RCC to go back to Traditional Practice of Communion

[ChemMJW]

because it seems to me that the decision to withhold the wine from the laity was based upon non-theological considerations. LAter, when questions arose, justifications such as the one in your first post were used to justify the practice. Perhaps you maintain it is nit an innovation? If so, i would like to see how the practice developed. If it is indeed an innovation, the question of authority comes up.

I'm sorry, but I can't tell you anything more concrete than what I have already conveyed. I am not a religious historian, and so I simply do not know what specifically led the Church from offering communion under both species to communion under one species. Perhaps some kind of text on the history of medieval theology could provide more specific answers?

And that is the question. Is it even theologically sound?

As stated above, the relevant theological principle is that God's nature is indivisible: wherever he is, he is fully. Is there a part of that which seems theologically unsound to you? If so, we should discuss it. If not, then the rest of the debate is essentially settled. You are fully free to question the concrete practice of distributing communion under one species, but unless you reject the above principle, you are logically enjoined from disputing the validity of distributing communion under only one species. If your concern is merely one of practice, then this discussion seems to me to be rather trifling. If it is one of validity, then we have real, fundamental theological issues to discuss.

For this reason, I request you avoid arguments from authority on this thread. We already know you have justification for withholding the wine from the laity within your own system--the pope said it is OK.

Excuse me? What on earth are you talking about? Please quote the passages where I appealed to authority concerning this issue.

Not once have I said anything even remotely like "the Pope (or Magisterium) says communion under one species is ok, therefore it is ok." You are the only one who has even mentioned the Pope or the Magisterium in this thread (except when I used the word "Magisterium" for my one brief spelling lesson). In fact, I have gone to great lengths to avoid any mention of the Magisterium or the Pope altogether, as I know that non-Catholics do not consider these to be relevant sources. Furthermore, in post #8, I explicitly wrote that I personally do not consider this to be a matter of authority at all (because, as nearly as I can discern, basic theology covers all the bases). The only "authority" I have appealed to is theological reasoning. If you do not accept theology as a relevant source, then I'm not sure how it is you have come by any knowledge of the faith whatsoever. Theology is the very foundation of our understanding of God.

To wit, if Scripture is sufficient, it has to be understandable. If it is totally opaque and we have no idea how "literally" to read it, it cannot be sufficient becasue "take and drink" means the same thing as "ladshaskd aklsdhladp47i ."

Here, at last, is an issue we could really sink our teeth into (although, like the themes you mentioned earlier, Sola Scriptura has been hashed out dozens of times on TWeb already). I do not at all believe that the Bible is "sufficient" for governing every conceivable aspect that could possibly ever arise in living a Christian life. I have always found to be utterly silly the belief that everything that there is to know about God, the Christian life, etc., can be found in the Bible, a book of only a few hundred pages. Please note, I do not at all mean this as an insult to you or other people who do hold to Scriptural sufficiency; I simply mean that it is not a notion that is within my power to believe. I have always viewed it as akin to somebody looking at a picture book of model airplanes believing that he has learned enough to go out and construct a Boeing 747 on his own.

Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of actual versus material sufficiency? I read an example explaining actual versus material sufficiency as follows: Say you are building a house. The first step is to gather all the materials for building the house - wood, stone, steel, drywall, concrete, carpenter's tools, etc. In a material sufficiency view, you have everything you need to build the house, but having the materials that comprise the house and having the house itself are two very different things. An actual sufficiency view makes no distinction between the components of the house and the completed house itself. Catholics hold material sufficiency concerning the Bible. Revelations/truths about God are definitely in there, but mature theology is what shapes it, brings it into recognizable form, makes it understandable. Actual sufficiency is generally held by those who believe that the Bible is the be all and end all of Christian knowledge.

These arguments have been hashed out here on TWeb, BTW. There is no reason to rehash them again. If you think an Apostolic citation of Jesus' words is too obscure to understand, there is litterally no common ground.

You misunderstand my view in a fundamental way. My assertion isn't that much of the Bible is too obscure to understand, but rather that much of it is too general to lead to only one crystal clear interpretation. And thus you see why the view of material but not actual sufficiency is so satisfying to me - I am not bound to puzzle over the meaning over too general language - instead, I am free to interpret the meaning of the text in the context of the totality of understanding that theology reveals to me concerning God.

Your lumping of all "protestants" together in your first example fails to take into account all that diversity we are always hearing about.

Nevertheless, what I wrote is in general a true broad strokes representation of what I understand the average Protestant and Catholic beliefs to be. I was a United Methodist for the first 18 years of my life and have been Catholic since then, so I do have at least some personal experience with both faith groups. Instead of typing "Protestants" and "Catholics", I guess I could have typed out an exhaustive list of those denominations that hold to each of the two viewpoints. All that typing seemed like a lot of work, so call me lazy if you must.

In any case, the EOs don't agree with you either once the theological justifications for the RP are worked out, and they have the same type of framework for interpreting that obscure book, the Scriptures--Tradition and episcopal authority. So, this tack by you will only lead to your denial of any authority if you follow the principle to its conclusion--or just perhaps your claim of the one you choose as the one true authority as a first principle.

Can you comment further on what authority it is you claim I'm denying? I'm not clear on that from what you've written here.

Your definition of "the" Church is too narrow. I would knock the 850 down to about 400 because "the" Church did not withhold the cup from the laity for 850 years, the part lead by the bishop of Rome did; the rest stood on Scripture and tradition.

For the purposes of this thread, who cares what other churches did or did not do? Is this thread not about Roman Catholic communion practices?
What I have written is absolutely true - "the" Church (as in, the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church under discussion in this thread, the only denomination generally referred to with a capital "C" in standard written English) did practice communion exactly as I described it.

That the RCC withholds, as a matter of policy, the blood of Christ from the laity, and allows it as an "experiment" or on "special" occasions, with little more justification than that she sees herself as the Church and therefore is justified in doing so. There is no justification for this in the Scriptures, which are supposed to be sufficient, and therefore are not to be seen as automatically too obscure to interpret.

This is a textbook straw man that you have set up here. Nowhere at any time have I or anybody else claimed that the church carries out communion as she does simply because "she sees herself as the Church and therefore is justified in doing so." You are postulating some appeal to authority where none exists.

Your issue of sufficiency of the Scriptures I already considered above. Whether or not you find a personally satisfying justification for the Catholic practice in the literal text of the Bible is irrelevant for me, as my understanding of the Christian faith is governed by a framework of material, and not actual, sufficiency. I am fully willing to accept the possibility that there is not a way to make the practice palatable to someone who holds to actual sufficiency, but you must see that this cannot be disconcerting to me.

[ChemMJW]

This is the typical RC polemic.

Call it polemic if you must (a polemic is simply a type of argument, nothing more, nothing less), but I would be much more interested in you pointing out which part of it is untrue. Assigning an emotionally-loaded name to it says nothing about its objective truth, and I do not detect anything untrue in the statement.

As I pointed out earlier, this argument has been discussed to death here. In any case, please explain which part of this citation is too obscure to understand:

1 Cor 11:23-26

English Standard Version (ESV)


For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

© source where applicable

Surely you don't actually want to focus on the specific words of Jesus quoted by Paul, here, do you? They seem to contradict your point completely. This passage is amazing for its degree of generality, not its degree of obscurity! A reading of Jesus' quoted words in this passage logically demands the conclusion that "communion" is the breaking of the bread and not the eating of it! Think of what the text actually says: Jesus had some bread, gave thanks for it, broke it, told the disciples that the broken bread was his body, and then said to do it in remembrance of him. To do what, exactly? The only conclusion a direct reading of the text allows is that Jesus meant the breaking of the bread, as there is no command whatsoever to actually eat the bread! The only mention of eating the bread comes from the author of this particular book, not Jesus. Seems hard to believe that the text would leave out Jesus' key point - the consuming of the bread - and yet the divinely-inspired author of the text didn't see fit to include Jesus' command to eat the bread. A person reading this passage alone would rightly be confused by a Christian who insisted that communion is consuming the bread, not just breaking it. Luckily for me, in my material sufficiency framework, I am free to interpret this passage in terms of the totality of my knowledge of Jesus, not just based on the text itself.

The example I have given above is not the best example to be had for the idea I am trying to express, but you asked me to work with that specific passage.

And since all those protestants, as well as the EOs and Copts etc, distribute the bread and the wine, what justification do you have for the RC practice besides an appeal to authority? Are all the other churches wrong and the RCC right? If so, why?

This "appeal to authority" thing again? I don't know how else to say it, but perhaps this will make it clear: I do not claim and, should any of my previous posts have been misunderstood, have never intended to claim that the validity of the practice of taking communion only under one species is justified by an appeal to the authority of either the Magisterium or of the Pope. Furthermore, I explicitly deny that it does. I am convinced that basic theology concerning the nature of God is more than sufficient to put the matter to rest. As far as I can tell, you are the one who labels the various communion practices as "right" and "wrong." I do not. My own assertion is that the practices of receiving communion under both or under only one species are both "right."

I do recognized the authority of the Catholic Church to determine how Catholics carry out Communion in concrete practice, but this is simply a matter of choosing one specific method from the set of several valid methods. This should be entirely uncontroversial, as it's no different than, say, some Baptist board of Elders specifying whether the communion bread will be leavened or unleavened or some Methodist pastors' council deciding that white grape juice will be used as opposed to red grape juice, etc.

As a corollary, is there a theological justification for distributing the wine and not the bread? ISTM the same kind of justification would apply.

No corollary would be needed. God's indivisibility covers both situations - if he's fully present wherever he is, then the Eucharistic wine is fully him, and the Eucharistic bread is fully him. Consume one, and you've consumed him completely.

[ChemMJW]

[QUOTE=RBerman;3296965]I have not seen you quote any Scripture so far. What Scripture would you quote to show that Jesus doesn't intend for us to remember him with both the bread and the cup?[quote]

Correct, I have not quoted any Scripture, for reasons I stated above in what Maxentius described as "polemic."
Basically, as long as two people of good will (i.e., people who are honestly trying to find the correct answer, who are engaged in no purposeful deception, etc.) can look at the same passage and come to different conclusions about its meaning, then simply bandying about Bible passages as if the mere act of quoting a text were a form of proof itself does nothing at all to advance the discussion.

In any event, with regard to the specific matter at hand, I assume based on your posts here on TWeb that you know quite well that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Jesus could very well, for example, have said "eat . . . drink . . . do exactly this in remembrance of me" or "do this in this manner only in remembrance of me." You are making a positive assertion based on your understanding of the text - communion is to be done in this manner and no other. I am making a neutral assertion - the form of communion provided neither supports nor preclude the possibility of other ways. Here is where my material sufficiency framework parts ways with (what I assume is) your actual sufficiency framework. My framework leads me to the conclusion that, because the Bible neither confirms nor denies the possibility of alternate methods of communion, any conceivable method that is otherwise in conformity with what is known about God should run into no problems. Your actual sufficiency viewpoint says "In all the books of the New Testament, we have about 15 lines that even mention the institution of the sacrament of communion. Everything and anything there is to know about that sacrament is in those 15 or so lines. If it's not in there, it doesn't exist."

I am perfectly willing to admit that your view is logically consistent, because it is. The same goes with mine. We simply have differing understandings, and - as stated before - the truly troubling problem as I see it is that there is no clear way to go about reconciling them. I am without doubt open to suggestions, should you have any.

That is true; we have an irreconcilable discrepancy as to what constitutes spiritual authority.

In those jurisdictions that have again begun to deny the cup to the laity, do they also deny the cup to the priest?

No. In fact, the priest is required to consume both the bread and the wine at Mass. Do not hold me to the following, as I am no expert, but my understanding is that the requirement for the priest to consume both stems from his action in persona Christi in confecting the sacrament. As far as I know (I may be wrong), this only applies to the priest who is actually celebrating the Mass, i.e., the one who is actually acting in persona Christi at the present moment. Any other priest who happens to be present may consume only one of the species. As has been stated over and over in this thread, this is not a problem theologically; since both species are fully God, it's not as if the priest who consumes the wine get some "extra grace" or "extra holiness" from consuming both species as opposed to one. Since a person who consumes only one species receives exactly the same thing as a person who consumes both species, there can be no question of something being "denied" to a person only receiving one species. Denial implies the absence of something that somebody else got, but each person who receives either of the consecrated species receives the full measure of sacramental grace, and thus there is nothing being denied.

One other thing occurs to me. If a person does not believe in the real presence but believes that bread and wine are only symbols, then I can see how they might be upset at not receiving both species. For them, it is the ritual itself that commemorates Jesus' passion and death, not the Eucharistic species specifically, and thus if such a person were to receive only one species, I can understand how they might perceive the ritual to be "incomplete" or feel like they had been "cheated out of the full experience" and so forth. For Catholics, who believe in the Real Presence, the important thing is receiving the Eucharistic Lord, not metaphorically checking off a certain number of steps in a list. If you receive the Lord in one species, you have received the Lord. Communion complete.

[RBerman]

I have not seen you quote any Scripture so far. What Scripture would you quote to show that Jesus doesn't intend for us to remember him with both the bread and the cup?

Correct, I have not quoted any Scripture, for reasons I stated above in what Maxentius described as "polemic." Basically, as long as two people of good will (i.e., people who are honestly trying to find the correct answer, who are engaged in no purposeful deception, etc.) can look at the same passage and come to different conclusions about its meaning, then simply bandying about Bible passages as if the mere act of quoting a text were a form of proof itself does nothing at all to advance the discussion.

You're making this harder than it needs to be. People look at texts all the time, and 1 Corinthians 11 is not remarkable opaque compared to some passages. It is, after all, instruction to a local church as to how to conduct the sacrament. Our disagreement is not about what the Bible says. It's about the relative authority of the Biblical witness and the magisterium.

In any event, with regard to the specific matter at hand, I assume based on your posts here on TWeb that you know quite well that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Jesus could very well, for example, have said "eat . . . drink . . . do exactly this in remembrance of me" or "do this in this manner only in remembrance of me." You are making a positive assertion based on your understanding of the text - communion is to be done in this manner and no other. I am making a neutral assertion - the form of communion provided neither supports nor preclude the possibility of other ways. Here is where my material sufficiency framework parts ways with (what I assume is) your actual sufficiency framework. My framework leads me to the conclusion that, because the Bible neither confirms nor denies the possibility of alternate methods of communion, any conceivable method that is otherwise in conformity with what is known about God should run into no problems. Your actual sufficiency viewpoint says "In all the books of the New Testament, we have about 15 lines that even mention the institution of the sacrament of communion. Everything and anything there is to know about that sacrament is in those 15 or so lines. If it's not in there, it doesn't exist."

There's no such thing as a "neutral assertion." You are making the positive assertion that we are free to disregard what the Bible says about the supper, which is that it contains bread and wine.

I am perfectly willing to admit that your view is logically consistent, because it is. The same goes with mine. We simply have differing understandings, and - as stated before - the truly troubling problem as I see it is that there is no clear way to go about reconciling them. I am without doubt open to suggestions, should you have any.

The only way to resolve our impasse is for one of us to accept the other's authority. I exhort you to recognize that the magisterium is only helpful to the extent that it is faithful to Scripture, rather than defining the magisterium so that it functionally becomes the arbiter of Scriptural faithfulness.

No. In fact, the priest is required to consume both the bread and the wine at Mass. Do not hold me to the following, as I am no expert, but my understanding is that the requirement for the priest to consume both stems from his action in persona Christi in confecting the sacrament. As far as I know (I may be wrong), this only applies to the priest who is actually celebrating the Mass, i.e., the one who is actually acting in persona Christi at the present moment. Any other priest who happens to be present may consume only one of the species. As has been stated over and over in this thread, this is not a problem theologically; since both species are fully God, it's not as if the priest who consumes the wine get some "extra grace" or "extra holiness" from consuming both species as opposed to one. Since a person who consumes only one species receives exactly the same thing as a person who consumes both species, there can be no question of something being "denied" to a person only receiving one species. Denial implies the absence of something that somebody else got, but each person who receives either of the consecrated species receives the full measure of sacramental grace, and thus there is nothing being denied.

Seems like a lot of tap dancing to me. If it really doesn't matter whether there's wine, then there's no need for the priest to either bless or consume the wine himself. The fact that there is wine involved at all belies your claim that the bread alone is adequate to fulfill Christ's command.

[Maxentius]

As stated above, the relevant theological principle is that God's nature is indivisible: wherever he is, he is fully. Is there a part of that which seems theologically unsound to you? If so, we should discuss it.

Yes, because if this is the principle, we could commune using beer and pretzels--after all, God is everywhere, so he is also in beer and pretzels. So, God's indivisibility i not reason for us to change what he gave to the Apostles. If it is, then it can justify a whole host of practices, many of which, such as substituting beer and pretzels for the wine and bread, I am sure you would reject.

Excuse me? What on earth are you talking about? Please quote the passages where I appealed to authority concerning this issue.

You are RC, so theological justifications given by the Majisterium are, by definition, true theological justifications. For instance, you advanced the theological principle that God's omnipresence mitigates the problems with receiving in one species. But because the Majisterium has not authorized it, I am betting you will not agree that therefore we can substitute beer and pretzles for the wine and bread in Holy Communion. If you are from authority, you are just giving your private interpretation. And if that is the case, from a RC standpoint it is not a RC theological justification, but your own. and the latter has little authority at all. And I think your own theological justification has severe holes in it.

Here, at last, is an issue we could really sink our teeth into (although, like the themes you mentioned earlier, Sola Scriptura has been hashed out dozens of times on TWeb already). I do not at all believe that the Bible is "sufficient" for governing every conceivable aspect that could possibly ever arise in living a Christian life.

This is a straw man. I am not aware of anyone with whom I am in communion teaching this as Sola Scriptura.

I have always found to be utterly silly the belief that everything that there is to know about God, the Christian life, etc., can be found in the Bible, a book of only a few hundred pages.

I find it silly too, because I do not believe this. So, we are not sinking our teeth into anything but your misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura

Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of actual versus material sufficiency? I read an example explaining actual versus material sufficiency as follows: Say you are building a house. The first step is to gather all the materials for building the house - wood, stone, steel, drywall, concrete, carpenter's tools, etc. In a material sufficiency view, you have everything you need to build the house, but having the materials that comprise the house and having the house itself are two very different things. An actual sufficiency view makes no distinction between the components of the house and the completed house itself. Catholics hold material sufficiency concerning the Bible. Revelations/truths about God are definitely in there, but mature theology is what shapes it, brings it into recognizable form, makes it understandable. Actual sufficiency is generally held by those who believe that the Bible is the be all and end all of Christian knowledge.

None the less, your approach basically means the Scriptures are not understandable in a meaningful way.

You misunderstand my view in a fundamental way. My assertion isn't that much of the Bible is too obscure to understand, but rather that much of it is too general to lead to only one crystal clear interpretation.

They both mean the same thing. Obscure means unclear, difficult to understand etc.

For the purposes of this thread, who cares what other churches did or did not do? Is this thread not about Roman Catholic communion practices?

Because RC practice changed, but everyone else's stayed the same. This increases the burden on the RCC to justify its position, does it not? You know, tradition and all that.

What I have written is absolutely true - "the" Church (as in, the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church under discussion in this thread, the only denomination generally referred to with a capital "C" in standard written English) did practice communion exactly as I described it.

OK, but I just want to make sure any readers understand that I do not accept the RCC's claims to be the one and only true Church.

Surely you don't actually want to focus on the specific words of Jesus quoted by Paul, here, do you? They seem to contradict your point completely. This passage is amazing for its degree of generality, not its degree of obscurity! A reading of Jesus' quoted words in this passage logically demands the conclusion that "communion" is the breaking of the bread and not the eating of it!

No, it doesn't. You are being "literalistic" and not literal. "Breaking of bread" is idiomatic for eating bread. And yes, I do want to stick with Jesus' words. This is actually a good example of how you depend on the Scriptures being obscure, or "general" if you will. I submit there is no valid interpretation of this passage with allows for denying the cup to the laity. Merely stating things are too "general" will not do, because any fair reading of the text leads us to believe the bread and wine were shared.

The only conclusion a direct reading of the text allows is that Jesus meant the breaking of the bread, as there is no command whatsoever to actually eat the bread!

no, that interpretation is tendentious in the extreme, and fails to take into account the context and the idiomatic expressions being used. If we read things like you would read them, there could be no such thing as poetry or metaphor. In other words, your claim proves too much. There is also the point of context:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord."

That is the very next verse. I added it not because the previous passage is unclear, but to show how tendentious your offered interpretation is. I asked you to interpret the verse, you claim it is obscure or "general" and you didn't even read it in context. In other words, you didn't interpret anything at all.

The example I have given above is not the best example to be had for the idea I am trying to express, but you asked me to work with that specific passage.

You did not show the passage is unclear, you just chose to ignore the idiomatic expressions in the verse, as well as its wider context. As I said, no reasonable person could conclude that eating and drinking is not meant. Also, you have failed to show how your theological justification overcomes what St. Paul received from the Lord--that there is the bread and the cup--both.

[ChemMJW]

You are RC, so theological justifications given by the Majisterium are, by definition, true theological justifications. For instance, you advanced the theological principle that God's omnipresence mitigates the problems with receiving in one species. But because the Majisterium has not authorized it, [. . .]

In your first post with "magisterium" written with a j, I honestly though you simply didn't know how to spell the root Latin word (not many people know much about Latin these days, even though it has lent much to modern English), and thus I corrected you, but your continued use of "majisterium" now leads me to believe you mean this as some form of childish insult (akin to "Lootheran" or "Orthodocks" or "Protestunt") to show your disdain for or prejudice against Catholicism. Is this so? If yes . . . why? If no, then disregard this message.

[One Bad Pig]

Just as an observation at Luke 22:19-20, it is only the breaking of the bread that it is specifically said "Do this in remembrance of me." John makes no mention of the event, Mt & Mk make no mention of the "Do this in remembrance of me" command. The combination of the sharing of both the bread and wine as a remembrance comes from 1 Cor 11:23-26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (vs26).

Actually, that the cup is also done in remembrance is strongly implied in Lk. 22.

One thing that occured to me: there are definite public health issues with people drinking out of the same cup. Whether the church has ever considered such in its methods I don't know. I haven't been to an RCC mass since the early 1970s but as I recall, throughout my childhood here in Oz, the wine was never shared (the priest after general communion would break a largish host into a chalice, pour some wine in and drink). In the general communion the host/s were individually handed out. In the 1960s the priest would put the host directly into your mouth (you weren't allowed to touch, bite or chew it). At some stage, because of public health concerns, the rules changed: the priest would take a host out of the Chalice, put it on a silver plate carried by an alter boy, and you'd pick it up and place it in your own mouth.

Eh, we're too germ-phobic these days. Immune systems are weak because they're too seldom challenged.

If I recall correctly strict Methodists and like, substitute water for the wine.

No, many Protestant denominations substitute grape juice out of mis-placed piety/legalism. The Mormons are the only group of which I'm aware that substitutes water. The Orthodox use both wine and water, based on John 19:34 (though it's highly likely that the cup Jesus passed around also contained both per normal practice).

I've read that Japanese "Hidden Christians" were discovered to be using fish and rice when Japan was re-opened to Christianity.

As far as the OP goes, IMO it's a step back in the wrong direction. Parishes should be doing away with attempts to "modernize" the mass, not returning to misguided innovations of the Middle Ages.

[Maxentius]

In your first post with "magisterium" written with a j, I honestly though you simply didn't know how to spell the root Latin word (not many people know much about Latin these days, even though it has lent much to modern English), and thus I corrected you, but your continued use of "majisterium" now leads me to believe you mean this as some form of childish insult (akin to "Lootheran" or "Orthodocks" or "Protestunt") to show your disdain for or prejudice against Catholicism. Is this so? If yes . . . why? If no, then disregard this message.

Good grief. Your conclusion was wrong, it is a simple misspelling. And a simple note to me would have settled it.

Now, what about your reading of what St. Paul received from Christ? I cannot see how any fair reading could lead one to any other conclusion than that eating and drinking is the norm. So far all you have done is to take things way out of context and give what looks like a tendentious reading of the words of Scripture.

[Maxentius]

As far as the OP goes, IMO it's a step back in the wrong direction. Parishes should be doing away with attempts to "modernize" the mass, not returning to misguided innovations of the Middle Ages.

I basically agree. The RCC seemed to be moving in the right direction on this issue, and then just went back to their old practice. and i agree it is an innovation.

[hedrick]

The question isn't formal validity, but good pastoral practice. Of course communion in one kind of valid. A few years ago one of our girls was allergic to bread. She just took the wine (grace juice). No one thought she was doing anything wrong.

But still, communion was presumably established because as embodied beings, being able to see and touch things helps us. Thus presenting Christ visibly is an important means of grace. I would think we would want our members to take as full advantage of this as possible, and would not restrict it to the minimal valid part.

Incidentally, when we realized what was going on with the girl, we supplied a rice-based bread. At least we did so when our Sunday School class had communion. I certainly hope they made it available to her in the main service.

[ChemMJW]

Good grief. Your conclusion was wrong, it is a simple misspelling. And a simple note to me would have settled it.

My post was a simple note, direct and to the point and without any drama. Now that you have clarified the matter, it is closed. Simple enough.

Now, what about your reading of what St. Paul received from Christ? I cannot see how any fair reading could lead one to any other conclusion than that eating and drinking is the norm. So far all you have done is to take things way out of context and give what looks like a tendentious reading of the words of Scripture.

I am now very confused as to what the issue is. All you want is for me to state that eating the bread and drinking the wine is the norm? I explicitly stated that very thing in my very first post in this thread. See post #2 to refresh your memory. I'm not sure what else you want from me.

My position from the very beginning of my posts in this thread has been that eating and drinking is the norm, but that eating or drinking is valid and acceptable, the acceptability of the former practice being taken directly from Scripture (thus making it the norm), and the acceptability of the latter practice becoming clear by employing only the simplest theological and practical reasoning.

As far as I can tell, your rejection of the validity of consuming only one of the species logically forces you to reason that one of the species has or is something that the other has or is not. This denial of the indivisibility of God's nature is a fundamental error.

Your question about conducting communion with pretzels and beer or fish and rice as One Bag Pig mentioned is a different issue entirely. The fundamental question there would be what matter is valid for communion, but this is not the matter we are discussing. The issue we are discussing is, given that valid matter is being used in the first place (which all participants in this thread agree), must one consume both types of valid matter in order to make a valid communion.

Theology clearly shows the answer to be no. I think you are having trouble distinguishing between ideal (represented by the norm) and valid (representing everything else that is acceptable). You claim the norm is the only thing acceptable. (This is in itself a logical contradiction, by the way. For something to be the "norm" there must be other things that are equally acceptable but nevertheless are not the norm. For example, at American universities, the "norm" for class schedules is 15 semester hours. However, some students take 12 or 14 or 16 hours, which are all equally allowable even though they are not the norm). I claim that various acceptable forms of communion exist.

Your interpretation, as I understand it, rests on the view that, if Jesus didn't explicitly mention something, it doesn't exist. I reject this interpretation as being far too narrow to be practical.

[ChemMJW]

The question isn't formal validity, but good pastoral practice. Of course communion in one kind of valid. A few years ago one of our girls was allergic to bread. She just took the wine (grace juice). No one thought she was doing anything wrong.

But still, communion was presumably established because as embodied beings, being able to see and touch things helps us. Thus presenting Christ visibly is an important means of grace. I would think we would want our members to take as full advantage of this as possible, and would not restrict it to the minimal valid part.

Incidentally, when we realized what was going on with the girl, we supplied a rice-based bread. At least we did so when our Sunday School class had communion. I certainly hope they made it available to her in the main service.

I mostly agree with everything you have written.

One thing that I have not brought up so far in this thread, as it is a huge and more general topic that could easily lead to de-railing the thread, is the general theology of the Mass (or of a Protestant worship service) itself. Another reason that Catholics are unconcerned about receiving only one species as opposed to receiving both is that we tend to have a more organic view of the Mass, generally, than others have of their own worship services (before the usual suspects jump on my for what they will certainly perceive to be a hasty generalization, please note that I said "generally" and that I of course I do not speak for all Catholics and/or Protestants everywhere). In our view of the Mass, there is only one communion that takes place (i.e., not 100 little communions for the 100 people present). Thus, wine and bread are consecrated at every Mass, and wine and bread are consumed at every Mass, and thus Communion occurs at every Mass. The details of who received what, exactly, and in what amount, and from whom are not as consequential as the fact that, at the Mass, Christ's command to memorialize his passion and death was carried out. Note that this is a very, very general sketch of this idea.

[RBerman]

My position from the very beginning of my posts in this thread has been that eating and drinking is the norm, but that eating or drinking is valid and acceptable, the acceptability of the former practice being taken directly from Scripture (thus making it the norm), and the acceptability of the latter practice becoming clear by employing only the simplest theological and practical reasoning.

But why are you defending the de-normalization of eating and drinking then? It's not as if we're stranded on a desert island devoid of wine.

[apostoli]

With respect to all...it has occured to me that none of you regognise the relevence of the "communion", imo, Mt 18:20 undelines the experience you are to take away with you when you leave the bricks and mortars...

Consider John 13:4-10, imo, the more important ritual...

[apostoli]

Some congregations use an individual cup. In any case, it is better, I think, to work around such issues without simply omitting one or the other species.

Which defeats the "communion", a very hypocritical and "anti-christ" innovation...