OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 10:48:21 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 6109 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,254



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« 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: 1,254



« 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: 37,866



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« 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: 6,477


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: 10,148


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: 6,477


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: 10,148


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: 10,148


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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« 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: 37,866



« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,896


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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,896


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: 37,866



« 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: 37,866



« 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: 37,866



« 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: 12,192


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,866



« 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: 37,866



« 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: 37,866



« 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: 12,192


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,866



« 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: 37,866



« 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: 12,192


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« 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: 3,418



« 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
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 0.232 seconds with 72 queries.