Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: snowball on August 29, 2015, 11:24:48 AM
-
Hi, I am wondering, since many of you go to TLM masses,
whether connected to the NO or not, does the priest
ALWAYS offer Communion in both forms ?
Exactly when did it become the teaching of the Church
that both species are not required ?
The NO parish I belong to just recently got a new pastor
who did away with the Cup. Hardly anyone at all was receiving
it for fear of germs and sickness. I am not pleased by this.
My older relatives who went to Mass before Vatican II
regularly said that the parish they went to did not offer
the Cup to the lay people.
Experiences ?
-
Hi, I am wondering, since many of you go to TLM masses, whether connected to the NO or not, does the priest ALWAYS offer Communion in both forms?
The priest NEVER offers Communion in both forms.
Exactly when did it become the teaching of the Church that both species are not required?
The Church has ALWAYS taught that both species of Communion are not required. See the epistle of St. Paul which discusses anyone who receives the Body OR Blood unworthily.
The NO parish I belong to just recently got a new pastor who did away with the Cup. Hardly anyone at all was receiving it for fear of germs and sickness. I am not pleased by this.
Why? Do you ascribe to the heresy that both are required? In my last year at the Novus Ordo I remember a man talking about a rural parish where the new young, conservative priest did away with Communion under both kinds. He said he didn't like it because it seemed you were getting only half the Sacrament. Needless to say, this attitude is truly a sign that the individual holds has an heretical belief the Eucharist (at least all of the people I've known who make such a claim certainly did.)
My older relatives who went to Mass before Vatican II regularly said that the parish they went to did not offer the Cup to the lay people.
Do you mean that they did not offer the cup to the people before Vatican 2? If so, that was the required discipline of the Church.
-
There's an anathema (perhaps in the Council of Trent) about "if anyone believes that the whole Christ is not present under either Species, or that both Forms need to be received by the Faithful..."
Something to that effect.
The protestants came up with this idea, that to "properly commemorate" the Last Supper -- for a commemoration is all a church service is -- all present must partake of BOTH species.
But we're Catholics, not protestants.
Being able to receive under both Species is one of the privileges of the priesthood.
In fact, if a young man is asked by his bishop, "Why do you want to be a priest" and he answers, "I want to be able to receive the Blood of Christ as well at Holy Communion" it is to be considered a legitimate motivation for aspiring to the priesthood.
I read that in one of the many Trad books on the Catholic priesthood.
-
There's an anathema (perhaps in the Council of Trent) about "if anyone believes that the whole Christ is not present under either Species, or that both Forms need to be received by the Faithful..."
yes, I was aware of the Trent declaration, Matthew.
But I do want to look into the earlier history further.
The commands of Christ Himself at the Last Supper
are equal in Body and Blood.
-
Do you mean that they did not offer the cup to the people before Vatican 2? If so, that was the required discipline of the Church.
Yes, and to be sure I just asked her if they offered the Cup even at
any Masses at all such as Christmas, Easter, Holy Thursday, etc,
and she said no, never. This was in the 1940s and 50s in Rhode Island.
-
.
Well, that pretty much wraps up this topic.
One more example of how Novus Ordo innovations are merely importing Protestantism into the Mass (if you could then call it a Mass, that is).
.
-
'[On the octave of Pentecost (Trinity Sunday, the day around 5,000 people received Baptism), at the first holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after receiving her Son in the Blessed Sacrament, at the hands of St. Peter] She [Blessed Mary] remained in a trance, elevated from the floor; but the holy angels shielded Her somewhat from view according to her own wish, in order that the attention of those present might not be unduly attracted by the divine effects apparent in Her. The disciples continued to distribute holy Communion, first to the disciples and then to the others who had been believers before the Ascension.
But of the five thousand newly baptized only one thousand received Communion on that day; because not all were entirely prepared or furnished with the insight and attention required for receiving the Lord in this great sacrament and mystery of the Altar. With regard to the manner of Communion in that day, the Apostles observed the distinction of giving to the most holy Mother and to the one hundred and twenty, upon whom the Holy Ghost had come, both species, of bread and wine; but the recently baptized partook only of the species of bread. But this difference was not made because the new faithful were less worthy of the one species than of the other; but because the Apostles knew, that in either one of the species they received the same Object in its entirety, namely the sacramental God; and that there was no precept, and likewise no necessity that each one receive both species. They considered, that there would be great danger of irreverence and other very grave inconveniences to permit the multitude to partake of the species of the blood, while this was not to be feared of the Communion of the few, who then partook of them at that time.
I have been made to understand, that, for all those who were not consecrating or celebrating, the practice of communicating only the specie obtained from the very beginning of the Church. Although some, that were not priests, for some time partook of both species; yet, as soon as the Church increased and spread over the whole world, she being guided by the Holy Ghost, very wisely ordained, that laymen and those not celebrating Mass should communicate only in the specie of the sacred body; and that it was to pertain to those who were celebrating these divine mysteries, to partake of both species. Such is the secure practice of the Roman Catholic Church.'
Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystical City of God, Vol. IV, 113
-
Canon 1.If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.
Canon 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.
Canon 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.
Canon 4.If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent
-
'[On the octave of Pentecost (Trinity Sunday, the day around 5,000 people received Baptism), at the first holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after receiving her Son in the Blessed Sacrament, at the hands of St. Peter] She [Blessed Mary] remained in a trance, elevated from the floor; but the holy angels shielded Her somewhat from view according to her own wish, in order that the attention of those present might not be unduly attracted by the divine effects apparent in Her. The disciples continued to distribute holy Communion, first to the disciples and then to the others who had been believers before the Ascension.
But of the five thousand newly baptized only one thousand received Communion on that day; because not all were entirely prepared or furnished with the insight and attention required for receiving the Lord in this great sacrament and mystery of the Altar. With regard to the manner of Communion in that day, the Apostles observed the distinction of giving to the most holy Mother and to the one hundred and twenty, upon whom the Holy Ghost had come, both species, of bread and wine; but the recently baptized partook only of the species of bread. But this difference was not made because the new faithful were less worthy of the one species than of the other; but because the Apostles knew, that in either one of the species they received the same Object in its entirety, namely the sacramental God; and that there was no precept, and likewise no necessity that each one receive both species. They considered, that there would be great danger of irreverence and other very grave inconveniences to permit the multitude to partake of the species of the blood, while this was not to be feared of the Communion of the few, who then partook of them at that time.
I have been made to understand, that, for all those who were not consecrating or celebrating, the practice of communicating only the specie obtained from the very beginning of the Church. Although some, that were not priests, for some time partook of both species; yet, as soon as the Church increased and spread over the whole world, she being guided by the Holy Ghost, very wisely ordained, that laymen and those not celebrating Mass should communicate only in the specie of the sacred body; and that it was to pertain to those who were celebrating these divine mysteries, to partake of both species. Such is the secure practice of the Roman Catholic Church.'
Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystical City of God, Vol. IV, 113
Isn't just a tad "convenient" that Venerable Mary of Agreda had this locution or vision concerning the life of the Blessed Mother mere decades after Trent made the declaration ? Why is she not a Saint ?
Why does Mary of Agreda sound like a lawyer ?
I am aware of the Hussites and Calixtines who insisted upon both species
and the lengths to which the Church combatted them, not only in that regard
but others, and that the Church calls it a formal heresy of Utraquism to insist
upon both species to the laity.
Regardless, my only reason for starting this thread was to ask if the
Eucharist is presented to the laity today in Resistance masses in the Cup
at all or not.
-
You shouldn't make insinuations like that, for your own sake.
-
You shouldn't make insinuations like that, for your own sake.
what are you referring to ? I am not required to believe in the
validity of the revelations of Mary of Agreda.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
-
So, snowball, are you suggesting that the TLM is wrong not to offer the Cup?
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
No Traditional Latin Rite Mass, that is. The Traditional Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy does give Communion under both species, on a spoon.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?
there is no formal prohibition of both species.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
No traditional Latin rite Mass.
Communion under both Species is the normal practice in the Eastern rites. Trent says that it is heresy to maintain that both Species are necessary, or that one does not receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in one Species. It doesn't say that there is anything wrong with both Species essentially.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
No traditional Latin rite Mass.
Communion under both Species is the normal practice in the Eastern rites. Trent says that it is heresy to maintain that both Species are necessary, or that one does not receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in one Species. It doesn't say that there is anything wrong with both Species essentially.
The Church could never maintain that there is anything wrong with
sharing the Body and Blood under both species. To do so would
contradict the Words and actions of Our Lord. It's rather unsettling
to see that merely saying such in a prior post has received 3
thumbs down.
Unleavened bread did not even appear in the Latin Rite
until the 9th century. Before that, the breaking of bread was literally the
breaking of leavened bread baked in homes. The wafer-thin hosts
confected by monks and nuns did not appear until the 12th century.
(paraphrased from The Mass: Its Rituals, Roots and Relevance in Our Lives,
Joan Carter McHugh, pp. 223-224).
The practice of giving Holy Communion only in the form of bread became
dominant in the Western church of the 13th century. Only the celebrant
communicated from the chalice, though this custom was contrary to the
practice of earlier centuries. (paraphrased, ibid. pp. 230-231)
-
Being able to receive under both Species is one of the privileges of the priesthood.
Except that it's always been done in the Eastern Rites.
In fact, if a young man is asked by his bishop, "Why do you want to be a priest" and he answers, "I want to be able to receive the Blood of Christ as well at Holy Communion" it is to be considered a legitimate motivation for aspiring to the priesthood.
That's actually a (materially) heretical response, implying that one does not receive the Blood of Christ at Holy Communion if only communicating under a single species.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?
there is no formal prohibition of both species.
What the Church condemned was not communication under both species but the doctrine that one did not fully receive Holy Communion if communicating under one -- in that this entailed false doctrine regarding the Blessed Sacrament.
-
Can the Chalice be allowed for health reasons which are more common than in the 1910s?
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?
there is no formal prohibition of both species.
What the Church condemned was not communication under both species but the doctrine that one did not fully receive Holy Communion if communicating under one -- in that this entailed false doctrine regarding the Blessed Sacrament.
I never said reception of both condemned.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?
there is no formal prohibition of both species.
What the Church condemned was not communication under both species but the doctrine that one did not fully receive Holy Communion if communicating under one -- in that this entailed false doctrine regarding the Blessed Sacrament.
I never said reception of both condemned.
And I never said you said that. I was responding to snowball's question.
-
Can the Chalice be allowed for health reasons which are more common than in the 1910s?
Yes, using a kind of straw (called a fistula - be careful googling images though, it's also the name of a medical condition) or a spoon:
(http://www.massexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/21769651_m.jpg)
-
Communion for the laity was under both species most commonly
until the 13th century.. that is in the Latin Rite.
-
No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species. If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.
I attended Mass in Pennsylvania once at an SSPX chapel, and at the very end of Communion, a father and young daughter approached the rail. The father received normally, and then walked up to the altar, where he retrieved a very small gold chalice, which I assume had a small amount of the Precious Blood in it. He walked down, held it to the young girl's mouth, and she drank it. I've always assumed she had some kind of medical condition that prohibited reception of the Precious Body, so the priest allows her to received the Precious Blood in this fashion.
-
Being able to receive under both Species is one of the privileges of the priesthood.
Sorry, Matthew, but as others have pointed out, this simply cannot be correct. Reception under both forms by the laity has always occurred in the East, and also occurred in the West until the 12th Century or so. It may have come to be regarded, by some, as a privilege of the priesthood, but this can, at best, only be a custom, and not actual Church teaching on the Eucharist.
-
or by intinction
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Nk1vdCGQvzY/TdQBx-dVdgI/AAAAAAAABNI/ocwGUPK1DXQ/s640/Syrian+Christians+take+communion+during+Sunday+service+at+the+Greek+Catholic+Church+of+Our+Lady+Al-Niyah+in+Damascus+on+May+01%252C+2011.jpg)
(http://vultus.stblogs.org/ethiopian-armenians-02.jpg)
-
Prior to the Council of Trent it was very common for both species to be offered for Communion. However because of teh heresy of Jan Hus which stated that it was necessary to receive both species during mass for the CCommunion to be valid it was necessary for this error to be repudiated and in order to avoid confussion it was decreed that only one species would be offered at mass for the faithful.
In the Byzantine rite both species are offered and the faithful receive Holy Communion with a spoon.