Replies

So much for the unchanging nature of God. So much for Christ's warning "if a angel from Heaven teaches a new doctrine do not follow". There is no Protestant doctrine that is unchanging and constant from the time of Christ.

The same can be pointed out re: certain Catholic doctrines, eg. Icons were condemned at one point, then permitted later. The whole complex of Marian doctrines has undergone considerable "development" since the time of Christ also.

BTW, Huss' original beef was that the Church was denying the cup to the laity, and the cup was required for salvation: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." The Orthodox, to their credit, have preserved the cup. The RC church started denying the cup.... when, exactly?

Well, you know the saying: If you find the perfect church, don't join it.

Re: "The same can be pointed out re: certain Catholic doctrines, eg. Icons were condemned at one point, then permitted later. The whole complex of Marian doctrines has undergone considerable "development" since the time of Christ also."

I don't think a case for that can be made. I assume you refer to Iconoclasts? They were largely in the East (Byzantium) and were rejects both in the west and the east. There have been lots of Heresies that had a season but were rejected. All were an attempt to teach a new doctrine and all were eventually declared Anathema. Except Communism which was not dealt with at Vatican II due to pressure from the Soviet Union. It was a condition to allowing the Orthodox observers attend.

As to Marianology development is not doctrine. In 1858 the Church defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It defined it, the church did not invent it in 1858. All through history the Church has met and defined a Dogma but it must be an old doctrine first going back to the Apostles. Even the Church of England agreed on this last Dogma relating to the Blessed Virgin Mary and said so a few years after. I learned of the Immaculate birth as a child in Episcopal Sunday school as a small kid.

Re: "BTW, Huss' original beef was that the Church was denying the cup to the laity, and the cup was required for salvation: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." The Orthodox, to their credit, have preserved the cup. The RC church started denying the cup.... when, exactly?"

First off the body and the blood are completely present in every drop of wine and in every crumb of the Host. Even the smallest drop of wine give all that is in a whole cup or a whole paten of Host. This is what the Church teaches, this is (I suspect) the reason you are not supposed to go for communion more than once a day. You can hear and assist at many Masses each day and at each you receive grace for yourself as well as the whole world but more wine and more bread does nothing except reflect your doubts for all to see.

As to when the church stopped the wine, they don't for the reasons I cite above but as to the practice from a worldly perspective the Church has given the wine in the past and they do now in the Novus Ordo Catholic Churches. This practice offers no problem for the Traditional Catholic unless receiving the Body and Blood of Christ under both species is deemed NECESSARY. The notion that both is MORE correct is the root of the fight over this issue. As for myself I think it is a bit of a misplaced squabble since it is not wrong in practice but can be wrong if people insist.

I will give you an example where the notion can get the ill educated in trouble. A while back there was a big fight over a young girl who is allergic to wheat gluten. Her local diocese offered her the option of a small tiny bit of the Host OR she could have just a sip of wine. One or the other or both would have been just as good (Theologically) as a big old sip and a whole loaf of bread but the family insisted she get a special host (looking like all the other people get) make out of rice flour. Now this would appear to be the same but in fact is not the same at all. Had the family been satisfied with what was offered she would have met her religious obligations without deminishment and still not endangered her health but appearances were more important to the family than the religious doctrine.

The real reason for communion under one species (the Host only) is ease of distributing while maintaining the sacred dignity. One drop of wine on the floor requires a respectful method of cleaning up (you don't want alter boys stepping in the split wine/aka body and blood of Christ) The same goes for the bread but that is a whole lot easier to pick up in a holy manner than cleaning up wine. It is also easier to give and faster (a legitimate consideration in large Churches or gatherings). One of the big beefs of the Tradition Catholic about the New Mass is over the ever increasingly cavalier attitude toward the Eucharist. Compare kneeling to receive vs standing consider the traditional host vs whole wheat bread with leavening together with bread crumbs everywhere. Remember Christ's body and blood is in every single crumb and it becomes clear why we have a cow about these practices.