OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 01:13:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bishop: Bread alone will do for Communion at most Masses (no wine)  (Read 6106 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,866



« 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: 12,192


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 3,418



« 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: 7,970


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,880


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: 5,065



« 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: 7,970


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: 7,970


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 0.101 seconds with 48 queries.