Communion under both kinds
#41
(07-27-2017, 06:44 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 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.
Then we would probably need a list of all the problems it would supposedly cause and go over them one by one.  I would be interested in having that discussion, but I'm also not entirely up for it, so if you don't feel like hashing that out either, I'm ok with leaving it.
Quote: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 [/size]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.

Sure, it's technically under one form because only the bread is consecrated.  But preserving the bread/wine combination is at least perceived to be important enough to add unconsecrated wine rather than commune from consecrated bread alone.

Quote: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.

Logically, this makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps I'm just being sentimental, but it also seems terribly tragic to suffer the loss of a tradition that is at least arguably better because it has been determined the common good is currently better off without it.

So I guess the next question is, for this particular issue, how do we quantify the common good and the importance of the practice, and then weigh them against each other to determine if the importance of the practice justifies disrupting the current common good?

Quote: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[size=small] 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.

This makes A LOT of sense.  I can definitely respect leaving it the way it's been with that in mind.

But then this also brings to mind the case of the Eastern Catholics in the 19th and early 20th century in the US for me.  One could easily argue that it is better for priests to be celibate, and that the tradition of a married priesthood is the inferior tradition.  We saw that enough people were tied to that tradition, that upsetting it caused nearly half of the Eastern Catholics in North America to leave and become Eastern Orthodox.  The OCA wouldn't have nearly as many people today if their ancestors hadn't left the Catholic Church, and ACROD wouldn't even exist.  But, it was arguably done for the common good, and also to prevent the Latins from being scandalized by seeing married priests.  

So, firstly, in that situation, was the common good of not scandalizing the Latin majority worth the schism that ensued among the Greek Catholics, such that this was still a good that was so important it justified risking the mass apostasy?  Or was this a bad decision?

Secondly, either way, one group was going to be scandalized.  In situations where no matter what choice you make, someone is going to be scandalized to the point of schism, what ought the Church do?  Is it really as simple as saying the loss of 8000 souls is better than the loss of 10000?

Finally, what is to be done in the case that the intent to act in favor of the common good is just plain wrong, but no one is aware of it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)