D'Ja Ever Wonder Why...
Random thought on a Monday morning
Someone recently commented (I forget who, and apologies to) that the Ecumaniacs in The Church love using the phrase Catholic-Christians. Isn't that pretty much along the lines of me referring to my male-father or my female-wife?
And speaking of redundancies, am I the only one who realizes that the Protestant inspired novelty de jour of receiving Holy Communion under both Species brings into question if the Consecrated Host really is The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
Yes, yes... I've heard the argument that receiving The Precious Blood is a "fuller partaking of The Eucharist". But doesn't that also entail that the Consecrated Host is somehow lacking or insufficient?
Just a thought.
Random thought on a Monday morning
Someone recently commented (I forget who, and apologies to) that the Ecumaniacs in The Church love using the phrase Catholic-Christians. Isn't that pretty much along the lines of me referring to my male-father or my female-wife?
And speaking of redundancies, am I the only one who realizes that the Protestant inspired novelty de jour of receiving Holy Communion under both Species brings into question if the Consecrated Host really is The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
Yes, yes... I've heard the argument that receiving The Precious Blood is a "fuller partaking of The Eucharist". But doesn't that also entail that the Consecrated Host is somehow lacking or insufficient?
Just a thought.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
8:09 AM
23 Comments:
Sticking solely with writings from the Popes, Paul VI notes in Mysterium Fidei that "nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place."
Therefore, both bread AND wine become the The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. There seems to be some sort of obedience in receiving both species, as Christ commanded his apostles to do, so do we. It seems to me that no harm is taken from one who would willingly receive both, but cannot for some reason or another.
The defect lies not in the Host, but in the one who would receive.
-Jonathan
Jawats,
Points well taken. But know that since the inseption of the Mass of Gregory the Great, it's been the tradition of The Church that the Consecrated Host was and is wholly sufficent for the recipient to rcv Christ in His entirety.
I belive the latest mutation to the Mass of Paul VI has less to do with the Early Church, and more to do with jumping on the Neo-Prot bandwagon.
Oops. Should have read "it's been the tradition of The Western Church...."
According to the Catechism:
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsists. Christ is present WHOLE AND ENTIRE IN EACH of the species AND whole and entire in their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377)
"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." (CCC 1390)
BUT>>>it continues and I think this is where the confusion comes in.."But the SIGN of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharist meal appears more clearly." (CCC 1390)
Perhaps this is another instance where, after Vatican II, the Church has language that can be "interpreted" in different ways. It sounds to me as if this "sign" refers to the commemoration of the banquet more "fully" rather than whether Christ is more fully received.
Hope this helps.
Another thing to ponder....
"Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the whole of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's." (CCC 1375)
There is nothing "protestant" about receiving communion under both species. The orthodox and byzantine catholics have been doing so for ever.
Fr Garrigou-Lagrange OP once pointed out that upon receiving the Host, one's venial sins are burnt away by the sacred fire of the Sacrament; and therefore, if one next receives the Precious Blood also, since one's soul has thus just been cleansed by the reception of the Sacred Body of Our Lord, ipso facto one makes a very much more efficacious communion by drinking the Precious Blood, since the purified soul makes far less of an obstacle to the impartation of the grace of the Sacrament. He argued that the desire to so profit from receiving under both kinds would be a good motive to become a priest!
That's the best Catholic argument for Communion under both species that I've come across.
Maybe Cavey but his fellow Bishops all over took issue with it, and his not including a descending epiclesis. If the bread alone is sufficient, why didn't the Lord just give the Apostles bread and not wine?
BUT, didn't Jesus tell us to consume BOTH?
I think Jesus trumps all councils and all of us too.
Leo,
As is the (correct) tradition for both the Eastern Rites and the EO to rcv under both species. I'm not implying that the ER's or the EO are wrong for their tradition. I've attended ER Liturgies and rcv'd under both Species (Intiction, I believe is the correct word).
The point I'm stressing is that it's been the tradition (for 1,500 years) for the Western Church to rcv the Body, BLOOD, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Consectared Host alone. That whole "Sacred Mystery" thing.
Surely, The Church hasn't been wrong for 1,500 years, has She? Is the Latin Mass defective because it allows reception under one Species alone?
But anyhow, if I was under the impression that the current fad is to get closer to the Early Church, that would be one thing. But I'm of the opinion that this move was to simply be more and more like the Protestants.
Vir,
Being a lawyer, I must ask, what evidence undergirds your opinion?
--J.
Dear Vir,
The real problem is not communion under both species, but the desacralization of the Holy Mysteries wrought by those who ambushed the Church in the wake of Vatican II. This desacralization is manifested by priests who do not elevate the host and treat it in a Ho-Hum manner; and by communicants who approach in the alter in gym clothes. The biggest cause of desacralization, however, was the turning of the altars --- which never occurred in the Orthodox or the Byzantine Catholic churches. Byzantine churches have always faced east, as have their altars. The priest and the congregation all face east as they wait for the Lord's arrival.
"this move was to simply be more and more like the Protestants."
Just like adding the Responsorial Psalm and the Prot ending to the Our Father. Nothing inherently wrong with either one, but definitely at Vat2 concoction to become more like the Protestants.
Jaw,
Let's jump in the ol' Wayback Machine and head back 50 short years. Let us together attend Mass at any given parish in this country. Now let's head back to 2008.
What we witnessed in 1958 was unmistakenly Catholic. There were some similarities to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but just shadows... but some simliarities, nonetheless.
Anyhow, there is simply no way in the world that what we experienced in 1958 could be mistaken for a Protestant worship service.
Could the same thing be said present day? I've heard more than one Protestant say upon exiting a Catholic Novus Ordo parish (after a wedding, funeral, etc), "golly, they're SO MUCH like us!"
Also, speaking as the proverbial "Child of Vatican II", I am of the opinion that The Catholic Church (in many of it's leadership, especially the USCCB) are moving away from being a religion of moral absolutes to a philosophy of relativism.
Hope this helps!
_______________________
LEO,
Much you say I agree with. I just hope you don't misunderstand me. I don't believe that intinction is wrong. For the ERs and the EO, it's absolutely correct.
It's simply that the prevailing reasoning that I hear for rcpn under both Species to be weak and watered down ("fuller partaking of The Lord"). If that were the case, The Western Church has had it wrong (and still has it wrong with the TLM) for the past 1,500 years.
See my point?
________________
FAB,
'Zactly.
Vir,
Not really. It does not explain the specific reasons you have come to the conclusion that receiving under both species is based on a desire to be more like Protestants.
--Jonathan
Jaw,
Attend your garden variety Protestant worship service. There may be wine... there may be grape juice. Either way, it's going to look like last call at Luigi's Bar & Grill during their so-called "Communion Service".
Regardless, let Protestants play Comminion all they like.
With that said, as I've pointed out numerous times, The Western Church has had well founded that the Consecrated Host esentially covers all the bases. But oddly enough, since the wonderful changes brought on by the "spirit" of V2 blew into town, all sorts of Protestant novelty has been incorporated into the ever mutating Mass of Paul VI.
Former Altar Boy just pointed out a couple of them.
But anyhow, for whatever bizarre reasoning, reception under both Species is now correct... inspite of what we've held true for over a millenia and a half.
Why? Did Rome ever state that Pope St Gregory the Great and Pope St Pius V dropped the ball... that they both had it wrong? Also, where i nthe actual documents of V2 does it say anything reversing what The Church practiced for so long? Nope....
I'm of the opinion that this is just another example of the Creeping Protestantism that's been poisoning The Catholic Church since the 1960's.
Novelty for the sake of novelty.
Now I ask of you, has The Church been wrong for all these centuries? I would also like to ask of you, WHY is it all of a sudden right and proper for those of the Western Church to abandon 1,500 years of tradition and practice?
I can't speak for you, but I come to only one conclusion --- runaway ecumenism at the cost of a weakened and watered-down Catholicism.
Time for me to step into the ring...As mentioned, both the accidents of bread and wine are the Body, Blood, Soul Divinity of Jesus Christ. (I'm going to completely ignore the traditions of the Eastern Church as they're not relevant to my point I'm going to make)
It's been my understanding that in the Western Church that we participate in the Sacrifice differently than the priests do. That the priests are the ones that must complete the Sacrifice (this is why the Bread and Wine are consecrated separately) and that we the Laity have our own dignity and participate in the Sacrifice differently.
The Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture, and we do take part in both the Body and Blood of Christ though under one species.
This going back to the early Church thing needs to stop, it's heresy. Just because the early Church did it doesn't mean that the growth that came from the early Church should be stopped.
I've rarely received under both species.
Yet if the Roman Rite wants to have both species, we can at least do it by intinction rather than by the drinking of the different chalices.
Excellent points, Joe.
Vir,
This article - http://www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11649&whichpage=4 - asserts that "From this, we can see that it was the custom and tradition of the Church to distribute Holy Communion under the forms of both bread and wine for more than fifteen centuries."
If you have a chance, take a look and let me know what you think.
-Jonathan
JAW,
I couldn't help but notice that there are but three rather terse examples cited by Fr. Loret.
The first gave a very misleading one sentence answer that spanned a time frame of over 200 years. That line is like saying "a lot of people died in WWII". Period. But anyhow, as we both know, there was much error in the years of the Early Church (the Duality of Christ, the Real Presence, etc.) Just because some rcv'd under both Species, that doesn't make it all encompassing. The first ref is weak.
The 2d and 3d refs I take it, are in reference to the long dead Gallic Rite? It must be. As we both know, the Mass of Gregory the Great NEVER allowed rcpt of Holy Communion standing, in the hand, or under both species. And if Fr Loret WAS reff'ing to the Gallac Rite, that has little bearing on the Mass of Gregory the Great, or the Mass of Pius V, or the subject at hand.
If we were of the Gallic Rite (or Mozabaric Rite, or Ambrosian Rite) that might make a difference, but it doesn't. We are of the Roman Rite.
Father Loret citing a time of specification and refinement during the Early Years... and then citing the supposed practices of the Gallicians. Fr Loret has three slim and poorly worded references, I have the history of the Masses of Sts Gregory the Great and Pius V en toto.
All that aside, I'm not sure this thread could be fruitful any longer. If you agree with me... great. If not, so be it. Possibly we should simply agree to disagree.
But it has been a stimulating conversation, JAW. And for that, I thank you.
I don't understand how having more bible within the mass makes us more protestant. I just don't get it.
SBM,
I take it you're fererring to the "For Thine is the kingdom..." as the end of the Our Father.
I'd like to point out that the Catholic adding on of this IS a protestans add-on. If you look under Matthew 6:9-13 (Douay-Rheims Bible), you will clearly see that it's The Catholic Church that has it right... and (as ususal) the Protestants who have it wrong.
Why in the world should we incorporate their error.... other than a bunch of liberals who are essentially Prot-Wannabes?
vsp,
no, actually i was referring to the poster who was complaining about the additional readings and psalms that were added to the Novus Ordo, therefore making the mass more protestant.
Maybe I misread something, but I just find it amusing that having additional readings at Mass make us more protestant.
I agree we shouldn't be adding things to the Mass that are Protestantized, like "for thine is the kingdom, power, and glory", yadda yadda yadda.
Thanks for listening.
D.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home