OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 08:28:39 PM *
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 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bishop: Bread alone will do for Communion at most Masses (no wine)  (Read 6288 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« on: September 24, 2011, 10:11:15 AM »

Quote
What? No wine? The Bishop of Phoenix Thomas Olmsted is crossing wine out of Communion at most Masses, limiting how often the chalice is offered to holy days and special occasions, writes Michael Clancy at the Arizona Republic.

Olmsted bases his unique decision on the Church's new translation of the liturgy for the Mass, called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and other church documents, which he says don't really require folks in the pews have wine as part of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine, when blessed by the priest, become the body and blood of Christ.

See the rest...
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/09/catholic-communion-wine-eucharist-mass/1


Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2011, 10:25:57 AM »

One step forward...
Quote
The new Missal -- a more formal, literally translated text and melodies for the prayers, chants and responses in the Mass -- goes into use in the English-speaking world Nov. 27, the first Sunday of Advent.


two steps back.
Quote
The diocesan release didn't say how soon Phoenix Catholics could expect to see less of the chalice.

Just my opinion.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2011, 10:31:08 AM »

Well, it will decrease the need for EMHCs.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2011, 10:34:32 AM »

Is receiving both bread and wine a necessary part of Eastern Catholic practice?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2011, 10:39:06 AM »

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:43:45 AM by Michael L » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2011, 10:40:08 AM »

Well, it will decrease the need for EMHCs.

Deacons solve the "need" for devout soccer moms to do this.
Logged
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2011, 10:47:29 AM »

Well, it will decrease the need for EMHCs.

Can't fix a mistake with an atrocity.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2011, 10:47:36 AM »

Here's the actual statement from the bishop.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2011, 03:24:40 PM »

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2011, 03:54:18 PM »

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2011, 04:04:09 PM »

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd.  I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity.  Neither practice is forbidden. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 04:04:41 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,247



« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2011, 04:18:39 PM »

[quote author=elijahmaria link=topic=39802.msg643348#msg643348 date=1316894649
That is absurd.  I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity.  Neither practice is forbidden. 
[/quote]

THe practice of receiving in one kind only is forbidden.  When Christ says "Do this" at the Last Supper, He's not giving us a choice as to which we prefer otherwise He would have said "Do one or the other--it doesn't matter for it's still Me".  The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2011, 04:31:01 PM »

Let's not forget the important thing here, folks: The bread is still unleavened!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2011, 04:33:19 PM »

Well, it will decrease the need for EMHCs.

Can't fix a mistake with an atrocity.
Hear! Hear!

Btw, this started what was the first WRO movement: the Utraquist church of Bohemia approached the Orthodox to be received, as they shared the insistence of communion under both kinds.  They also had insisted on the Council of Constance calling the Orthodox, which was refused (although a schismatic bishop propted up by the secular powers of Lithuania, "Met." Gregory Tsamblas "of Kiev and All Rus'" was sent and received at Constance, and never heard of again).  IIRC, this was one of things the "Union" of Brest was supposed to guarentee.
So yes, EM, by the Orthodox canons of the Catholic Church that Brest was supposed to preserve,  it is forbidden.
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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,955



« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2011, 04:35:09 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2011, 04:38:32 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2011, 05:04:31 PM »

Well, it will decrease the need for EMHCs.

Can't fix a mistake with an atrocity.
Hear! Hear!

Btw, this started what was the first WRO movement: the Utraquist church of Bohemia approached the Orthodox to be received, as they shared the insistence of communion under both kinds.  They also had insisted on the Council of Constance calling the Orthodox, which was refused (although a schismatic bishop propted up by the secular powers of Lithuania, "Met." Gregory Tsamblas "of Kiev and All Rus'" was sent and received at Constance, and never heard of again).  IIRC, this was one of things the "Union" of Brest was supposed to guarentee.
So yes, EM, by the Orthodox canons of the Catholic Church that Brest was supposed to preserve,  it is forbidden.

The comment was made to a Roman rite individual, whose Tridentine tradition is single species.  I had hoped that that particular tradition would be eventually overturned, which it has been, albeit in a limited way, as now in Phoenix.  My guess is that not all Roman rite bishops will follow his lead.
Logged

Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,955



« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2011, 05:08:22 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?

I don't know. That's why I asked.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 05:08:32 PM by Alpo » Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2011, 05:56:48 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Oh, ok Smiley I'm not sure of the particulars... I've taken two daughters to communion sporadically, but never really paid attention to that (I was more focused on keeping them from getting fidgety and causing an accident!)... though I think (?) they give them a bit of wine, and not really a piece of bread (?) but it's assumed that there are some small crums/particles of the bread in the wine.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2011, 06:13:06 PM »

When I lived in the UK, there was only one time the wine was stopped, That was because there was a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and I lived on a small island.

Once the disease was under control the wine was reintroduced straight away.

Since I have lived in Greece, I have not had one Mass where the wine was not offered.

Maybe this is a regional thing? I don't know.

All I know is that you can not have one without the other.

Yours in Christ

JR
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2011, 06:54:45 PM »

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd.  I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity.  Neither practice is forbidden. 

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2011, 07:05:07 PM »

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd.  I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity.  Neither practice is forbidden. 

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.


This makes no sense with respect to calling lubeltri a cafeteria Catholic.

Calling a Roman rite Catholic a cafeteria Catholic for engaging a perfectly acceptable practice in the Roman rite is an absurdity.
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2011, 07:44:28 PM »

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

And there have definitely been abuses in that area.  My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!  Shocked

(And in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't because he was disabled or ill - he'd had no trouble at all walking up and down the aisle to shake everyone's hand during the Sign of Peace, or in walking out for the final procession.)  Angry
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2011, 08:03:38 PM »

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

And there have definitely been abuses in that area.  My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!  Shocked

(And in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't because he was disabled or ill - he'd had no trouble at all walking up and down the aisle to shake everyone's hand during the Sign of Peace, or in walking out for the final procession.)  Angry

You are probably right.  And he's not banned the chalice, simply restricted its use. 

Missing on that list of feasts and occasions is Easter.  I thought that was very odd.  The one day out of the year where a longer-than-an-hour mass should NOT be a problem...

So I think the dear bishop is still missing the "point"....
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2011, 08:24:06 PM »

Well, that may be, Mary, but I gotta be honest here: as a witness to some truly jaw-dropping liturgical abuses in the Phoenix diocese over the past 20+ years (while visiting family), I have to give props to Bishop Olmstead for at least *trying* to change things.  

Before I knew there was such a thing as an Eastern Rite church, I learned to be grateful for any priest I came across in the area who did NOT start the Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining me in celebrating the Liturgy today!"* or earnestly explaining to us for the 10,000,000th time that "Eucharist" means "thanksgiving"! or leaving the altar to shake hands with, or hug, every single person in the pews during the Sign of Peace, or ad-libbing the words of the Consecration so they'd refer back to a point he'd made during his homily, or sticking out his tongue at anyone who tried to receive Communion on the tongue, or any one of a hundred abuses I can't quite recall now.

I remember how grateful I was to cross the border into California on the way home, because as hard as this may be to believe, the abuses in the Southern California RC churches were nowhere near as bad as the ones in Arizona - at least not in the churches I attended.

So go Bishop Olmstead! you can't make it any worse than it was!  Grin

*note: this was INSTEAD of making the Sign of the Cross at the beginning of the Mass!
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:24:47 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2011, 08:29:33 PM »

okee dokee...no need to hit the roof. 

I had a comment to make, not an argument.

You have my sympathies.

When are you and your hubbie entering Orthodoxy?

Well, that may be, Mary, but I gotta be honest here: as a witness to some truly jaw-dropping liturgical abuses in the Phoenix diocese over the past 20+ years (while visiting family), I have to give props to Bishop Olmstead for at least *trying* to change things.  

Before I knew there was such a thing as an Eastern Rite church, I learned to be grateful for any priest I came across in the area who did NOT start the Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining me in celebrating the Liturgy today!"* or earnestly explaining to us for the 10,000,000th time that "Eucharist" means "thanksgiving"! or leaving the altar to shake hands with, or hug, every single person in the pews during the Sign of Peace, or ad-libbing the words of the Consecration so they'd refer back to a point he'd made during his homily, or sticking out his tongue at anyone who tried to receive Communion on the tongue, or any one of a hundred abuses I can't quite recall now.

I remember how grateful I was to cross the border into California on the way home, because as hard as this may be to believe, the abuses in the Southern California RC churches were nowhere near as bad as the ones in Arizona - at least not in the churches I attended.

So go Bishop Olmstead! you can't make it any worse than it was!  Grin

*note: this was INSTEAD of making the Sign of the Cross at the beginning of the Mass!
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2011, 08:32:22 PM »

okee dokee...no need to hit the roof.  

I had a comment to make, not an argument.

Um, I thought I was being humorous.  Didn't realize I was coming across as argumentative or angry.

Sorry.

You have my sympathies.

When are you and your hubbie entering Orthodoxy? Roll Eyes

Are we not allowed to criticize abuses in the Latin Rite church without actually leaving it?  Huh
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:53:42 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2011, 08:34:12 PM »

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

 Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).  Angry
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:35:30 PM by lubeltri » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2011, 08:38:43 PM »

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

 Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).  Angry

I agree with your suggestion concerning intinction.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2011, 09:02:22 PM »

That the Vatican finds it a perfectly acceptable practice is the absurdity.
Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.
That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd.  I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity.  Neither practice is forbidden. 

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.


This makes no sense with respect to calling lubeltri a cafeteria Catholic.

Calling a Roman rite Catholic a cafeteria Catholic for engaging a perfectly acceptable practice in the Roman rite is an absurdity.
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
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2011, 09:11:37 PM »

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28
In Orthodox tradition one isn't required to have both either. I made the same assertion as you once and was told off on it by someone far more knowledgable than my self, I have since seen several people only receive the one kind.

It is however our tradition that both are offered.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2011, 09:15:52 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2011, 09:21:06 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 09:36:20 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,
Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 09:39:59 PM »

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28
In Orthodox tradition one isn't required to have both either. I made the same assertion as you once and was told off on it by someone far more knowledgable than my self, I have since seen several people only receive the one kind.

It is however our tradition that both are offered.

It is required so far as outside of a rare communion of the sick or at the celebration pre-sanctified gifts (wine is not consecrated)...one can not commune of one species alone. Infants are given the blood of Christ which invariably has the particle of the Body from inside the chalice.

Quote
With Roman Catholics....A substantial deviation from Orthodoxy lies also in the fact that the laity are deprived of the holy Chalice, that is, they are deprived of communion of the immaculate Blood of Christ, contrary to the Lord's direct words: "drink ye ALL of it". This innovation was first allowed in the West in the twelfth century, with the aim of showing the superiority of the clergy over the laity in the very communion; later it was confirmed at the Council of Trent. In justification of their deviation, Roman Catholic theologians thought up some pretexts, such as, "there is no necessity for the laity to commune of the Holy Blood separately because where the Body is given, there the Blood is given", or "when there is a multitude of communicants, it is easy to jostle and spill the Chalice."

The Lord's words,"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53), confirm the correctness of the Orthodox method of performing the sacrament - under both species. The teaching on the necessity for everyone to commune under two species is also clearly expressed in the apostolic epistles (see, for example, I Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:26-30). And the patristic works testify against the Roman practice. Saint John Chrysostom (fourth century) says, "we are all equally counted worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ - not as happened in the Old Testament: the priest would eat some parts of the sacrifice and the people would eat other parts. Now it is not so, but one Body and one Cup is offered to everyone.."


Fr. Victor Potapov
http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P12.htm
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 09:43:20 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,
Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

My comments stand.  The "not giving" is a part of the western tradition.  I think they should be allowed to exercise that tradition without being reviled. 

I am not suggesting that you are.  I accept your disagreement.  I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted.  However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2011, 09:49:47 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.
heretical and non-canonical practices are not a tradition in the Orthodox Cathoic sense of the word.  That is why the WRO don't do it.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2011, 10:18:42 PM »

It is required so far as outside of a rare communion of the sick or at the celebration pre-sanctified gifts (wine is not consecrated)...one can not commune of one species alone.

I've been to an OCA church many times and seen a man always be communed with only the Body. I don't know the specifics and don't care to, but I'm sure there's a good reason.

I've also heard that in Alaska many of the natives use non-alcoholic wine in the churches.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2011, 10:27:31 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,
Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

My comments stand.
 on sand.
The "not giving" is a part of the western tradition. 

No, it is not.  It only started as a deviation in the West in the 1200's.
I think they should be allowed to exercise that tradition without being reviled.

No, they should not.  It is an aberration, and should be treated as such, at least as much as unleaven waifers.
I am not suggesting that you are.  I accept your disagreement.  I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted.  However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.
part of the decay of that rite and tradition, like the loss of the epiclesis.
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
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2011, 07:28:33 AM »

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.
That is how it is offered here in Greece,


Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2011, 09:50:54 AM »

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.
That is how it is offered here in Greece.
Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2011, 09:56:10 AM »

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.
That is how it is offered here in Greece.
Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

Actually there is a special "intinction chalice" you can get, with a cup for the wine and a sort of "moat" around it for the bread - like this one:





Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 25, 2011, 10:03:21 AM »

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.
That is how it is offered here in Greece.
Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

Actually there is a special "intinction chalice" you can get, with a cup for the wine and a sort of "moat" around it for the bread - like this one:


24-kt gold? Must be pretty expensive. Where can I pick one up? Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #43 on: September 25, 2011, 10:18:58 AM »

Quote
24-kt gold? Must be pretty expensive. Where can I pick one up?  Shocked

Aren't most chalices gold?  Huh

(I mean. other than Cardinal Mahoney's glass wonders!  Grin )
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #44 on: September 25, 2011, 11:06:12 AM »

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.
That is how it is offered here in Greece.
Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

No, not in the churches I go to. the priest holds them both in one hand.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2011, 11:34:01 AM »

24-kt gold? Must be pretty expensive. Where can I pick one up? Shocked

Only $535, but it while supplies last!
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2011, 07:47:55 PM »

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

Well, the root problem there is that there aren't enough ordinations to supply the priests and deacons needed to do the job.

Quote
And there have definitely been abuses in that area.  My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!

It's a lead-pipe cinch that the rubrics don't allow that; certainly the ECUSA rubrics don't. That points to another deep problem: RC priests don't follow their own rules, so changing the rules is probably not going to help.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2011, 09:32:58 PM »

It's a lead-pipe cinch that the rubrics don't allow that; certainly the ECUSA rubrics don't. That points to another deep problem: RC priests don't follow their own rules, so changing the rules is probably not going to help.

Yes, my mother reported to me that the priest at her church has already stated his intention to continue offering the wine no matter what the Bishop says. (Being a die-hard liberal, she is of course quite happy about that.  Roll Eyes )
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 09:33:09 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2011, 12:18:59 AM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #49 on: September 26, 2011, 12:41:02 AM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Perhaps you didn't know there are "non-alcoholic Passovers":

http://globalresonance.net/message.cfm?messageid=271739

Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2011, 09:22:58 AM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2011, 10:35:32 AM »

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 10:37:23 AM by bogdan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2011, 11:26:51 AM »

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?

It also makes it sound as though Christ is not to be experienced by hundreds of laity.

As I said earlier there is ample gospel evidence that Jesus is far more patient than we are with the humble folk.

Teach them...don't lock Him away from them.
Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2011, 01:04:03 PM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2011, 02:02:02 PM »

Yeah, I'm with Alveus Lacuna on this one. It sounds like RC is just lazy with these kinds of justifications. "But it'll take tooooo longgggg!" Wah, wah, wah. God forbid your liturgy might last an hour and a half instead of an hour because people are receiving the body and blood of Christ! Which, if I remember my RCIA classes, is kind of the point of the whole thing...

Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #55 on: September 26, 2011, 02:06:58 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Oh, ok Smiley I'm not sure of the particulars... I've taken two daughters to communion sporadically, but never really paid attention to that (I was more focused on keeping them from getting fidgety and causing an accident!)... though I think (?) they give them a bit of wine, and not really a piece of bread (?) but it's assumed that there are some small crums/particles of the bread in the wine.

That's what I do - the smallest particle of the Body that I can see, with more of the Blood on the spoon.  Less likely to get spit-up (especially be a pre-solids baby).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2011, 02:15:01 PM »

There is a large Orthodox church in my area that has hundreds of attendants each Sunday, and they manage to commune everyone. Granted they have several deacons so it goes somewhat faster, but it still takes awhile to get through everybody. Nobody has ever appeared impatient or irritated that they had to wait in line for that long (and if you are, I dare say your heart isn't well-prepared to receive anyway). I just don't see why time is a valid reason.

I still remember my Emergent days. The pastor would say, "We don't do a drive-thru Eucharist here." Even Emergents know the Lord's Table should be approached with awe. It's not a time to be tapping your feet or drumming your fingers.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2011, 02:15:08 PM »

Yeah, I'm with Alveus Lacuna on this one. It sounds like RC is just lazy with these kinds of justifications. "But it'll take tooooo longgggg!" Wah, wah, wah. God forbid your liturgy might last an hour and a half instead of an hour because people are receiving the body and blood of Christ! Which, if I remember my RCIA classes, is kind of the point of the whole thing...

I'm Alveus Lacuna, and I didn't approve this message.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2011, 02:32:26 PM »

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.

But of course I will stand by my own opinion as is. I was thinking about it and the difference as far as I can tell in the ritual surrounding distribution of communion that might account for the RC attitude is that, all other things being equal (so as not to compare a 3,000 person RC parish to a 40 person Orthodox one), there seems much less to do in the RC model. I can't receive in the COC yet, and it takes about 20-25 minutes to distribute communion in the parish I now attend, but that time lets us get through a few communion hymns, which are generally the high point of the liturgy, as that's when the people are at their most energetic and joyous. Contrasting that with my memories in the RC church, I don't even remember there being multiple communion hymns (though there probably were), meaning that there was a lot of space filled up with silence or some soft, droning keyboard/organ. I could see how a half an hour or more of that would get tiresome. Perhaps the RC could lessen the apparent dread at having long communion lines if there were more to do around it other than wait for it a while, then to back to your seat and sit quietly.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 02:33:43 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2011, 03:05:15 PM »

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.
Alveus may be referring to the fact that Catholics believe that the host is the Body and the Blood of Christ. Just receiving the host means that one gets both, from a Catholic perspective.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2011, 03:16:22 PM »

I just didn't like his tone. I remain on the side of reception of both the Body and Blood, not that we can be certain whether or not their is sacramental grace in the Roman Catholic Church, so it is possible that the thread is a non-starter.
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2011, 05:42:28 PM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2011, 06:34:48 PM »

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28
Both his body and blood are present under each species, because the whole Christ is present under each species.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2011, 06:34:48 PM »

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

 Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).  Angry
Amen!
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2011, 06:34:48 PM »

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2011, 06:34:49 PM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2011, 07:09:31 PM »

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

We don't deduce such things, nor do we attempt to reduce things to their simplest elements. They are inseparable. Thus they must always be served together. "Unless you eat my body AND drink my blood..."

By that logic we could use Welch's instead of wine. "You would think they believed Christ is half in the alcohol and half in the grape juice."

What is the actual problem with intinction? Most of the RCs in this thread make it sound like it's this impossible feat. Yet our Western Rite parishes manage to somehow pull it off at every Mass, quite painlessly.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 07:15:56 PM by bogdan » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #67 on: September 26, 2011, 11:44:46 PM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.
Again, the above post seems to suggest that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #68 on: September 26, 2011, 11:44:46 PM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?
yes.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #69 on: September 26, 2011, 11:44:46 PM »

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

We don't deduce such things, nor do we attempt to reduce things to their simplest elements. They are inseparable. Thus they must always be served together. "Unless you eat my body AND drink my blood..."

By that logic we could use Welch's instead of wine. "You would think they believed Christ is half in the alcohol and half in the grape juice."

What is the actual problem with intinction? Most of the RCs in this thread make it sound like it's this impossible feat. Yet our Western Rite parishes manage to somehow pull it off at every Mass, quite painlessly.
I don't have a problem with intinction. I just don't think it's necessary.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2011, 08:29:23 AM »

I think it is actually better to use intinction, that way your not sharing the same chalice with lots of people, and simplifies things for the Priest.

Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2011, 11:41:02 AM »

I think it is actually better to use intinction, that way your not sharing the same chalice with lots of people, and simplifies things for the Priest.


I agree that intinction is better than having each person drink from the same cup. However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2011, 03:12:41 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2011, 03:28:58 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

It is not an abuse. 

Communion under one of the species is the norm in the Catholic west.

She is holding to that tradition.

Hold your own and be glad.
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2011, 03:32:44 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

^ This.

I mean, I agree with you that the fullness of Christ is in both species—indeed, in every molecule—and maybe in extremis one could be taken by itself without any loss of its "Christfulness". Why should that become the norm? Just to prove that Christ is fully present in both?

The two were served together at the Last Supper and it was always served together thereafter, until the West came to change her ancient tradition (serving both species together is more ancient than only serving one, true in both East and West). How can the elements be divorced? especially for the sake of proving a point, or for the sake of convenience? It seems to be literally a reduction to absurdity, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 03:33:38 PM by bogdan » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2011, 03:49:07 PM »

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.
Again, the above post seems to suggest that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.
No, just that we do what Christ commanded.  But then that is what makes us Orthodox.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2011, 03:49:08 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.
It is not an abuse.

Yes, it is. One of many.
Communion under one of the species is the norm in the Catholic west.
It was not practiced during the first centuries of the Vatican's schism, is not practiced everywhere in its ecclesial community, nor by its Protestant siblings of the West, and of course never in the East. So it fails the test of Catholic practice on all levels.

She is holding to that tradition.
abuse is not a tradition.

Hold your own and be glad.
LOL.  As if the Vatican ever allowed that when it promised.  Is the same abuse enforced on the Anglican use/personal prelature?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2011, 03:51:51 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.
It's not an abuse.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2011, 04:11:46 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

^ This.

I mean, I agree with you that the fullness of Christ is in both species—indeed, in every molecule—and maybe in extremis one could be taken by itself without any loss of its "Christfulness". Why should that become the norm? Just to prove that Christ is fully present in both?

The two were served together at the Last Supper and it was always served together thereafter, until the West came to change her ancient tradition (serving both species together is more ancient than only serving one, true in both East and West). How can the elements be divorced? especially for the sake of proving a point, or for the sake of convenience? It seems to be literally a reduction to absurdity, in my opinion.

That is not quite true.  The symbol of the early agape meal was a loaf of bread, symbolizing the unity of community.  As the early communities and Churches begin to distinguish between Eucharist and Agape meal then the wine became a more important element but in 2000 years the precious blood has never achieved the symbolic power of the Body of Christ, which is why when the Church began to commune under one species it was the Body of Christ that was chosen.

I do realize what you believe and that's good.  I didn't think we had an argument there.  We don't seem to agree on the question of whether or not the choice to commune under one species is some effort to "prove" something.  I would say it is not.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 04:23:18 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,201


Scheherazade


« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2011, 05:34:24 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.


That is precisely the way the Protestants think. They've just boiled down what is "necessary" a little further than you have. Of course as they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Wink


Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 27, 2011, 05:55:27 PM »

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.


That is precisely the way the Protestants think. They've just boiled down what is "necessary" a little further than you have. Of course as they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Wink


Totally different order.

All Papist is saying is that it is not necessary to have the body AND blood to have the fullness of the real presence.   That exists in either the body, or the blood, or both.

Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2011, 01:20:44 AM »

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.

But of course I will stand by my own opinion as is. I was thinking about it and the difference as far as I can tell in the ritual surrounding distribution of communion that might account for the RC attitude is that, all other things being equal (so as not to compare a 3,000 person RC parish to a 40 person Orthodox one), there seems much less to do in the RC model. I can't receive in the COC yet, and it takes about 20-25 minutes to distribute communion in the parish I now attend, but that time lets us get through a few communion hymns, which are generally the high point of the liturgy, as that's when the people are at their most energetic and joyous. Contrasting that with my memories in the RC church, I don't even remember there being multiple communion hymns (though there probably were), meaning that there was a lot of space filled up with silence or some soft, droning keyboard/organ. I could see how a half an hour or more of that would get tiresome. Perhaps the RC could lessen the apparent dread at having long communion lines if there were more to do around it other than wait for it a while, then to back to your seat and sit quietly.

Well, at my church two priests offer the host and two laypeople hold chalices off to the side for those who wish to drink from them (maybe about half do; as I said before, I'm not one of them). The choir sings first the communion chant from the Roman Gradual, followed by a motet and/or some hymns. Communion only takes about 15 minutes.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2011, 01:22:45 AM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2011, 06:56:10 AM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2011, 09:58:36 AM »


One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

So the Resurrection would then cause necessary theological confusion?

God forbid that we are ever challenged by doubt, confusion or pain: Pain the Greatest Evil...I suppose confusion is the second greatest evil...?

Silly
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2011, 10:45:58 AM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

While I certainly firmly believe that one should receive both elements of the Eucharist, I just as firmly believe that not doing so does not necessarily cause "theological" confusion.  If one is confused about the nature of the Body and Blood, it's for another, deeper reason.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2011, 11:49:12 AM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8
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
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2011, 03:41:00 PM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I believe this became practice in the early 1000's because the idea spread about Europe that the Body and Blood of the Eucharist were separate forms of Christ.  Receiving under one species was done to emphasize the fact that the same Christ is present in both the Body and Blood, and that receiving under one kind is not receiving less of Christ.  See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for more details.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2011, 04:45:51 PM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8

John.6
[1]

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.

[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.
[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.
[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]


No mention of wine or blood--just loaves and fish.  The verses you referenced are, unless I'm mistaken, chronologically---after the feeding of the multitude.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #89 on: September 28, 2011, 09:25:15 PM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I believe this became practice in the early 1000's because the idea spread about Europe that the Body and Blood of the Eucharist were separate forms of Christ.  Receiving under one species was done to emphasize the fact that the same Christ is present in both the Body and Blood, and that receiving under one kind is not receiving less of Christ.  See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for more details.
What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

While I certainly firmly believe that one should receive both elements of the Eucharist, I just as firmly believe that not doing so does not necessarily cause "theological" confusion.  If one is confused about the nature of the Body and Blood, it's for another, deeper reason.
I see.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #90 on: September 28, 2011, 09:59:57 PM »

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?
If I might be so bold, I would say that lubeltri's post exemplifies the gulf in thinking between the Orthodox and Rome. If we are at the liturgy to worship and to grow in union with the Holy Trinity, why should it matter how much time it takes?? So we can make a bee line for the parking lot?

Down here that's the case amongst all the western churches because everyone wants to be the first at the local cafeteria. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #91 on: September 28, 2011, 10:06:02 PM »

Thanks for that, Andrew. That's what I was trying to get at in my post, though it didn't go over too well. Trying to "rush through" the Eucharist is baffling to me. If it takes hours, it takes hours. Praise God that you have so many people who have gathered to worship Him and receive His holy body and blood. "But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 10:11:07 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #92 on: September 28, 2011, 10:54:30 PM »

Thanks for that, Andrew. That's what I was trying to get at in my post, though it didn't go over too well. Trying to "rush through" the Eucharist is baffling to me. If it takes hours, it takes hours. Praise God that you have so many people who have gathered to worship Him and receive His holy body and blood. "But he who endures to the end shall be saved."


Yes, exactly! When I was still a catechumen I had an opportunity to venerate the Kursk Root Icon of the Mother of God and was amazed to see pictures of people in Russia waiting hours upon hours just to venerate the icon. Some waited hours and hours just to see it pass by them. Pregnant women, elderly folk, just about anyone. This wasn't even for the Eucharist.

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #93 on: September 29, 2011, 12:20:48 AM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8

John.6
[1]

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.

[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.
[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.
[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]


No mention of wine or blood--just loaves and fish.  The verses you referenced are, unless I'm mistaken, chronologically---after the feeding of the multitude.
that is like saying the New Testament comes chronologically after the Old Testament.

Where you break off:
[22] On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
[23] However, boats from Tiber'i-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
[24] So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caper'na-um, seeking Jesus. [25] When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
[26] Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

Jesus and John explicitely link the feeding of the five thousand to the discourse on the Eucharist, making the former a prologue to the latter.  Of course, someone can have their fill of loaves and fish, and move on.  Many will-John 6:66.

But don't believe me, believe a Jesuit:
Quote
The various New Testament accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes, the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples, and the Early Christian Church's commemoration of the Lord's Supper (also called the "Breaking of the Bread" or later the "Eucharist" ), contain similar patterns of four key verbs (or their synonyms):
The Feeding of the 5000 (in all four Gospels):

Mark 6:41 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people;
and he divided the two fish among them all."
 
Matt 14:19 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples,
and the disciples gave them to the crowds."
 
Luke 9:16 - "And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd."
 
John 6:11 - "Then Jesus took the loaves,
and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated;
so also the fish, as much as they wanted."....
"The Words of Institution" at the Christian Eucharist
Throughout the centuries, whenever the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" (also known as the "Lord's Supper," the "Mass," the "Divine Liturgy," and/or a "Communion Service") is celebrated in Christian Churches, the priest or minister usually speaks some words based closely on the above NT texts:

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted,
Jesus took bread, and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said:
"Take this, all of you, and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you."
When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me."
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eucharist.htm

I seem to recall the icon of the feeding of the multitudes as a favorite above the altar in the apse, along with the icon of the communion of the Apostles.
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
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #94 on: September 29, 2011, 08:35:59 AM »

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?
If I might be so bold, I would say that lubeltri's post exemplifies the gulf in thinking between the Orthodox and Rome. If we are at the liturgy to worship and to grow in union with the Holy Trinity, why should it matter how much time it takes?? So we can make a bee line for the parking lot?

Down here that's the case amongst all the western churches because everyone wants to be the first at the local cafeteria. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

Quote
Yes, exactly! When I was still a catechumen I had an opportunity to venerate the Kursk Root Icon of the Mother of God and was amazed to see pictures of people in Russia waiting hours upon hours just to venerate the icon. Some waited hours and hours just to see it pass by them. Pregnant women, elderly folk, just about anyone. This wasn't even for the Eucharist.

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."   

In Christ,
Andrew

It sounds like you are tarring all Catholics with the same brush Andrew !

we are not all the same, and personally I think the Latin right Mass is too short. plus when you go to the mass at the cathedral here in Athens it can take up to 45 to take communion as so many people, When I was in the UK we had an open air mass one day, it took 2 hours, we was all patient and enjoying listening to the Choir.

you should never be in a hurry to leave Gods house...!
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #95 on: September 29, 2011, 09:01:00 AM »

JR, I believe that you are right about Catholics in different parts of the world being very different in their approach to the Mass. Years before I ever attended a Mass in the USA, I attended one in a small rural church in Mexico. It began at about 9 am and we (me and the small group of fellow non-Catholic Americans who attended with me) had to leave at noon, well before the Mass was over, because some of our party were complaining about being hungry and wanting to go to lunch. Undecided

Sadly, even though we were non-Catholics, that same attitude is not unheard of among American Catholics (though they are definitely not all the same, either).
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 09:03:22 AM by dzheremi » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 29, 2011, 10:02:31 AM »

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?
If I might be so bold, I would say that lubeltri's post exemplifies the gulf in thinking between the Orthodox and Rome. If we are at the liturgy to worship and to grow in union with the Holy Trinity, why should it matter how much time it takes?? So we can make a bee line for the parking lot?

Down here that's the case amongst all the western churches because everyone wants to be the first at the local cafeteria. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

He's not talking about TIME.  He is referencing the margin for error and slopping the precious blood all over the place, although that does not happen with any regularity in any event.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 29, 2011, 10:28:20 AM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I believe this became practice in the early 1000's because the idea spread about Europe that the Body and Blood of the Eucharist were separate forms of Christ.  Receiving under one species was done to emphasize the fact that the same Christ is present in both the Body and Blood, and that receiving under one kind is not receiving less of Christ.  See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for more details.
What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

While I certainly firmly believe that one should receive both elements of the Eucharist, I just as firmly believe that not doing so does not necessarily cause "theological" confusion.  If one is confused about the nature of the Body and Blood, it's for another, deeper reason.
I see.

You see what?  Because by applying your logic, receiving under both species is what caused the confusion in the first place, not receiving just one species.

Secondly, I said I never MET such a person.  Trying to use an example from 1000 years ago when I'm only 36 years old is pointless.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #98 on: September 29, 2011, 11:09:29 AM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8

John.6
[1]

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.

[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.
[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.
[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]


No mention of wine or blood--just loaves and fish.  The verses you referenced are, unless I'm mistaken, chronologically---after the feeding of the multitude.
that is like saying the New Testament comes chronologically after the Old Testament.

Where you break off:
[22] On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
[23] However, boats from Tiber'i-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
[24] So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caper'na-um, seeking Jesus. [25] When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
[26] Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

Jesus and John explicitely link the feeding of the five thousand to the discourse on the Eucharist, making the former a prologue to the latter.  Of course, someone can have their fill of loaves and fish, and move on.  Many will-John 6:66.

But don't believe me, believe a Jesuit:
Quote
The various New Testament accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes, the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples, and the Early Christian Church's commemoration of the Lord's Supper (also called the "Breaking of the Bread" or later the "Eucharist" ), contain similar patterns of four key verbs (or their synonyms):
The Feeding of the 5000 (in all four Gospels):

Mark 6:41 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people;
and he divided the two fish among them all."
  
Matt 14:19 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples,
and the disciples gave them to the crowds."
  
Luke 9:16 - "And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd."
  
John 6:11 - "Then Jesus took the loaves,
and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated;
so also the fish, as much as they wanted."....
"The Words of Institution" at the Christian Eucharist
Throughout the centuries, whenever the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" (also known as the "Lord's Supper," the "Mass," the "Divine Liturgy," and/or a "Communion Service") is celebrated in Christian Churches, the priest or minister usually speaks some words based closely on the above NT texts:

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted,
Jesus took bread, and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said:
"Take this, all of you, and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you."
When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me."
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eucharist.htm

I seem to recall the icon of the feeding of the multitudes as a favorite above the altar in the apse, along with the icon of the communion of the Apostles.


I understand your point.  However...someone asked, "is mass the feeding of the five thousand?".  Someone else said, "Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand."
You wrote, "just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8".  Am I correct in understanding that you are implying here that the Mass *is* the feeding of the 5 thousand?
In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?

I'm *not* arguing or even trying to imply that the two sets of passages are not linked, even perhaps inextricably so.  And I understand that the Mass and Eucharist transcend time and space.  I'm just trying to point out that in the *specific* passages of the feeding of the 5 thousand as related in John, there is no mention of "blood", "wine", or "drink".  That's all.  Nothing more.  Not looking for another p___ing contest.  Happy to concede that you are far more knowledgeable than I.  And I'm also happy to learn and grow in understanding.

Peace,
JM
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 11:13:11 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #99 on: September 29, 2011, 11:21:02 AM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?

The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #100 on: September 29, 2011, 11:34:55 AM »

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

But if everyone is clear that the fullness of Christ is present in both kinds, then why not return to the normative historical method of receiving both? That is my question. I acknowledge the reasons for for the change 1000 years ago, but I see no reason why that "economia" should continue perpetually for no good reason.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2011, 11:37:43 AM »

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

But if everyone is clear that the fullness of Christ is present in both kinds, then why not return to the normative historical method of receiving both? That is my question. I acknowledge the reasons for for the change 1000 years ago, but I see no reason why that "economia" should continue perpetually for no good reason.

LIke I said, I agree with you that Christians should receive under both species.  Why certain RCs have clung to this, I don't know.  The simple fact remains, however, that many RCs do receive under both kinds, but it's up to the priest celebrating Mass.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #102 on: September 29, 2011, 11:38:45 AM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?

The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: September 29, 2011, 11:42:25 AM »

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

But if everyone is clear that the fullness of Christ is present in both kinds, then why not return to the normative historical method of receiving both? That is my question. I acknowledge the reasons for for the change 1000 years ago, but I see no reason why that "economia" should continue perpetually for no good reason.

Because it is now a tradition of the Roman rite.  It is not absolutely necessary.  It is a discipline.  Therefore it is mutable and not a rigid element that can never change.

There are lessons to be learned using both species.  There are lessons to be learned using one.  There are other lessons to come out of a limited use of both species.

Why is this so difficult?  Why is it so hard to see beneath the most superficial aspects of an issue?

M.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #104 on: September 29, 2011, 11:47:32 AM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."

John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #105 on: September 29, 2011, 12:08:41 PM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."

John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.

Yes, I understand that.  And, yes, we *do* receive both His Body and Blood, whether under one or under two species.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #106 on: September 29, 2011, 12:13:17 PM »

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that from my own perspective there's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-Latin, so long as we're talking about the ideas and practices of the Latin church that separate it from Orthodoxy, not the people themselves(as I know we are, but not everyone makes that distinction). As the Pope I should like to follow has said (paraphrasing), we fight against ideas, not people. The idea of receiving under one kind only runs counter not just Orthodox tradition, but according to the Latins in this thread to the tradition of the Latin church as it was over 1,000 years ago. I agree with Elijahmaria that what is practiced now in the Latin church is tradition, in that it has been that way for a long time now. But why a 1,000 year old tradition should trump the older tradition is not clear to me. It seems that for all the talk of tradition on the part of the Latins, there is some sort of cut-off point beyond which they will not go, because that means that they would probably want to discard the various innovations that have since become the "tradition" of the Latins.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 12:15:04 PM by dzheremi » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #107 on: September 29, 2011, 12:21:20 PM »

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

But if everyone is clear that the fullness of Christ is present in both kinds, then why not return to the normative historical method of receiving both? That is my question. I acknowledge the reasons for for the change 1000 years ago, but I see no reason why that "economia" should continue perpetually for no good reason.
Your/The number is exaggerated: the aberration is post schism, by around two centuries.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2011, 01:11:41 PM »

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that from my own perspective there's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-Latin, so long as we're talking about the ideas and practices of the Latin church that separate it from Orthodoxy, not the people themselves(as I know we are, but not everyone makes that distinction). As the Pope I should like to follow has said (paraphrasing), we fight against ideas, not people. The idea of receiving under one kind only runs counter not just Orthodox tradition, but according to the Latins in this thread to the tradition of the Latin church as it was over 1,000 years ago. I agree with Elijahmaria that what is practiced now in the Latin church is tradition, in that it has been that way for a long time now. But why a 1,000 year old tradition should trump the older tradition is not clear to me. It seems that for all the talk of tradition on the part of the Latins, there is some sort of cut-off point beyond which they will not go, because that means that they would probably want to discard the various innovations that have since become the "tradition" of the Latins.



In the very beginning of Christian communities in the Apostolic period and into the 2nd century, one of the central concerns of the nascent Church was union.  The symbol of that union was a SINGLE loaf broken and shared.

As time went on the Christian communities became too large for a single loaf and so the idea of union-equals-single-loaf slowly began to change as more than one loaf had to be broken and shared.

So will large parishes or Cathedral parishes go back to one loaf, now that we have food processors that can batter a loaf into miniscule pieces to be placed in chalices sufficient to "feed the flock"...and if not...why not?

Unity of one loaf broken and shared was NOT small change as far as ecclesia goes.  It still isn't...but...it is surely no longer quite the same.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 01:13:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,446


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #109 on: September 29, 2011, 01:18:14 PM »

The Greeks, and those churches which follow the Greek tradition, to this day use a single prosphoron loaf from which the Lamb and all the other particles which enter the Chalice are taken.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 01:20:12 PM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: September 29, 2011, 01:27:03 PM »

The Greeks, and those churches which follow the Greek tradition, to this day use a single prosphoron loaf from which the Lamb and all the other particles which enter the Chalice are taken.


Most small parishes of other jurisdictions do the same.

But the fact remains that the practice did change over time as well as the explanations and understandings.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,446


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: September 29, 2011, 01:30:37 PM »

Quote
Most small parishes of other jurisdictions do the same.

No, they do not. The Russians and other Slavs use five smaller loaves instead of one large one. The Lamb is taken from one, and the particles for the other categories of commemoration are taken from the other four.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 29, 2011, 01:32:34 PM »

Quote
Most small parishes of other jurisdictions do the same.

No, they do not. The Russians and other Slavs use five smaller loaves instead of one large one. The Lamb is taken from one, and the particles for the other categories of commemoration are taken from the other four.

True.  I was not thinking when I wrote that.  I mean I was confusing loaf and lamb...pardon.

But my point remains.  There is a variance from the original practice and the original symbol of unity.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 01:33:24 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #113 on: September 29, 2011, 01:41:52 PM »

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.
Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand  Wink
just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8

John.6
[1]

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.

[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.
[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.
[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]


No mention of wine or blood--just loaves and fish.  The verses you referenced are, unless I'm mistaken, chronologically---after the feeding of the multitude.
that is like saying the New Testament comes chronologically after the Old Testament.

Where you break off:
[22] On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
[23] However, boats from Tiber'i-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
[24] So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caper'na-um, seeking Jesus. [25] When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
[26] Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

Jesus and John explicitely link the feeding of the five thousand to the discourse on the Eucharist, making the former a prologue to the latter.  Of course, someone can have their fill of loaves and fish, and move on.  Many will-John 6:66.

But don't believe me, believe a Jesuit:
Quote
The various New Testament accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes, the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples, and the Early Christian Church's commemoration of the Lord's Supper (also called the "Breaking of the Bread" or later the "Eucharist" ), contain similar patterns of four key verbs (or their synonyms):
The Feeding of the 5000 (in all four Gospels):

Mark 6:41 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people;
and he divided the two fish among them all."
  
Matt 14:19 - "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples,
and the disciples gave them to the crowds."
  
Luke 9:16 - "And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd."
  
John 6:11 - "Then Jesus took the loaves,
and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated;
so also the fish, as much as they wanted."....
"The Words of Institution" at the Christian Eucharist
Throughout the centuries, whenever the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" (also known as the "Lord's Supper," the "Mass," the "Divine Liturgy," and/or a "Communion Service") is celebrated in Christian Churches, the priest or minister usually speaks some words based closely on the above NT texts:

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted,
Jesus took bread, and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said:
"Take this, all of you, and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you."
When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me."
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eucharist.htm

I seem to recall the icon of the feeding of the multitudes as a favorite above the altar in the apse, along with the icon of the communion of the Apostles.


I understand your point.  However...someone asked, "is mass the feeding of the five thousand?".  Someone else said, "Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand."
You wrote, "just drinking His blood, "drink indeed" Wink  John 6:26-7;53-8".  Am I correct in understanding that you are implying here that the Mass *is* the feeding of the 5 thousand?
Antidoron, as Christ indicated.

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?
 
Yes.  John places in within one event.  For instance, the following chapter 7 takes place at different times and places, but John binds them together as one event, Christ fullfilled the Feast of Tabernacles and pointing their fullfillment in the Church (esp. the reference to the coming of Pentecost on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles).  So too the preceding chapter 5 of healing on Pentecost and the discourse on the True Law (also in different places and times), and Christ telling parables, and then later and elsewhere explaining them to the Apostles.

Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The DL I went to last Sunday and "the Last Supper" (where at both the Words of Institution were spoken, in the same terms used, as the Jesuit pointed out, at the feeding of the multitude), humanly speaking 2 seperate events in time and space, but the same Mystical Supper.

I'm *not* arguing or even trying to imply that the two sets of passages are not linked, even perhaps inextricably so.  And I understand that the Mass and Eucharist transcend time and space.  I'm just trying to point out that in the *specific* passages of the feeding of the 5 thousand as related in John, there is no mention of "blood", "wine", or "drink".  That's all.  Nothing more.  Not looking for another p___ing contest.  Happy to concede that you are far more knowledgeable than I.  And I'm also happy to learn and grow in understanding.

Peace,
JM
Then the feeding of the multitude cannot be used as justification of denying the chalice, which is what started this strain, boldfaced above.

Btw, the multiplication of the loaves is the sign that proves Christ is eaten, but never consumed.

So, that said, it still leaves open the question why the Vatican decides to withhold the chalice, and on what basis, and for what need, overthrowing Catholic practice.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #114 on: September 29, 2011, 01:41:52 PM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."

John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.

Yes, I understand that.  And, yes, we *do* receive both His Body and Blood, whether under one or under two species.
Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #115 on: September 29, 2011, 01:41:52 PM »

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that from my own perspective there's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-Latin, so long as we're talking about the ideas and practices of the Latin church that separate it from Orthodoxy, not the people themselves(as I know we are, but not everyone makes that distinction).
I'm not anti-Latin.  I love the Romanians, and the WRO.  These aberrations are not what make you Latin:if they were, how did the Latins exist for a millenium before the Vatican denied them the chalice?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #116 on: September 29, 2011, 01:41:53 PM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."

John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #117 on: September 29, 2011, 01:42:02 PM »

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that from my own perspective there's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-Latin, so long as we're talking about the ideas and practices of the Latin church that separate it from Orthodoxy, not the people themselves(as I know we are, but not everyone makes that distinction). As the Pope I should like to follow has said (paraphrasing), we fight against ideas, not people. The idea of receiving under one kind only runs counter not just Orthodox tradition, but according to the Latins in this thread to the tradition of the Latin church as it was over 1,000 years ago. I agree with Elijahmaria that what is practiced now in the Latin church is tradition, in that it has been that way for a long time now. But why a 1,000 year old tradition should trump the older tradition is not clear to me. It seems that for all the talk of tradition on the part of the Latins, there is some sort of cut-off point beyond which they will not go, because that means that they would probably want to discard the various innovations that have since become the "tradition" of the Latins.



In the very beginning of Christian communities in the Apostolic period and into the 2nd century, one of the central concerns of the nascent Church was union.  The symbol of that union was a SINGLE loaf broken and shared.

As time went on the Christian communities became too large for a single loaf and so the idea of union-equals-single-loaf slowly began to change as more than one loaf had to be broken and shared.

So will large parishes or Cathedral parishes go back to one loaf, now that we have food processors that can batter a loaf into miniscule pieces to be placed in chalices sufficient to "feed the flock"...and if not...why not?

Unity of one loaf broken and shared was NOT small change as far as ecclesia goes.
Change? What change?



 
It still isn't...but...it is surely no longer quite the same.
any documentation?  I doubt Churches ever got too big for a single loaf.  But then you haven't documentated that the early Church insisted on a single loaf.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #118 on: September 29, 2011, 04:08:04 PM »

The Greeks, and those churches which follow the Greek tradition, to this day use a single prosphoron loaf from which the Lamb and all the other particles which enter the Chalice are taken.


Most small parishes of other jurisdictions do the same.

But the fact remains that the practice did change over time as well as the explanations and understandings.
so that gives a license to make it up as they go along?
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
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #119 on: September 29, 2011, 08:35:01 PM »

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I'm with you, Vol.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2011, 10:27:42 PM »

In John 6:26-7, the words "blood", "wine", and "drink" to not appear.  In John 6:53-8, they do.  However, my reading of it places John 6:26-7 and John 6:53-8 at different times and places.  Is this incorrect?  Were the feeding of the 5 thousand and the Last Supper (where the Words of Institution were spoken) not 2 separate events in time and space?
The latter part of John 6 is not the institution of the Eucharist, but Christ's teaching that He gave His disciples concerning the nature of the feeding of the multitude. He says that they came to him because they ate of the loaves and instructed them to labor for the food which endures to everlasting life. From there the discussion goes to the manna in the desert being a type fulfilled in Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
Ok.  You won't find me arguing with you about that.

From our sometimes unreliable source, wikipedia: "No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution, until removed in 1970."

John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.
all the more reason to skip the wine altogether and just consecrate the loaf.

Odd.  I remember movies about the Mexican Revolution, about a priest searching for wine to say mass, and riskng his life looking for it.  In Egypt, the Caliph al-Hakim banned wine, and the Copts had to switch to making wine from raisins to circumvent the ban. I guess some of us take the Lord's words seriously enough to risk our lives, and some don't.
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
Seraphim Rose
President of Democracy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: [Eastern] Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 76


2000 Years of Ninjas Wailing on Guitar


« Reply #121 on: September 29, 2011, 10:30:51 PM »

Quote from: Melodist link=topic=39802.msg646020#msg646020
John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.

Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.

Papist, why would you take the expressions "This is my body" and "This is my blood" literally -- that is, that the food is literally God --

-- where Protestants say, "It's only a symbol, see, it says remember..."

-- but then, when Christ speaks as ialmisry quoted, "take this all of you and drink of it" you don't think he's literally referring to the cup?!? And to everyone??

Quote
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Quote
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Sure, the Blood may be in the Body. But Jesus tells us to drink from the cup. Not "consume my blood." But "Drink from it (the cup)."

I don't think "cup" in the text symbolizes the blood. Rather, I think the cup in the liturgy symbolizes the offering of Divine Salvation to us... the uncontainable contained...

The Incarnation.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 10:32:19 PM by Seraphim Rose » Logged

It ain't who you know. It's what who you know know.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #122 on: October 01, 2011, 01:05:44 AM »

Quote from: Melodist link=topic=39802.msg646020#msg646020
John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.

Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.

Papist, why would you take the expressions "This is my body" and "This is my blood" literally -- that is, that the food is literally God --

-- where Protestants say, "It's only a symbol, see, it says remember..."

-- but then, when Christ speaks as ialmisry quoted, "take this all of you and drink of it" you don't think he's literally referring to the cup?!? And to everyone??

Quote
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Quote
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Sure, the Blood may be in the Body. But Jesus tells us to drink from the cup. Not "consume my blood." But "Drink from it (the cup)."

I don't think "cup" in the text symbolizes the blood. Rather, I think the cup in the liturgy symbolizes the offering of Divine Salvation to us... the uncontainable contained...

The Incarnation.
1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #123 on: October 02, 2011, 01:07:52 PM »

I really think we are dealing with two different mindsets completely, but of course saying so makes me an "anti-Latin biggot."  Roll Eyes Wink

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that from my own perspective there's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-Latin, so long as we're talking about the ideas and practices of the Latin church that separate it from Orthodoxy, not the people themselves(as I know we are, but not everyone makes that distinction). As the Pope I should like to follow has said (paraphrasing), we fight against ideas, not people. The idea of receiving under one kind only runs counter not just Orthodox tradition, but according to the Latins in this thread to the tradition of the Latin church as it was over 1,000 years ago. I agree with Elijahmaria that what is practiced now in the Latin church is tradition, in that it has been that way for a long time now. But why a 1,000 year old tradition should trump the older tradition is not clear to me. It seems that for all the talk of tradition on the part of the Latins, there is some sort of cut-off point beyond which they will not go, because that means that they would probably want to discard the various innovations that have since become the "tradition" of the Latins.



In the very beginning of Christian communities in the Apostolic period and into the 2nd century, one of the central concerns of the nascent Church was union.  The symbol of that union was a SINGLE loaf broken and shared.

As time went on the Christian communities became too large for a single loaf and so the idea of union-equals-single-loaf slowly began to change as more than one loaf had to be broken and shared.

So will large parishes or Cathedral parishes go back to one loaf, now that we have food processors that can batter a loaf into miniscule pieces to be placed in chalices sufficient to "feed the flock"...and if not...why not?

Unity of one loaf broken and shared was NOT small change as far as ecclesia goes.
Change? What change?



 
It still isn't...but...it is surely no longer quite the same.
any documentation?  I doubt Churches ever got too big for a single loaf.  But then you haven't documentated that the early Church insisted on a single loaf.
"How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?"

"Change?! What change?!"
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 02, 2011, 01:10:53 PM »


"How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?"

"Change?! What change?!"
[/quote]

I always thought the question really should be:

What lightbulb?
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #125 on: October 02, 2011, 01:27:13 PM »

1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.
Thank you for this. This is exactly what I believe as well but could not find the right words. You hit the nail on the head with this one.
Logged
Seraphim Rose
President of Democracy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: [Eastern] Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 76


2000 Years of Ninjas Wailing on Guitar


« Reply #126 on: October 02, 2011, 03:00:37 PM »

1. Christ is fully present under both species.

Agreed.

Quote
2. The Church has understood that ... not every Christian must receive under each species.

It's precisely this bolded element that I am questioning. Whence this "understanding?" It seems to explicitly contradict the command of Christ. How is the RCC justified in its understanding, when it directly contradicts Christ:

Quote
"...take this all of you and drink of it."


Quote
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings.

Okay. Well, I would argue that we literally receive the Body and Blood of our Lord into our mouths, and thereby our mouths become holy. And we swallow his Body and Blood into our bellies. And digest Him in our stomachs. Thereby our throats and stomachs are made holy. He enters our bloodstream, and into the tissues of our bodies. And thus our body and blood are transformed into His Body and Blood. And thus are we made into God.

It is to be understood literally, yet not "merely" literally.

Quote
I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.

This sounds like one step away from Protestantism to me.

I submit that
Quote
Do this in memory of me.
is to be understood as following His command to the point that the Divine memory is with us, wholly Incarnate, and in which we participate wholly.

I submit the position which you state is "good enough for you" denies the complete presence of Christ. You might as well say that Christ was "human and man, yet perhaps more divine than man.

What lightbulb?
Christ is not merely light. The Light of Christ which was not comprehended was fully the Body and Blood of Christ, in the fully literal, yet not merely literal, sense.
Logged

It ain't who you know. It's what who you know know.
Seraphim Rose
President of Democracy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: [Eastern] Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 76


2000 Years of Ninjas Wailing on Guitar


« Reply #127 on: October 02, 2011, 03:04:38 PM »

Papist, I hope you will answer the question I have bolded in red.

Quote from: Seraphim Rose
Quote from: Papist
2. The Church has understood that ... not every Christian must receive under each species.

It's precisely this bolded element that I am questioning. Whence this "understanding?" It seems to explicitly contradict the command of Christ. How is the RCC justified in its understanding, when it directly contradicts Christ:

Quote
"...take this all of you and drink of it."
Logged

It ain't who you know. It's what who you know know.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #128 on: October 02, 2011, 05:28:01 PM »

Quote from: Melodist link=topic=39802.msg646020#msg646020
John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.

Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.

Papist, why would you take the expressions "This is my body" and "This is my blood" literally -- that is, that the food is literally God --

-- where Protestants say, "It's only a symbol, see, it says remember..."

-- but then, when Christ speaks as ialmisry quoted, "take this all of you and drink of it" you don't think he's literally referring to the cup?!? And to everyone??

Quote
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Quote
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Sure, the Blood may be in the Body. But Jesus tells us to drink from the cup. Not "consume my blood." But "Drink from it (the cup)."

I don't think "cup" in the text symbolizes the blood. Rather, I think the cup in the liturgy symbolizes the offering of Divine Salvation to us... the uncontainable contained...

The Incarnation.
1. Christ is fully present under both species.
True, but not relevant.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
The Church has understood no such thing: the Vatican made it up.  NO such practice was condoned by ANY Church for the first millenium, and for the first couple centuries after the Vatican went into schism, it wasn't doing it either.  It never became universal practice even in the West.  Fails every definition of the Catholic Church.  Not everyone much commune (although there is problems with fewer and fewer communing over the centuries), but those who do must obey the Lord's explicit command on it. THAT's the understanding of the Catholic Church.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.
Well, Dr. Zwingli, it's not good enough for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your scholasticism has led you astray: eating means "eating," and drinking means "drinking." Otherwise we can kneel with the Christian Scientists and commune that way.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #129 on: October 02, 2011, 05:30:45 PM »

1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.
Thank you for this. This is exactly what I believe as well but could not find the right words. You hit the nail on the head with this one.
You mean peg

I didn't know of your and Papist's crypto-Calvinist beliefs.  Interesting.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #130 on: October 03, 2011, 02:50:56 PM »

Papist, I hope you will answer the question I have bolded in red.

Quote from: Seraphim Rose
Quote from: Papist
2. The Church has understood that ... not every Christian must receive under each species.

It's precisely this bolded element that I am questioning. Whence this "understanding?" It seems to explicitly contradict the command of Christ. How is the RCC justified in its understanding, when it directly contradicts Christ:

Quote
"...take this all of you and drink of it."

The entire point of contention is whether or not it contradicts the command of Christ. I have provided for you a manner in which it does not violate the command of Christ. You are assuming your conclusion in your argument.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #131 on: October 03, 2011, 02:50:56 PM »

1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.
Thank you for this. This is exactly what I believe as well but could not find the right words. You hit the nail on the head with this one.
You mean peg

I didn't know of your and Papist's crypto-Calvinist beliefs.  Interesting.
Izzy, you are now just making an entirely stupid argument. You know very well that I believe that Christ is truly and actually present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,000


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #132 on: October 03, 2011, 10:28:03 PM »

Well, Dr. Zwingli, it's not good enough for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your scholasticism has led you astray: eating means "eating," and drinking means "drinking."

Indeed, except drinking implies taking a cup and drinking, not eating the accidents of bread soaked in wine.  So intinction fails that strict interpretation of criteria.  That said I see no reason why intiction could not be the normative method of distribution at every Mass.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #133 on: October 03, 2011, 11:12:14 PM »

In the roughly 5 years that I was RC, I never received only in one species (except when I was sick and didn't approach the chalice due to health concerns), nor was I ever given from the priests the idea that such an approach to the Eucharist was normative. It seems self-evident to me that this is not normative and ought never be considered as such. When a friend of mine from the Boston area was scandalized by my casual mention that we received both the body and the blood at the church in Oregon, I realized that this was not really a matter of "economia" or anything like that on the part of the RCC, but more than likely a function of congregation size and wanting to streamline the process, compounded perhaps by local tradition (as my Boston friend said "no one around here would THINK of doing that!")...hence my earlier post in this thread. God forgive me, I just can't understand this mentality or see it as just another way of approaching the same thing. I can understand that the RC approach is meant to emphasize that Christ is truly present in both species, but as an analogue to another's post I can say that I've never met an Orthodox person who didn't believe that He is because they receive both the body and blood. In fact, I can think of no better way to emphasize that fact. "This is my body" and "This is my blood", true statements both, are much more effectively, um...communicated...when they are actually given to the people...as Christ commanded.

Likewise, He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He blessed and sanctified, and gave it to His holy disciples and said "Take, drink of it all of you, this is my blood..."

I do not believe our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ performed one superfluous action or spoke one disposable word. I have to believe that Catholics would agree with that. Why, then, would Christ have bothered with the wine as well, if it could be discarded as a matter of course for expediency's sake or any other reason? 

Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #134 on: October 03, 2011, 11:29:14 PM »

1. Christ is fully present under both species.

Not a point I dispute.

Quote
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.

And not the point at all. The actual point that must be defended is "most Christians normally must not receive under both species." That, after all, is the practice that the Roman church is requiring.

Quote
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ.

 Huh  Roll Eyes Sorry, the first sentence is disputable, the second unsupportable. "Eating", literally, means "taking into the mouth, chewing as needed, and swallowing." In general digestion would be taken as a separate step; there's no evidence that Jesus meant it one way or the other. And "digest Christ"? On what basis can you say that? That seems to me to be a postulate, not a conclusion. One does not know what happens to the elements once they reach the stomach; one could continue to adhere to transsubstantiation and hold that the accidents are not lost and that the substance continues forever to act biologically in the body as if it were composed of starches and water and proteins and alcohol. From that point, the argument only gets worse: transsubstantiation is, after all, based in taking a doggedly literal reading of one part, so I see no reason not to take "eat" and "drink" equally literally-- and so does the Roman church, up to a point. They would not accept the validity of a mass in which there was no literal eating nor drinking, and rightly so.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #135 on: October 04, 2011, 01:38:58 AM »

Well, Dr. Zwingli, it's not good enough for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your scholasticism has led you astray: eating means "eating," and drinking means "drinking."

Indeed, except drinking implies taking a cup and drinking, not eating the accidents of bread soaked in wine.   So intinction fails that strict interpretation of criteria.
Not in the Middle East, where, for instance, we drink soup, not eat it, and "to drink" means "to suck in." IOW, injest.

That said I see no reason why intiction could not be the normative method of distribution at every Mass.
neither can we.
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 04, 2011, 07:56:37 AM »

Would ingestion of host and wine via a feeding tube into the stomach, be acceptable?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 07:57:39 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #137 on: October 04, 2011, 08:24:00 AM »

Would ingestion of host and wine via a feeding tube into the stomach, be acceptable?

I don't see why not !

Especially as a last rite Sacrament.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #138 on: October 04, 2011, 12:31:44 PM »

Would ingestion of host and wine via a feeding tube into the stomach, be acceptable?

I don't see why not !

Especially as a last rite Sacrament.
AS a last rite, if a person cannot "eat" the host, the priest will put a very small piece of the host in the communicant's mouth so that it dissovles there.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #139 on: October 11, 2011, 07:24:25 AM »

From Commonweal:

"Following on the decision of Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, Bishop Morlino, of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, has announced that Communion under both forms will be sharply curtailed in his own diocese as well. It’s hard to believe it, but this move is being presented as a universal necessity...."
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 07:25:10 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #140 on: October 11, 2011, 12:01:18 PM »

I note that the Commonweal article comments point out a misrepresentation in Bishop Olmsted's original directive, where he implies that permission to give communion in both kinds expired in 2005. As this analysis explains, that is apparently not so: the General Instruction of the Roman Missal continues to permit and commend communion in both kinds, and it (acto this analysis) supersedes the indult which expired in 2005. (I do wonder at the instructions which effectively forbid reservation of the wine.)

There's a lot of other Commonweal-ish criticism of the move, which I'm sure will have the Catholics here mostly rolling their eyes, but hey...
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #141 on: October 12, 2011, 01:00:39 PM »

Bishop Morlino has been a bit of a strange character for awhile--it could just be the media bias, but he tends to upset the way things are done for his own reasons.

Anyway, this trend of eliminating communion of the two species may have begun as a way of decreasing the heinous abuse of having extraordinary eucharistic ministers, but there are many ways of serving both species without resorting to such innovations, or going to the good old bad old medieval times--which is sadly where most traditional Roman Catholics feel most comfortable. If they could move back beyond the 12th century, it would be great.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #142 on: November 04, 2011, 07:52:32 AM »


Quote
WASHINGTON (EWTN News)—New guidelines for Mass celebration do not discourage laypersons’ reception of holy Communion under the forms of both bread and wine, contrary to early reports about a change in practice.
 
“In recent weeks, there have been questions regarding current liturgical law for the United States in offering holy Communion under both kinds to the faithful during Mass,” wrote Archbishop Gregory Aymond, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Divine Worship, in an Oct. 26 letter to the country’s Catholic hierarchy.
 
“In light of these questions,” he stated, “it is hoped that the following clarifications will prove helpful.”
 
The letter goes on to explain that the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not restrict the circumstances under which the lay faithful may receive Communion under both kinds. In fact, the new norms encourage the practice, while giving local bishops freedom to expand or restrict it.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #143 on: November 12, 2011, 09:43:39 AM »

More:

Quote
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted has issued new norms for the distribution of Holy Communion in the Diocese of Phoenix.

Promulgated by the bishop on Nov. 7, these new guidelines entrust to parish pastors the decision to make available to the faithful Communion under both kinds.

The new norms for the Diocese of Phoenix are intended to promote greater reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. They are based on three Church documents that provide guidance for celebrating Mass: the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and "The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the USA."
....
Previously, The Catholic Sun had reported that the norms, which were incomplete at the time, would restrict the availability of the Precious Blood to a limited number of occasions, such as certain feast days, retreats or special celebrations. What the norms state is that the distribution of Communion under both kinds will be based on eight conditions.


The eight conditions:

Quote
B. Conditions for the use of Holy Communion under both kinds:

i. The faithful present at Mass are properly catechized and continually receive catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on the matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

ii. The ordinary ministers (i.e., priests and deacons) are able to purify all the sacred vessels either during or immediately following Dismissal of the people at the conclusion of the Mass.

iii. There exists not even a small danger of the sacred species being profaned.

iv. There is not such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist. There is no danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remains after distribution of Holy Communion.

v. There is an adequate number of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion for the distribution of Holy Communion. When this is not the case, there is an adequate number of properly deputed and trained extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

vi. The role of the Priest and Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is not obscured by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; the bond between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist is clearly manifest.

vii. There are no health concerns such as influenza or some other contagious disease that would deter the faithful from approaching the chalice.

viii. "The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ's faithful where...a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated."

Bishop Olmsted's article in 17 November issue of The Catholic Sun.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 09:50:49 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,446


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #144 on: November 12, 2011, 05:24:49 PM »

Quote
vii. There are no health concerns such as influenza or some other contagious disease that would deter the faithful from approaching the chalice.

This is so, so, sad.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #145 on: November 12, 2011, 11:35:45 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,
Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

My comments stand.  The "not giving" is a part of the western tradition.  I think they should be allowed to exercise that tradition without being reviled. 

I am not suggesting that you are.  I accept your disagreement.  I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted.  However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.

Innovative stuff that was started at Trent is not "the western tradition." 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #146 on: November 12, 2011, 11:46:29 PM »

Quote from: Melodist link=topic=39802.msg646020#msg646020
John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.

Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.

Papist, why would you take the expressions "This is my body" and "This is my blood" literally -- that is, that the food is literally God --

-- where Protestants say, "It's only a symbol, see, it says remember..."

-- but then, when Christ speaks as ialmisry quoted, "take this all of you and drink of it" you don't think he's literally referring to the cup?!? And to everyone??

Quote
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Quote
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Sure, the Blood may be in the Body. But Jesus tells us to drink from the cup. Not "consume my blood." But "Drink from it (the cup)."

I don't think "cup" in the text symbolizes the blood. Rather, I think the cup in the liturgy symbolizes the offering of Divine Salvation to us... the uncontainable contained...

The Incarnation.
1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.

Sounds pretty modernist to me (the above bolded).  "Broken and divided is the Lamb of God, who is broken yet not disunited, who is eaten yet never consumed..."  (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: November 13, 2011, 11:48:58 AM »

Quote from: Melodist link=topic=39802.msg646020#msg646020
John 6 isn't about the words of institution, but that the reality of the feeding of the multitude is that Christ distributes to us Himself, the true Bread of life, in His Body and His Blood, where He makes clear in His teaching that we are to receive both.
And we do receive both, even when we receive only one species. Christ is not divided in half between the two species.

I don't believe that the Catholic Church rests her teaching exclusively on literal meanings. 

Sadly most of her detractors do not concede that fact, thereby allowing themselves to accuse her of teaching all sorts of queer things that she does not actually teach.

Then why repeat His words "take this all of you and drink of it.  Just consecrate a loaf if only one "species" is all you need.

Papist, why would you take the expressions "This is my body" and "This is my blood" literally -- that is, that the food is literally God --

-- where Protestants say, "It's only a symbol, see, it says remember..."

-- but then, when Christ speaks as ialmisry quoted, "take this all of you and drink of it" you don't think he's literally referring to the cup?!? And to everyone??

Quote
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Quote
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Sure, the Blood may be in the Body. But Jesus tells us to drink from the cup. Not "consume my blood." But "Drink from it (the cup)."

I don't think "cup" in the text symbolizes the blood. Rather, I think the cup in the liturgy symbolizes the offering of Divine Salvation to us... the uncontainable contained...

The Incarnation.
1. Christ is fully present under both species.
2. The Church has understood that wine must be consecrated at Mass, but that because Christ is present in each species, not every Christian must receive under each species.
3. Eating and drinking, in the most literal understanding of the words, include digestion. But we do not digest Christ. Thus, while we understand the Eucahrist literally in the sense that we truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, the words "eating" and "drinking" need not be takend to their ultra-literally meanings. I believe they stand for "receiving Christ in the Eucharist." Thus, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood even one receives him under one species.
This is good enough for me.

Sounds pretty modernist to me (the above bolded).  "Broken and divided is the Lamb of God, who is broken yet not disunited, who is eaten yet never consumed..."  (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). 
Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #148 on: November 13, 2011, 02:35:03 PM »

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

What part of this verse indicates that it is "optional" to drink from the cup??
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 02:35:39 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #149 on: November 13, 2011, 02:39:23 PM »

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

What part of this verse indicates that it is "optional" to drink from the cup??

The same verse that says it is ok NOT to drink from the cup but to suck blood from the body instead.

Speaking of LITERAL understandings of proof texts...eh?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #150 on: November 13, 2011, 03:00:18 PM »


Sounds pretty modernist to me (the above bolded).  "Broken and divided is the Lamb of God, who is broken yet not disunited, who is eaten yet never consumed..."  (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). 

I don't believe that the Catholic Church rests her teaching exclusively on literal meanings.

Sadly most of her detractors do not concede that fact, thereby allowing themselves to accuse her of teaching all sorts of queer things that she does not actually teach.

In fact the quote you use is precisely what allows one to believe that the body and blood each contain the fullness of the real presence.
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #151 on: November 13, 2011, 03:29:35 PM »

Frankly when looking at the differences between Eastern and Western beliefs on this issue, it doesn't really matter where us, the East thinks.  The Roman Catholic church at this point in time is not part of the Orthodox Church, likewise the Orthodox Church isn't a part of the Roman Catholic Church at this time.  Therefore looking at this issue from a Roman  Catholic point of view it has been accepted that just bread is sufficient for receiving communion
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #152 on: November 13, 2011, 03:34:43 PM »

Frankly when looking at the differences between Eastern and Western beliefs on this issue, it doesn't really matter where us, the East thinks.  The Roman Catholic church at this point in time is not part of the Orthodox Church, likewise the Orthodox Church isn't a part of the Roman Catholic Church at this time.  Therefore looking at this issue from a Roman  Catholic point of view it has been accepted that just bread is sufficient for receiving communion

More accurately the Most Pure Body.

Or just the Precious Blood...

In any event the bishop in question is not nearly the dunderhead that most of this thread makes him out to be and when one reads more of his concerns, it becomes clear that he is not "reverting" to Trent...whatever that means these daze.

Also I would guess that an outbreak of small-pox in a parish would make the communion line a few living bodies shorter...just sayin'.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #153 on: November 14, 2011, 09:19:14 PM »

Quote
vii. There are no health concerns such as influenza or some other contagious disease that would deter the faithful from approaching the chalice.

This is so, so, sad.

Looks like all that eucharistic adoration didn't stop that blasphemy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #154 on: November 14, 2011, 09:20:01 PM »

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,
Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.
Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

My comments stand.  The "not giving" is a part of the western tradition.  I think they should be allowed to exercise that tradition without being reviled. 

I am not suggesting that you are.  I accept your disagreement.  I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted.  However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.

Innovative stuff that was started at Trent is not "the western tradition." 

Amen! Amen! Amen!
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   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 0.524 seconds with 183 queries.