Communion under both kinds
#21
Well stated MagisterMusicae [Image: buddy_offline.png]

However, from the Catechism of The Catholic Church one reads this; on page 339:

IV. The Liturgical Celebration Of The Eucharist

The Mass of All Ages:


Quote: 1345
As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antonius Pius (136-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:


On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful thing.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves...
and for all others, wherever they may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers prase and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) thet we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice in an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

St. Justin, Apol. 1,65-67: PG 6, 428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chapter 67.


The Catechism continues in 1346:

The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that for a fundamental unity:

-the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intersessions;

-the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship"; [SC70] the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and the Body of the Lord. [Cf.DV 21.]

1347   Is this not the same movement as the Pascal meal of the risen Jesus with His disciples? Walking with them He explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it too them." [Cf. Lk 24:13-35.]

So, from the very beginnings, it has been Bread and Wine with water, that is offered up and then, given as Eucharist to the people gathered for the celebration of the Mass.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin
Reply
#22
(07-22-2017, 01:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If we are honest, we will see that stopping it was a prudential (not doctrinal) matter, and introducing it again will also be a matter of prudence. Additionally the reasons militating against it years ago may have ceased, but new reasons may have entered in. As with any human law (or custom) as St. Thomas says (ST I:II q.97 a.2) it must only change if a significantly better good results. It's not enough just to return to the old practice, because any change harms custom, so there has to be some greater good to compensate for this harm.

This is an interesting idea.  I would argue that practicing the sacrament as Christ instituted it is a sufficient greater good to warrant returning to the practice.  But, for the sake of argument, it if's not a given that returning to the practice is itself a sufficient greater good, what you're saying here - forgive me for not being able to articulate it without an analogy - seems a bit like saying, "For a time, we needed to make use of a crutch to walk.  Now that we are healed (assuming the healing is complete), we're not sure that being healed from what necessitated the use of the crutch is sufficient reason to resume walking without one.  Therefore, we're going to continue walking with the crutch until such time as a clear greater good can be presented as to why we should now walk without a crutch."  I don't accept the argument that change should always be avoided if there isn't an immediate pressing need to do so.  Most of the time, I think it ends up being the case that change should be avoided, but not merely for the sake of avoiding change.

Quote:Communion under both species has been the rallying call of Protestants and rebellious "reformers" as early as the 13th century. Even if they had a good argument, there is the danger of appearing to countenance their cause by introducing the practice,

But what if the reformers, on this particular issue, were right?  This comes across as saying we're not going to do what's right, because the heretics beat us to it, and if we now follow their lead, it will make us look like we're admitting they're right.  Is it really better to say we're not going to emulate heretics at all than it is to say, "Ok, they have a valid point on this.  They're still heretics on pretty much everything else."?

Quote:Certainly there is little regard and respect for the Eucharist and many do not accept the Real Presence. There is danger of causing more confusion and even promoting heretical notions by introducing the practice now.

If there are truly prudential reasons for maintaining the reception of the Eucharist in the Latin church under one form only, I don't see a problem with doing so.  My argument is that it is a practice that should not be maintained for tradition's sake alone.

Quote:The distribution of communion is under both kinds is of great practical difficulty and a uniform practice would be needed to maintain the correct respect for the Eucharist.

I think that's reasonable.  The Latin church has a tradition of using a metal straw for dispensing the Eucharist in its wine form.  There are many ways that the Eucharist under both forms can be distributed that doesn't involve anyone other than priests and, if necessary, deacons from touching the vessels.

Quote:Such a change does not really seem to produce any real significant advantage, and is more likely to bias the faithful against communion under one species, just as communion in the hand has biased people against the traditional manner of receiving only on the tongue.

Maybe it's just my perception of the issue, but I think there should be a bias against receiving communion under one species.  I also think there should be a bias against baptism by sprinkling when immersion is not inconvenient, and a bias against the Eucharist being received before confirmation.  We naturally should be biased against good things in favor of better things, shouldn't we?
Reply
#23
Very true. But I suppose that the debate now is not whether communion under both kinds is more apostolic, or is a greater expression of the Eucharist. But whether or not it is prudent in this age to re-introduce the practice.
Reply
#24
(07-22-2017, 03:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: This is an interesting idea.  I would argue that practicing the sacrament as Christ instituted it is a sufficient greater good to warrant returning to the practice.  But, for the sake of argument, it if's not a given that returning to the practice is itself a sufficient greater good, what you're saying here - forgive me for not being able to articulate it without an analogy - seems a bit like saying, "For a time, we needed to make use of a crutch to walk.  Now that we are healed (assuming the healing is complete), we're not sure that being healed from what necessitated the use of the crutch is sufficient reason to resume walking without one.  Therefore, we're going to continue walking with the crutch until such time as a clear greater good can be presented as to why we should now walk without a crutch."  I don't accept the argument that change should always be avoided if there isn't an immediate pressing need to do so.  Most of the time, I think it ends up being the case that change should be avoided, but not merely for the sake of avoiding change.

It's a fair analogy on one level, but it fails to address the point St. Thomas makes. The law or custom itself has a dignity and authority. The very fact of changing in itself lessens the authority of the law or lawgiver, so the reason for a change has to compensate for this.

A better analogy is that of a family where the father insists that there is a 10 pm bedtime without any exceptions and it is followed for many years, even severely punishing those who stay up past bedtime. Then the family becomes Catholic and the Father wants to take the family to Midnight Mass. The very fact that he changes his rules lessens his authority. Now what was severely punished is not only merely an evil to be tolerated, but a positive good.

For the good of Midnight Mass there is reason to change and the family would not take this as a lessening the authority of the father, but rather exercising his authority for their benefit. If it were just to play another round of a game, clearly it would be insufficient, and it would make the father appear to be softening his stance and undermine his authority.

That does not mean the the Mass or game is a bad thing, hardly. Rather, it shows that there is a proportion to be had.

I do not think a "return" to ancient practice is in itself enough to justify the change. The practice of the Church does change over time, and early is not in itself better.

(07-22-2017, 03:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: But what if the reformers, on this particular issue, were right?  This comes across as saying we're not going to do what's right, because the heretics beat us to it, and if we now follow their lead, it will make us look like we're admitting they're right.  Is it really better to say we're not going to emulate heretics at all than it is to say, "Ok, they have a valid point on this.  They're still heretics on pretty much everything else."?

And perhaps they did have a point, but in time of turmoil and revolution one does not change.

If the point is valid it is when the heresy or error is thoroughly crushed and there is no danger of appearing to favor the heresy or error that any valid points can be considered.

(07-22-2017, 03:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: If there are truly prudential reasons for maintaining the reception of the Eucharist in the Latin church under one form only, I don't see a problem with doing so.  My argument is that it is a practice that should not be maintained for tradition's sake alone.

Fair enough. I think the practice of 15 centuries (in some places in the West) is sufficient to at least require a pretty serious reason to abandon it. That's the extent of the argument from tradition.

The other arguments from practical reasoning are merely to establish that there is not yet a sufficient reason.

The argument could be truncated though to "That's what we've done for a long time, so why change?"

(07-22-2017, 03:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: I think that's reasonable.  The Latin church has a tradition of using a metal straw for dispensing the Eucharist in its wine form.  There are many ways that the Eucharist under both forms can be distributed that doesn't involve anyone other than priests and, if necessary, deacons from touching the vessels.

The deacon was traditionally the minister of the chalice, which is why in the traditional Latin rite he offers the chalice with the priest. He can distribute communion under the species of bread only extraordinarily, but this comes from the fact that historically he was the ordinary minister of the chalice.

The metal straw was typically used by the Pope during a Solemn Papal Mass, not the ordinary type of Mass. I don't see it being a practical solution.

Even when in certain cases (celiac disease) one of the faithful cannot receive except under the species of wine, they are not supposed to be touching the chalice themselves, even with a gloved hand, so

(07-22-2017, 03:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: Maybe it's just my perception of the issue, but I think there should be a bias against receiving communion under one species.  I also think there should be a bias against baptism by sprinkling when immersion is not inconvenient, and a bias against the Eucharist being received before confirmation.  We naturally should be biased against good things in favor of better things, shouldn't we?

If it helps, the Latin rite, while it recognizes Baptism by immersion, ablution (pouring) or sprinkling (aspersion) are all valid, until recently only ablution was licit. It does lose the symbolism of the "buried with Christ" but prevents the doubts from aspersion (did the water actually flow over the body of the baptized?) and also the possible scandal for adult baptism of women by the priest.

So at least the sprinkling has a bias against it.
Reply
#25
(07-22-2017, 02:57 PM)Zedta Wrote: So, from the very beginnings, it has been Bread and Wine with water, that is offered up and then, given as Eucharist to the people gathered for the celebration of the Mass.

Sorta.

So we have good evidence that not every Mass included communion under both kinds from at least the 4th century. It was then the Mass of the Presanctified became the practice during Lenten fast days. This admits only of communion under the species of bread.

We also have good evidence of private communions reserved by the faithful for communion throughout the week at home being only under the species of bread, and this from the 3rd century. Also from the 3rd century is the communion of the sick which was only ever under the species of bread.

Further there is good evidence that in some places children communicated only under the species of wine and in other places only under the species of bread from the early days of the Church.

So yes, while the earliest form was bread and wine, that's not really the point of the argument anyway, and further, it was not so universal as you suggest, even from the earliest times.
Reply
#26
So, I suppose one of the main arguments against the way the Eucharist under the species of wine is administered in the ordinary form, is because it requires the laity to touch the chalice, right?
Corpus Christi, salva me.

Check out my new blog: A Young Popish American
Reply
#27
(07-23-2017, 04:49 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: So, I suppose one of the main arguments against the way the Eucharist under the species of wine is administered in the ordinary form, is because it requires the laity to touch the chalice, right?

Anything which is especially dedicated or consecrated is reserved to a certain group only to use or handle.

The touching of the chalice and any other consecrated thing (like the paten) or a vessel containing the holy oils is generally reserved to clerics. Exceptions for sacristans (like St. Thérèse) are usually made.

The touching of what may contain or is not yet purified after touching the Eucharist is only permitted to a subdeacon (e.g. palls, purificators and corporals). Not even a lesser cleric is permitted to do this outside of real necessity.

That touching of the Holy Oils themselves is only permitted to deacons.

Only a deacon or priest can touch a sacred vessel when it contains the Eucharist or Precious Blood.

So the objection for the offering of the chalice for general consumption is that it should only be handled when full (or not yet purified) by a deacon or priest. Thus the deacon or priest needs to tip it up to the communicant's lips. That is a recipe for disaster. Even with intinction (and especially with unleavened bread) there are real dangers of desecration.

If you look how the Novus Ordo handles this, you see the problem quite clearly, and why few traditionalists would be excited to try to find a way to make that happen.

This argument is only a very small point, but that is a fairly sizable problem to overcome.
Reply
#28
(07-23-2017, 04:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-22-2017, 02:57 PM)Zedta Wrote: So, from the very beginnings, it has been Bread and Wine with water, that is offered up and then, given as Eucharist to the people gathered for the celebration of the Mass.

Sorta.

So we have good evidence that not every Mass included communion under both kinds from at least the 4th century. It was then the Mass of the Presanctified became the practice during Lenten fast days. This admits only of communion under the species of bread.

We also have good evidence of private communions reserved by the faithful for communion throughout the week at home being only under the species of bread, and this from the 3rd century. Also from the 3rd century is the communion of the sick which was only ever under the species of bread.

Further there is good evidence that in some places children communicated only under the species of wine and in other places only under the species of bread from the early days of the Church.

So yes, while the earliest form was bread and wine, that's not really the point of the argument anyway, and further, it was not so universal as you suggest, even from the earliest times.
Actually, I made no pronunciation at all about how this was carried out. I am well aware of the exceptions and special conditions. All I was 'stating' was a quotation from the Catechism which indicates it was a common practice at the beginning, at least, and that is all. The citation doesn't actually even get into whether or not the faithful attending, received either/or species, however, one may assume that they could have. Its just not explicitly stated one way or the other from this source. It is known that people did take the consecrated bread home to their communities, to be given to those who could not make the journey. This was done by Deacons and others assigned to the task.

I have said before, that it is Catholic Tradition, also from the beginning, that one cannot separate Christ from one species for another. He is present in both; 'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity'. So which ever species one receives, one receives Him.

That was MY point.

It is quite nice to receive Him in both species, but either one is quite sufficient in the end.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin
Reply
#29
(07-23-2017, 04:07 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's a fair analogy on one level, but it fails to address the point St. Thomas makes. The law or custom itself has a dignity and authority. The very fact of changing in itself lessens the authority of the law or lawgiver, so the reason for a change has to compensate for this.

What gives the law or custom dignity and authority?  If it deviates from one good to, for the sake of argument, a lesser good that is necessary for a time, what gives the new custom greater dignity and authority over the one that came before it?


Quote:I do not think a "return" to ancient practice is in itself enough to justify the change. The practice of the Church does change over time, and early is not in itself better.

I don't mean returning to an ancient practice for the sake of it being ancient.  I agree that doing so is not a good reason in the same way that I think holding onto tradition for tradition's sake isn't a good reason by itself.

In Latin theology, Christ instituting the sacrament using bread and wine is important, right?  It's not a superfluous detail?  If it's not superfluous, I don't understand what could give the new practice greater dignity and authority than the old one had.  I understand how a need can make it permissible to deviate from the norm, but I don't understand how the new practice, because it has become a custom, could ever have greater dignity and authority than the original practice before it, if that original practice is an integral component to the meaning of the practice itself.
Reply
#30
(07-24-2017, 12:11 AM)Melkite Wrote: In Latin theology, Christ instituting the sacrament using bread and wine is important, right?  It's not a superfluous detail?  If it's not superfluous, I don't understand what could give the new practice greater dignity and authority than the old one had.  I understand how a need can make it permissible to deviate from the norm, but I don't understand how the new practice, because it has become a custom, could ever have greater dignity and authority than the original practice before it, if that original practice is an integral component to the meaning of the practice itself.

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.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • GangGreen, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)