No wine at first communion mass? - Page 5

superamazingman · #61 Jun 11, '12, 8:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Both sacred species should be offered to all eligible all the time. Theology should not trump tradition.

Why not?

Brendan · #62 Jun 11, '12, 8:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I know this is off-topic, but that isn't even close to looking like a Byzantine Church.

THIS is a Byzantine Church... http://www.flickr.com/photos/4281471...n/photostream/

I wasn't the architect

triumphguy · #63 Jun 11, '12, 10:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

Here is the website for St. Stephen's Byzantine Catholic Church in Calgary

http://www.protomartyr.ca/St_Stephen...rtyr/Home.html

Thanks Brendan.

arkwright · #64 Jun 11, '12, 11:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

He said, "Take and eat, this is my Body" and "Take and drink, This is my Blood"

.

Exactly .

Jesus took the consecrated bread and commanded that it be eaten .

Then He took the consecrated wine and commanded that it be drunk .

He did not just offer the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine . He commanded that both species be consumed .

It is high time that some on this forum had a close look at what Jesus commanded .

He is Lord and God to whom all are subject . His commands on this matter are clear and concise , and are to be obeyed .

Brendan · #65 Jun 11, '12, 11:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkwright

Exactly .

Jesus took the consecrated bread and commanded that it be eaten .

Then He took the consecrated wine and commanded that it be drunk .

He did not just offer the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine . He commanded that both species be consumed .

It is high time that some on this forum had a close look at what Jesus commanded .

He is Lord and God to whom all are subject . His commands on this matter are clear and concise , and are to be obeyed .

The Church already did look at this commandment. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church issued the results of that 'close look' at the Council of Trent

Here was what the Church determined

Council of Trent - Session 21

Quote:

Canon 1. If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species, let him be anathema.
.

Take special note of Canon 2.

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

superamazingman · #66 Jun 11, '12, 11:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly. The church is here to interpret scripture for us, and in this case, she has made it clear that the correct interpretation is that receiving the eucharist under one form fulfills then obligation to "eat and drink."

arkwright · #67 Jun 11, '12, 11:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

The Church already did look at this commandment. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church issued the results of that 'close look' at the Council of Trent

Here was what the Church determined

Council of Trent - Session 21

Take special note of Canon 2.

Arkwright, why should I take your opinion on this over the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

Brendan · #68 Jun 11, '12, 12:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkwright

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

In which case, people on this forum HAVE looked at Christ's command, and we agree with the Church (via Trent) that Christ's command is fulfilled in the reception of a single species.

superamazingman · #69 Jun 11, '12, 12:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkwright

Well I suggest that you look very carefully at my words , and only at the words I have used in posts , and show me where I contradict anything said at the Council of Trent .

Again , I repeat that you look at my words , and not at your own thoughts which may be putting a meaning to my words which is not there .

Are you a protestant? If not, then can you just trust the interpretation of the church, even if you don't understand or agree? We are not a church of sola scriptura.

arkwright · #70 Jun 11, '12, 1:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

In which case, people on this forum HAVE looked at Christ's command, and we agree with the Church (via Trent) that Christ's command is fulfilled in the reception of a single species.

You have not responded to my request , but never mind .

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ's command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

Brendan · #71 Jun 11, '12, 1:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkwright

You have not responded to my request , but never mind .

In reference to your words above , where does the Council of Trent say that Christ's command to receive the Eucharist under both the form of bread and under the form of wine is fulfilled in the reception of a single species ?

Can the Church, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fail to fulfill a command of Christ in matters of Faith or Morals?

**thistle** · #72 Jun 11, '12, 8:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

You said:

It is not exactly what you said. You said suggesting to receive both plainly is heresy. If you meant otherwise, it is not clear by your statement, especially since you put the two sentences in separate paragraphs.

Wrong. My post meant that it is heresy to think that you must receive both species in order to receive the body AND blood of Christ.

ConstantineTG · #73 Jun 11, '12, 8:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by superamazingman

Why not?

As I said a few posts ago, our practices were made that way for a reason. Every action of every tradition has a symbolic meaning which points us to the spiritual truth. Often we do not perceive it intellectually, but the actions speak to the depths of our soul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

Wrong. My post meant that it is heresy to think that you must receive both species in order to receive the body AND blood of Christ.

Well, like I said, if that is your intention it is not clear by your post.

jilly4ski · #74 Jun 11, '12, 8:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

Both species are not required because we receive the body AND blood of Jesus when consuming the Host.

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Well, like I said, if that is your intention it is not clear by your post.

So I went back a reread what thistle posted, and quoted it above, as I thought I understood it the way thistle claims and didn't know why you were objecting. If you read carefully, thistle says exactly what he meant to say. The use of the word "required" is the key word, and unless you missed that word, the meaning is clear.

Quote:

To suggest we are required to receive both species is heresy and one that was condemned by the Church.

I think you are being disingenuous to thistle and merely misread the post or was reading your own bias into it.

ConstantineTG · #75 Jun 11, '12, 9:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly4ski

So I went back a reread what thistle posted, and quoted it above, as I thought I understood it the way thistle claims and didn't know why you were objecting. If you read carefully, thistle says exactly what he meant to say. The use of the word "required" is the key word, and unless you missed that word, the meaning is clear.

I think you are being disingenuous to thistle and merely misread the post or was reading your own bias into it.

No, I'm saying that his posts suggest that the teaching is merely about suggesting that receiving both species as a requirement is a heresy. That is not true, there are other qualifiers that form what is condemned and one of the posters here outlined it.

I am a business analyst by profession and writing to communicate things clearly is part of my job. I think the first biggest mistake by thisle here is separating the two sentences as two paragraphs. I don't know if you did not take the paragraph separation into account. But to someone in my profession, that makes a world of difference.