www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation

Dear Remie,

No one said the use of unleavened bread by the Western Azymites was invalid .

It was an issue in the "Errors of the Latins" days. The fact that the Armenians and the Ethiopians used unleavened bread was of no consequence since the Orientals were excommunicated . . .

As Meyendorff said, the Council of Florence at least showed that the Greeks no longer considered the use of azymes as an issue.

Jan Hus actually wanted a return to both Kinds in Communion not because he wanted to deny anything about the Eucharist, but because that was the more ancient tradition and symbolised the fullness of the Eucharist.

The Orthodox Church too would deny that the Eucharist was meant to be adored in monstrances, carried around in processions etc.

And the Orthodox Church would say that when the RC's emphasized the "Real Presence" and the Protestants emphasized the "Symbolic" aspect of the Eucharist - both were right and both were needed for a comprehensive understanding of the Eucharist.

The controversy with the use of unleavened bread among the Azymites began not because of the matter of "form" only, but also because it tended to shunt aside the important aspect of "symbol" in the Eucharist.

The Orthodox were horrified at the use of azymes because it symbolized "dead bread" as opposed to leavened bread that was bread that "rose" to symbolize the resurrection of Christ.

To use wine that is any other colour than red would be verboten in Orthodoxy for the same reason as well.

Alex

Dear Brethern,

Being of the Roman Rite I have questioned myself many times, why the laity communion is different then the celebrates(priest-deacons). It implies difference in the Body of Christ, the Church.

This is another example which draws me more to the Eastern Church.

In Christ,
James

Dear James,

Niech bedzie pochwalony Jezus Christus!

Please don't feel that we are deliberately trying to draw you into the Eastern Church against your will . . .

But the water's just fine!

Alex

Dear James and Alex,

I'm confused. How is Communion different for the laity as opposed to the clergy in the Roman Rite? Am I missing something here?

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

I believe James is referring to the practice of Communion in One Kind only in the Latin Church.

Tak, Jakob?

Alex

Or perhaps the bigger Hosts used by priests compared with the smaller sized ones designated for popular consumption?

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, I don't know what kind of a parish James belongs to but around my area Roman parishes that don't offer the Body and Blood are becoming increasingly rare. The good Benedictine fathers at my parish have always offered both.

At some parishes where an extremely large number of communicants will be present at any given Mass the host is sometimes offered alone, but interestingly enough if one would attend a daily Mass there both the Body and Blood would be given.

At our downtown Cathedral the large host used by the celebrant is always broken up for distribution to the laity.

The gap that I would by no means deny once existed between the Roman clergy and laity is shrinking very rapidly. Really.

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

Well, I've no problem with that.

But I think you are going to have to work on James!

And Mor Ephrem as well, it would seem . . .

Alex

Dear Brethern & my Spiritual Brother Alex ,

At my Roman Catholic Church only the Host(Bread) is given to the laity. Yes, I have heard that both forms are given at some parishes but I don't understand why it is not standard for all.

And yes Brother Alex, I am drawn to the East, mostly due to the context of prayers and spirituality .

The Peace of Our Lord to All,
James

Dear James,

The decision ultimately rests with the Pastor. There can be a wide variation in the culture and spirituality of one parish from another and that's not really surprising. Parishes, like people, are unique. I have belonged in the past to parishes (usually large) where the Pastor made the decision to offer the Host only and I never felt deprived, believing in the efficacy of the Sacrament in either form.

One of my most satisfying experiences has been being part of an RCIA team at a local parish and helping the participants to discover how the Roman Church is striving to incorporate a more sacramental and biblical spirituality into the lives of the laity today. That that was not the case in the past is all too evident by the tremendous gaps in spiritual formation I have encountered in the Catholic family into which I married.

If your heart is leading you East, then that is exactly where you should be ....

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

For some reason, we come across RC's hear who fall in love with the East.

Which is great - but just so you don't think we have some sort of a deliberate plan to pull Latins over, otherwise known as "How the West was won."

Alex

Dear Friends:

I think the current norms in the Latin Church, including the Church in the United States, follow:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWNORMS.HTM

But the exceptions, where communion under both kinds may not be permitted, still subsist, namely:

a. at Masses celebrated in the open with a great number of communicants (e.g., in a stadium);

b. at other Masses where the number of communicants is so great as to make it difficult for Communion under both kinds to be given in an orderly and reverent way (e.g., Masses celebrated in a civic square or building that would involve the carrying of the sacred species up and down a number of steps);

c. at Masses where the assembled congregation is of such a diverse nature that it is difficult to ascertain whether those present have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds; and

d. when circumstances do not permit the assurance that due reverence can be maintained towards the consecrated wine both during and after the celebration.

You will note that in addition to Communion under both kinds, "instinction," which I practise and by many in my parish, is permitted.

AmdG

Dear Alex,

East or West we are one body in Christ and if someone finds themselves better spiritually nourished in one or the other I find that an occasion to celebrate. God knows our individual needs.

I do get very angry (God forgive me) when I see some Christians try to undermine the faith of another Christian when their own faith formation is so sorely out of whack (and I am absolutely NOT directing this to anyone of this forum).

I went through a recent bout with one of my sisters-in-law who, because of her poor formation in Catholicism was almost convinced by a former Catholic turned Evangelical (whose formation was even worse) that the Church was wrong from A to Z, especially in her belief about the Eucharist and the Real Presence. My sister-in-law's position is even more tenuous because she suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and is understandably feeling her mortality. Changing one's spirituality is no small thing and one should always be well informed of what one is leaving in order to embrace the new. We have had some very meaningful discussions and my sister-in-law has chosen to remain a Catholic because she wants the strength the Eucharist provides even more at this stressful time in her life.


Khrystyna

Dear Christine,

Thank you for your kind words and expressing your feelings . Please be kind to Alex , I rely on him for his honesty and knowledge of the East and West. In all my conversations with Orthodox or Byzantine Catholics neither one has ever pushed the "envelope" on their rite.

Genuine prayer in the spirit will lead me on the straight path to where I belong.

In Christ,
James

Since the question of communion in both kinds has been raised, let me throw in what I know will be two controversial questions:

1) By what right does the Latin Church withold the chalice from the laity?

2) By what right does the Orthodox Church withhold the chalice from the laity?

The Roman Church withholds the cup simply by not providing the cup to be drunk by the laity. The practice began around the 12th century, I believe. But the Orthodox Church also withholds the cup by its practice of mixing the consecrated elements and then communing by a spoon. (Does this particular practice have a specific name?) The Orthodox churches adopted this practice sometime around the 9th century.

The words of our Lord would appear to mandate actual drinking from the common cup.

Pax,
Alvin+