FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Communion under both kinds
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(07-24-2017, 01:40 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]It's important because the separate consecrations symbolise Christ's death, the separation of His Body and Blood. Since the Mass is a re-presentation of Calvary, it's necessary for the priest to consecrate both and to consume both. But it's not necessary for the lay communicant to receive both, since receiving either is receiving Christ entire. If it were integral to receive both, the Church couldn't have restricted Communion to one species, since part of the sacrament would then be missing. So while it's integral to the Mass, it isn't integral to the reception of the sacrament by anyone else.

That explains very well why it can be allowed at all.  What I'm trying to understand is if there is no practical need to maintain the newer practice, why does custom grant the newer practice greater dignity or authority than the older practice, which is in some sense fuller and more meaningful?
(07-24-2017, 04:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]That explains very well why it can be allowed at all.  What I'm trying to understand is if there is no practical need to maintain the newer practice, why does custom grant the newer practice greater dignity or authority than the older practice, which is in some sense fuller and more meaningful?

Because there's value in stability. God doesn't change, and the teachings of the Church don't change, but while discipline can change, to do so too often gives us the mess of the past 50 years. And if we change Communion to allow the reception of both species, what else is open to change? We've seen one change after another, with the resulting confusion.

I'd agree that a fuller, more meaningful practice of the Sacrament would warrant a change, if there weren't good reasons against it. And there are plenty of those - the re-introduction of receiving the Blood as a response giving in to Protestants, the needs for EMHCs to handle the Chalice, the risk of spillage, and the risk of people misunderstanding that Christ is entirely present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in each species, and, for that matter, in the tiniest bit of each species. You don't receive "more Jesus" by receiving both species.
(07-24-2017, 09:09 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Because there's value in stability. God doesn't change, and the teachings of the Church don't change, but while discipline can change, to do so too often gives us the mess of the past 50 years. And if we change Communion to allow the reception of both species, what else is open to change? We've seen one change after another, with the resulting confusion.

I'd agree that a fuller, more meaningful practice of the Sacrament would warrant a change, if there weren't good reasons against it. And there are plenty of those - the re-introduction of receiving the Blood as a response giving in to Protestants, the needs for EMHCs to handle the Chalice, the risk of spillage, and the risk of people misunderstanding that Christ is entirely present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in each species, and, for that matter, in the tiniest bit of each species. You don't receive "more Jesus" by receiving both species.

Stability of imperfection is better than instability of perfection, then?

Why do we care what Protestants or Pagans or the rest of the World thinks of us?  The reasons that you give for not changing are based on a fear of appearing to grant legitimacy to others.  Do we support the pro-abortion movement because we don't want to appear to give legitimacy to sexists?  Do we support Israeli occupation of Palestine because we don't want to appear to be anti-semitic?  If you admit that a fuller, more meaningful practice of the sacrament would warrant a change, I don't see how being afraid that it would appear we were giving legitimacy to 16th century heretics is sufficient reason to not effect that change.  By not changing, you're saying image is more important than substance. I think that sentiment alone portrays a much more profoundly negative image of the Church than superficially granting Protestants token legitimacy.
(07-25-2017, 12:54 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Stability of imperfection is better than instability of perfection, then?
You're basically making the same argument as the workers in next Sunday's Gospel : should we root out the cockel?
In doing so you are making the "perfect" the enemy of the good.
Even if we accept that "perfection" is communion under both kinds -- which we have shown has not been the fully universal practice for nearly 1500 years, and is far from a given -- what does implementing that "perfection" achieve in other realms? There have been fair arguments here that it potentially does greater harm and reduces the respect and devotion given to the Eucharist, fosters confusion and creates a practical nightmare at a time when the Church is in a huge upheaval. That's not a good thing.

St. Augustine : Quætiones in S. Matt., q. 12 Wrote:For this He says, because good while yet weak, have need in some things of being mixed up with bad, either that they may be proved by their means, or that by comparison with them they may be greatly stimulated and drawn to a better course. Or perhaps the wheat is declared to be rooted up if the tares should be gathered out of it, on account of many who though at first tares would after become wheat; yet they would never attain to this commendable change were they not patiently endured while they were evil. Thus were they rooted up, that wheat which they would become in time if spared, would be rooted up in them. It is then therefore He forbids that such should be taken away out of this life, lest in the endeavour to destroy the wicked, those of them should be destroyed among the rest who would turn out good; and lest also that benefit should be lost to the good which would accrue to them even against their will from mixing with the wicked. But this may be done seasonably when, in the end of all, there remains no more time for a change of life, or of advancing to the truth by taking opportunity and comparison of others' faults; therefore He adds, "Let both grow together until the harvest," that is, until the judgment
The matter is different, but the principle remains the same, and illustrates exactly what St. Thomas is arguing about the change in law. Change in something meant to be a rule of action (whether perfect or not) introduces some degree of chaos, so the good must be significantly better, because you will, in rooting out the imperfect, harm others who would be perfect.
Now that's not an argument for not changing anything, but it had better be a real benefit to offset this damage.
(07-25-2017, 12:54 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how being afraid that it would appear we were giving legitimacy to 16th century heretics is sufficient reason to not effect that change.  By not changing, you're saying image is more important than substance.  I think that sentiment alone portrays a much more profoundly negative image of the Church than superficially granting Protestants token legitimacy.

Not 16th-century heretics, but 20th-century heretics. The Church has changed the practice, as we see every Sunday at many parishes. It's not required to distribute both, but it is permitted now. But it did so in order to answer Protestant critics who celebrate their communion meals every Sunday, as part of making the new Mass more about the meal than the sacrifice. And it sends the message - even more so after all the other changes demanded before and after the Council - that the liturgy is subject to endless tinkering.

It's kind of like giving a child what he wants after a tantrum. The parent might have wanted to do it anyway, and the request might have been good for the child, but to grant it now tells the child that throwing a fit is how to get his way and undermines the parent's authority. And once that authority's gone, it can be extremely hard to get back.
(07-25-2017, 03:53 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]You're basically making the same argument as the workers in next Sunday's Gospel : should we root out the cockel?
In doing so you are making the "perfect" the enemy of the good.
Even if we accept that "perfection" is communion under both kinds -- which we have shown has not been the fully universal practice for nearly 1500 years, and is far from a given -- what does implementing that "perfection" achieve in other realms? There have been fair arguments here that it potentially does greater harm and reduces the respect and devotion given to the Eucharist, fosters confusion and creates a practical nightmare at a time when the Church is in a huge upheaval. That's not a good thing.

I can see how it may look like I am doing that, but if communion under one form is good and under both is better, am I making the perfect an enemy of the good any more than a monk makes celibacy the enemy of marriage?

The same argument that you are making for not changing back to the original practice, I think could be made for ever changing the original practice in the first place.  It better have been for a very good reason.  It doesn't really mean much to me that communion under both forms has not been a universal practice for nearly 1500 years.  To paraphrase DePiante, what Catholics once were, we (those who support communion under both forms) are now.  We believe what you once believed.  We worship as you once worshipped.  If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.  If you were right then, we are right now...  If it was the universal practice at the time of Christ, the apostles, and at least the first few generations of the Church, that seems to me that its dignity and authority weighs more than any new practice, even if it should exist for a very long time and become customary.

I think the argument that it potentially does greater harm and reduces the respect and devotion given to the Eucharist would have had much greater weight a few centuries ago.  Many church-going Catholics receive irreverently, make no attempt to confess regularly before receiving, and show no outward sign of devotion to or even belief in what they are receiving.  How would changing the practice put them in a much worse spot than they already are?  But they are also going to the parishes that already give communion under both forms, so we're really talking about traditionalists, and Latin traditionalists alone.  You receive the Eucharist reverently.  You have a strong devotion to it, and you are in no way confused in your belief that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.  In what way would returning to the practice of receiving in both kinds cause Latin traditionalists to stumble?  How on earth would the better catechized and historically-literate Catholics be more vulnerable to confusion and loss of faith or devotion to the Eucharist by returning to a practice they presumably are already well aware was the original practice as instituted by Christ himself?

Quote:
St. Augustine : Quætiones in S. Matt., q. 12 Wrote:For this He says, because good while yet weak, have need in some things of being mixed up with bad, either that they may be proved by their means, or that by comparison with them they may be greatly stimulated and drawn to a better course. Or perhaps the wheat is declared to be rooted up if the tares should be gathered out of it, on account of many who though at first tares would after become wheat; yet they would never attain to this commendable change were they not patiently endured while they were evil. Thus were they rooted up, that wheat which they would become in time if spared, would be rooted up in them. It is then therefore He forbids that such should be taken away out of this life, lest in the endeavour to destroy the wicked, those of them should be destroyed among the rest who would turn out good; and lest also that benefit should be lost to the good which would accrue to them even against their will from mixing with the wicked. But this may be done seasonably when, in the end of all, there remains no more time for a change of life, or of advancing to the truth by taking opportunity and comparison of others' faults; therefore He adds, "Let both grow together until the harvest," that is, until the judgment
The matter is different, but the principle remains the same, and illustrates exactly what St. Thomas is arguing about the change in law. Change in something meant to be a rule of action (whether perfect or not) introduces some degree of chaos, so the good must be significantly better, because you will, in rooting out the imperfect, harm others who would be perfect.
Now that's not an argument for not changing anything, but it had better be a real benefit to offset this damage.

I actually think that's a really good argument.  I could see arguing that it is a necessary corruption due to the fallen nature of humanity.  Although, again, I think the argument that there are still good reasons to avoid changing had greater weight a few centuries ago than they do now.  The tares who could potentially become wheat are unconcerned with this issue because the practice has already been changed for them.
(07-25-2017, 05:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]...if communion under one form is good and under both is better ...

The question is : Why is communion under both forms better?

In a sense, that's the question we are both asking.

You assert it is, unreservedly.

I, and I would think others admit that, in principle, perhaps this is correct, but that in concrete, it is not the case hic et nunc.

Thus either we're speaking past each other or you're begging the question by not addressing our distinction.


(07-25-2017, 05:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If it was the universal practice at the time of Christ, the apostles, and at least the first few generations of the Church, that seems to me that its dignity and authority weighs more than any new practice, even if it should exist for a very long time and become customary.

But as it has been shown, "universal" is not as universal as you suggest. There are good examples of at least occasional communions under one species from the very first centuries.

Further, the argument fails when we apply it to something like the reservation of the Eucharist. The early practice of the Church was not to reserve the Eucharist. Now this is commonplace in the West and has been for a very long time. If you use your principle, then we should stop doing this.

(07-25-2017, 05:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]How would changing the practice put them in a much worse spot than they already are?

That's not the correct question. Rather the burden is to prove that it would improve the situation.


(07-25-2017, 05:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]so we're really talking about traditionalists, and Latin traditionalists alone.  You receive the Eucharist reverently.  You have a strong devotion to it, and you are in no way confused in your belief that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.  In what way would returning to the practice of receiving in both kinds cause Latin traditionalists to stumble?  How on earth would the better catechized and historically-literate Catholics be more vulnerable to confusion and loss of faith or devotion to the Eucharist by returning to a practice they presumably are already well aware was the original practice as instituted by Christ himself?

It would be a scandal to many, if not most traditionalists by making the traditional Mass more like the Novus Ordo Missæ. That would push many away, garner accusations of Modernism, etc.

You assume that traditionalists are far more well-balanced and catechized than what is the reality, methinks.

Further, it also introduces more changes into a rite which has become the bastion of those who want the old stability. Granted there's not a united front, but the reason it's 1962 is at least in large part because everything was in flux afterward. Messing around with that rite before there is widespread stability in the Church is a recipe for disaster, apostasy, sedevacantism and many other evils.
I just responded to this twice and both times it doesn't save my remarks. I'll try again tomorrow.
(07-25-2017, 06:50 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]The question is : Why is communion under both forms better?

In a sense, that's the question we are both asking.

You assert it is, unreservedly.

I, and I would think others admit that, in principle, perhaps this is correct, but that in concrete, it is not the case hic et nunc.

Thus either we're speaking past each other or you're begging the question by not addressing our distinction.
Once more, with feeling...
I agree that in the one sense, receiving under both forms is no better or worse than under one form.  Christ is received fully in both instances.  In another sense, one that I don't know how to define, perhaps in a mystical sense, receiving under both forms is better because of the fullness of the sacrament that doing so represents.
Quote:But as it has been shown, "universal" is not as universal as you suggest. There are good examples of at least occasional communions under one species from the very first centuries.

Further, the argument fails when we apply it to something like the reservation of the Eucharist. The early practice of the Church was not to reserve the Eucharist. Now this is commonplace in the West and has been for a very long time. If you use your principle, then we should stop doing this.

Those examples were for extraordinary circumstances.  Presanctified liturgies are only held during fasting periods.  The norm was to receive under both forms.  I'm not sure using an extraordinary example is sufficient to say that the general practice was not universal.  If you include those Eastern Christians who have always been in communion with Rome, receiving in one form only has never been the universal practice of the Church (although, admittedly, for a very long time, it was numerically close to universal).  But, even if only for a few generations after the time of Christ, reception under both forms was universal throughout the Church. 

Regarding reservation of the Eucharist, I imagine in the first centuries it was not done because of persecutions and the impracticality of reserving it in someone's home.  During persecutions specifically, this would have subjected it to unnecessary risk of sacrilege.  Today, in the Byzantine churches at least, during presanctified liturgies and sick visits, reception of the Eucharist is always accompanied by unconsecrated wine.

Quote:That's not the correct question. Rather the burden is to prove that it would improve the situation.


For the sake of argument, let's say we both agreed that reception under both forms was better.  I agree that if there were a situation where changing from an imperfect form back to a perfect form would endanger people's faith, it would be better to maintain the inferior practice for a while.  You agree that if it would do something good, changing to the better form would be warranted.  But what about the neutral position, where there isn't a likelihood of either a positive or negative change?  If changing to the better practice will not effect much of a change in either direction, why is the appropriate stance to maintain an inferior practice until a positive good is likely, rather than only maintaining an inferior practice if it is necessary to prevent some evil that doesn't already exist, or making one that does exist worse?

Quote:It would be a scandal to many, if not most traditionalists by making the traditional Mass more like the Novus Ordo Missæ. That would push many away, garner accusations of Modernism, etc.


If it would cause a scandal to many traditionalists, isn't it because they have succumbed to an ignorant, false piety that the mass they cherish is older than it actually is?  If a person believes that returning to an apostolic practice makes the traditional mass more like the novus ordo, then they are either ignorant that their own practice was at one time new and required a departure from the practice that preceded it, or, in this instance, the novus ordo is actually doing something inherently good, and they are unwilling to admit that because of their, largely understandable, bias against it.  It doesn't seem to me that the danger of scandal from those conditions is a sufficient reason to not return to an apostolic practice that, for the sake of argument, is inherently better and more proper.
(07-26-2017, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Once more, with feeling...
I agree that in the one sense, receiving under both forms is no better or worse than under one form.  Christ is received fully in both instances.  In another sense, one that I don't know how to define, perhaps in a mystical sense, receiving under both forms is better because of the fullness of the sacrament that doing so represents.

And I you won't get any disagreement that in that second sense, yes, there is a better and more full expression of the sacrament. The Eucharist and Christ Victim are intimately united.

Yet, as much as that might be better, the question isn't whether it is a more perfect expression, but rather is the more perfect expression such an important and significant benefit as to overcome the significant problems that would result from the re-introduction.

That's the unanswered question we're discussing, and which we seem to be speaking past.


(07-26-2017, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Those examples were for extraordinary circumstances.  Presanctified liturgies are only held during fasting periods.  The norm was to receive under both forms.  I'm not sure using an extraordinary example is sufficient to say that the general practice was not universal.  If you include those Eastern Christians who have always been in communion with Rome, receiving in one form only has never been the universal practice of the Church (although, admittedly, for a very long time, it was numerically close to universal).  But, even if only for a few generations after the time of Christ, reception under both forms was universal throughout the Church.

But think about it -- fasting periods in the early Church were a significant portion of the liturgical year. So even if we say "extraordinary" we're talking a fairly regular occurrence -- at least forty days out of the year.

(07-26-2017, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding reservation of the Eucharist, I imagine in the first centuries it was not done because of persecutions and the impracticality of reserving it in someone's home.  During persecutions specifically, this would have subjected it to unnecessary risk of sacrilege.  Today, in the Byzantine churches at least, during presanctified liturgies and sick visits, reception of the Eucharist is always accompanied by unconsecrated wine.

First, that does not accord with what the history shows. Very early along (at least by the 3rd century) it was fairly universal for the faithful to take some of the consecrated bread home for communion during the week. Thus for at least some the majority of their communions were under one species only.

Secondly, you undermine your own argument when you say "unconsecrated wine". That's great symbolism, but it's still communion under one kind. That same practice used to happen during Good Friday in the Latin Church and still happens in the pre-1969 Ordination rite for priests, yet it is still not communion under both kinds. Even in the Good Friday liturgy when a piece of the presanctified host was placed in the wine in the chalice, it did not become consecrated.

(07-26-2017, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If changing to the better practice will not effect much of a change in either direction, why is the appropriate stance to maintain an inferior practice until a positive good is likely, rather than only maintaining an inferior practice if it is necessary to prevent some evil that doesn't already exist, or making one that does exist worse?

First, I don't absolutely agree that the communion under both kinds is better. I would qualify its "superiority".

But to address the question more objectively : I'll refer you back to the argument of St. Thomas about human law (of which Church discipline is one example). Maintaining the status quo when it involves a law or long-standing custom must be done because changing these causes a harm to the common good. Law (and custom which has force of law) is always defined as an "ordinance of reason promulgated by the authority for the sake of the common good". It is meant to be quasi-permanent because the common good requires stability -- right reason should always come to the same conclusion in how to achieve the common good unless conditions change.

When there is no significant harm foreseen by a change, but also no significant good, there is no reason to change.

(07-26-2017, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If it would cause a scandal to many traditionalists, isn't it because they have succumbed to an ignorant, false piety that the mass they cherish is older than it actually is?

Yes, it is, but ironically it is the true love of God behind that "false piety" that led them to maintain a true praxis.

Scandal of the weak is a real thing and we are obliged in Charity to try to avoid causing such scandal, except when we would be remiss in our duties otherwise.

Mrs. MacGillicutty might wrongly think that striking the breast at during the Hail Holy Queen is de fide, but even if she's wrong, it's not a good idea to intentionally upset her, especially if as a result she will leave the practice of the Faith over such an issue.

The great majority of the Christian faithful are not academics or intellectuals. They are good, simple people who need very basic things to help them to love God, and save their soul. They don't understand the Liturgy in its intimate details. They don't need communion under both kinds to be united to their God . They've been truly scandalized by the Novus Ordo creators introducing novel practices or making false arguments to historical practice (some of actually imaginary) to undermine the Faith.

While many of those Liturgical Movement folks were not acting in good faith, those that were in good faith were academics and intellectuals who had no concept the true pastoral needs of the Christian Faithful. They were obsessed with a "perfect" Liturgy that fit their idealistic concept of what was "pastoral". They were ignorant of what actually nourished the souls of the faithful. They failed and created a monster Liturgy that objectively harms souls.

Even if communion under both species was the good you say it is, if it would cause many weak folks to be scandalized and would harm their less-than-perfectly-formed Faith, it's exactly the thing that would dictate we must avoid it until the risk of this is more remote. And even then the amount of Catechesis to prepare for such a change would be monumental and generations-long.

It is the same argument with the vernacular in the Liturgy. There is nothing contrary to the Faith in introducing the vernacular to more of the Liturgy than there was in 1962. In fact, in the early centuries, the Liturgy was in the vernacular. Yet even moving to a part-English, part-Latin Mass according to the 1962 rites would probably cause many traditionalists to abandon the Faith.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5