many others do too.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.138 seconds with 60 queries.