No wine at first communion mass?

[thistle]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

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.

You should probably change your profession then. I was a director of one of the world's biggest investment banks and head of credit risk management for Asia so clarity in communication was vital.
Seems sad that you have drawn us into what our jobs are/were to make a point about something that was clear to everyone else except you.

[arkwright]

Originally Posted by Brendan

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

Again you have avoided responding to another request I have made .

I take your evasion as an indication that you are unable to give a response because it would contradict some of the things you have said .

The following two posts are my requests .

[arkwright]

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 .

Please respond ..

[arkwright]

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 ?

Please respond .

[JharekCarnelian]

You do realise I trust that Brendan does not just sit on here all day.

[sasg]

I have followed this discussion closely as it is a topic that frequently comes up in my circles. When I discuss communion under both species with "traditional" Catholics, I often find myself defending communion under both species. And when I discuss it with so-called "liberal" Catholics, I find myself quoting the Council of Trent and defending the utter sufficiency and completeness of communion under only one species.

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

We should not change the traditions handed down to us by those who knew God and the Apostles more intimately than we do. There are reasons why traditions were established as such, why do we think we know better than those who lived in the First Century, those who actually interacted with the Apostles?

The 'we' you are referring to here is the college of Bishops acting in one accord with the Holy Father. Yes, I believe the Church knows more about how contemporary people should worship than the Apostles did. The Bishops are responsible for prescribing our form of worship in a way that will give the greatest spiritual benefit. If they see fit to withhold the Precious Blood from the people, for example to fight heresy, or to preserve the sanctity of Holy Communion, the Church has that right. So in response to your question, why do we think we know better, the answer is: because 'we' (the Church) is the Body of Christ, and is competent to prescribe such things.

The mere fact that there are Catholics who come on these forums and wonder if they are not saved because their parish does not offer communion under the species of wine, or who are inclined to believe that the Church is deviating from Jesus' commandment in any way by not offering both species, is strong evidence that the Latin Church is, for whatever reason, inclined to a very particular heresy, the heresy of utraquism. It sprung up for a time 600 years ago, and after a mere 40 years of having both species seems to have re-emerged. If the Bishops see fit to take away the chalice for that reason (or any other), why do we think we know better?

Constantine, your line of thinking with regard to strict deference to ancient traditions sounds more Eastern than Latin. That may be the right course of action for the East, but in the west our tradition (if you will) is to be more flexible in terms of worship, for the greater benefit of the faithful. We should respect our traditions I know that you are not trying to "impose" an Eastern practice on the west, but in a way you are "imposing" Eastern thought to a Western question. You see this as theology "trumping" tradition, but we see this as theology illuminating what is essential in the sacrament and what is not, in order to both faithfully follow the tradition (of receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which we do under either or both species) as well as providing the most spiritual benefit to the faithful (or avoiding spiritual detriment).

My argument is based on the Council of Trent Session 21 Chapter 2:

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.

Now, on the question of whether there is any benefit to receiving under both species:

CCC 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."222 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

This says a few things: 1) Communion under solely one species was legitimately established for pastoral reasons, meaning the Church judged that it was to our benefit to receive under only one species. 2) Receiving under both kinds is a "more complete" sign; therefore there are also benefits to the faithful to receiving under both kinds.

Now, is communion under one species contrary to Christ's institution? Council of Trent Session 21:

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.

It is a false assertion that under one species Christ is not received in accordance with his institution. This means that communion under one species absolutely is in accordance with Christ's commandment to "take and eat" and "drink from it". Although the sign is "more complete" under both species, it is no less a fulfillment of Christ's commandment under one kind.

Is it possible to claim that communion under one species was an error, a mistake, or was done unjustly? Council of Trent Session 21:

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.

Definitively, the Church was not in error to deny communion under both species, and was "moved by just causes and reasons." To claim otherwise is to deny the teaching of the Council of Trent. You may claim that the conditions that justly moved the Church to restrict the chalice no longer exist; but you cannot claim that always and everywhere it is, was, and will be "better" to receive under both species, because at least at the time of the Council of Trent, it was not. In any case, that judgment is left to the Church, and if your opinion is contrary, you have a very high burden of proof to show that the Bishops are in error and you are correct. Not impossible, but a very high bar indeed.

[sasg]

Originally Posted by arkwright

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 ?

See the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 1. I've highlighted sections that may be helpful:

This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, <salva fide>, that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>,[4] also said: <He that eateth this bread shall live forever>;[5] and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,>[6] also said: <The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world>;[7] and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,[8] said, nevertheless: <He that eateth this bread shall live forever.>[9]

Christ commanded us not to eat bread and drink wine, but rather to eat his body and drink his precious blood. He provided two species for this sacrament, bread and wine; but (by the doctrine of concomitance) both his body and blood are present in either species. This is confirmed by the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 3:

It declares, moreover, that though our Redeemer at the last supper instituted and administered this sacrament to the Apostles under two forms, as has already been said, yet it must be acknowledged that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone,[12] and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation.

[superamazingman]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

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.

And correct theology does not?

[superamazingman]

Originally Posted by arkwright

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 ?

I can try and answer this one for you. This one just needs logic more than anything.

The council of trent does not necessarily say that the command is fulfilled by receiving the precious body (although it may, I haven't looked). However, it is most strongly implied. The point here is that because of trent, precious blood was limited to priests, therefore one of the following statments must be true:

• Trent was implicitly saying that the command is fulfilled by receiving one species, since that is all the laity will be able to do so.
• Trent implicitly taught that the command applied only to priests, who were, after all, the only ones at the last supper. Priests still fulfilled the command, and the congregation had no obligation to receive under both forms.

But here's the crux of the matter: trent was the council that reformed the missal and restricted precious blood to the celebrant of the Mass. So right there, there is nothing doctrinally wrong with only receiving under one form.

[Brendan]

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 .

Where EXACTLY did I say that what you said differed from Trent. Unless I made a statement to the contrary, I do see why I should be obligated to show you what you said. I don't see my role on this board as a proof reader

My statement was in regards to your comment that the command be obeyed. The Church feels that the command ARE being obeyed. In fact, I would claim that the Church, in the promulgation of it's disciplines on the Sacraments, cannot act contrary to a command of Christ.

I would think that it would fall to you to show that either the Church feels that the commands of Christ are somehow NOT being obeyed, or to show why your option on the matter should trump that of the Church's.

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 .

This Request has been complied with, I did look at your words.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by arkwright

Please respond .

I did, see post #71

[Brendan]

And since I have duly responded.

I have some questions for you

Originally Posted by arkwright

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

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

.

To whom, EXACTLY, did Christ tell to eat and drink?

And do not the heirs of those to whom Christ made this declaration consume both species at Mass?

If so, how can you make any claim to the contrary?

[Corki]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

You do realise I trust that Brendan does not just sit on here all day.

especially not in the middle of the night