withholding the chalice from the congregation

[HMiS]

Communion in the hand was a break with tradition, but it was for the better, and so was that to do away with Communion in both species, I believe.

 

1. Communion in the hand was condemned several times by Councils and Popes and by Canon Law (1917). That says enough. Communion under one species was never condemned and could not be, as the sick also receive this Divine Gift under one species.

 

2. Are you saying Communion into the Paw (an abuse, even in the first centuries, see the scriptures of St. Basil and St. Justin), which lead to desecration and diminishing of belief in the Real Presence of JEsus in the Eucharist, was "for the better"? I can't believe you are actually saying that.

 

3. Communion under one species as such is only a widening of an apostolic tradition prevalent since the 1st century, that of giving Communion under one species to the sick in their beds. To receive Holy Communion only under the guise of bread is an apostolic tradition therefore. Evenso is it an apostolic tradition, that those suffering from allergia towards gluten and weed, be able to drink from the chalice and thus be united to Our Lord.

[GrumpyTroll]

Communion in the hand was a break with tradition, but it was for the better, and so was that to do away with Communion in both species, I believe.

2. Are you saying Communion into the Paw (an abuse, even in the first centuries, see the scriptures of St. Basil and St. Justin), which lead to desecration and diminishing of belief in the Real Presence of JEsus in the Eucharist, was "for the better"? I can't believe you are actually saying that.

Sorry, I meant “Communion on the tongue”.

This reminds me of a slip-up by the curé of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet: “It is absolutely forbidden to receive Communion on the tongue … On the hand, sorry, on the hand, of course!”

I thought that Communion in the hand was widespread in the first centuries.

[GabrielvonEyb]

 

the NOers are right on some things. 

 

 

Yes, you're right there.  But just because they're right on "some things", doesn't mean that they're right about communion in both kinds.

 

 

 

I am converting to the ALL-HOLY Orthodox Church

 

 

 

Really??

 

How are you going to cope with the fact that they no longer maintain PUBLIC confessions, as was the case in the early church?

 

 

G.v.E.

[Clarkthepapist]

As mentioned by grumpy, in the first few centuries they had communion in the hand. So does your "Orthodox" Church have communion in the hand? Its apostolic tradition! Those modernist eastern Orthodox with their communion spoon thing! Unbeleiavable break with Apostolic Tradition. What about iconostasis? That wasn't an apostolic tradition either.

[miss_fluffy]

Responding to error with error will not work.

Our  Lord Jesus Christ instituted that the Eucharist must be at least  offered to the faithful under both kinds. This is apostolic tradition.  It is not some discipline that can be altered at whim. If a council  decided to withhold the blood this would DE FACTO be a false council.  Its adherents would be excommunicated from the true Church.  Likewise if an entire patriarchate decided to adhere to this demonic  aberation the entire patriarchate would apostacize outside the Church. Think about how the Fathers Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome et al would respond to this departure from Sacred Tradition.

PS: the NOers are right on some things. But their clubs are false churches. I am converting to the ALL-HOLY Orthodox Church.

paul

 
  If you're going to say that the way that Roman Catholics conducted mass  for centuries was a "demonic aberation".... Well... that's quite an  accusation. If you feel good about your conversion to Orthodoxy..  that's great. In fact, I welcome your comments and insight. I think we  have a couple other Orthodox that are active on the forum. But did you  come here just to bash Catholic tradition? Calling the traditional mass  a "demonic aberation" is not a good way to win friends on this forum.

[QuisUtDeus]

Troll

[Paul146]

Communion under one species as such is only a widening of an apostolic tradition prevalent since the 1st century, that of giving Communion under one species to the sick in their beds. To receive Holy Communion only under the guise of bread is an apostolic tradition therefore. Evenso is it an apostolic tradition, that those suffering from allergia towards gluten and weed, be able to drink from the chalice and thus be united to Our Lord.

 

 

Those are abnormal circumstances. We are talking about the LITURGY.

[DominusTecum]

I like how he ignores all the cogent responses others have given and only picks the one where he can respond that the guy was "off topic." Mr., if you are sincere, then you will respond to the theological question posed here. Why is communion under both kinds necessary? Do I not receive Jesus Christ, whole and entire, body, blood, soul, and divinity under either species?

 

 

 

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Those are abnormal circumstances. We are talking about the LITURGY.

The reception of Communion by the faithful is not required for the Liturgy - it is only required for the priest.  You're mixing a discipline of Communion with the Rite of the Mass.

[Sophia]

Paul, from the Rules and FAQ of this website:

 

 

Non-Trad Participation

Other Catholics  and non-Catholics  are most welcome to participate if they will respect the sensibilities of traditional Catholics who respect the Petrine Ministry and the man who holds the office. In other words, read about what is meant by "traditional Catholics" -- and don't come here to rile people who fit that description. We get smeared everywhere else; it won't happen here.

 

Your tone leaves something to be desired.  This has already been discussed in this thread.  It remains a fact that it has been the rule of the Roman Catholic Church to offer to the faithful the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord under the appearances of bread alone.  In order for it to be a valid Mass, there must also be wine, but only the priest consumes it.   

 

It is also a fact that it is a heresy to believe that by only partaking of the one, you are being denied of the other.