Talk:Communion under both kinds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
[edit] Proposed changes
Interesting article. I would like to make some changes though.
- Referring to the wine as the Precious Blood should be omitted, as it is not commonly used terminology and implies that Christ's blood but not body is present in the transubstantiated wine, in contrast to Roman Catholic belief.
- I would like to discuss the history of this practice more, possibly importing much of the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic, and describing it as the pre-Vatican II practice, and then discussing more recent changes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- We should also discuss other Christian sects that follow this practice. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No kidding!
"this article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913."
Great swathes of it read like an exercise in apologetics and a not insignificant section like a rather clumsy attempt at the same.
"Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers -- the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar "weighty and just reasons" against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it."
129.67.43.240 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I'll keep this article on my watchlist, and will try to NPOV it later in the summer. ElinorD (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Here we have only an argument of the Tridentine position! Even the Roman Catholic position has been other in the time, before the Council of Trent! And other churches' position is not even shown here... Wikipedia is NOT an instrument of Romish propaganda! - Waelsch 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
St John Chrysostom says the contrary, in his Homily on the Maundy Thursday! What you say about Sozomen is your interpretation. The truth is that after having taken the bread, shes wished to take the chalice. Once he petrifying of the bread, she gave up her purpose. - Waelsch 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Romish propaganda? I did not know there were still Anglicans who used that terminology. Should I get my big butterfly net and add you to my collection? From your edits you seem to be confused on the difference between doctrine and practice. I don't believe the Catholic Church has ever endorsed utraquism. The practice has changed considerably, though, which changes are associated with the Council of Trent and Vatican II. If you're trying to make the broader point that the practice of taking communion under both kinds is superior and the Catholic Church fell away from that practice for a while, I might agree with you, but that is hardly the point.
- You have taken a section intended to be a history of the Catholic practice and moved it to a place in the article that implies it is supposed to be the history of the subject in all denominations and then have marked it as not being NPOV. Well ... um ... yeah. I think adding the history of how the practice developed in each of the East and West (as well as the Anglicans and other Western denominations) should be addressed in their own sections as well. It may be possible to treat the practice in the early Church, before the polarization into East and West, in its own section, in the beginning. I'd normally say, Be Bold!, but the article should not turn into an explanation of all the evil practices of the Roman dictator and anti-Christ. Similarly, your use of "Roman Tridentine" to mean Catholic is bizarre. Even though Vatican II allowed for communion under both kinds it did not embrace utraquism.
- You have a good point about Sozomen and the text does need to be modified to make it more NPOV (I was planning to do this, but got interrupted by events in RL and haven't been able to contribute as much as I'd like. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Lex orandi, lex credendi! This is the rule of faith both in the Eastern and Anglican churches. The communion under both kinds is NOT a matter of the Roman church, but of the whole Church, maybe more of the non-Roman (who practise it) than of the Roman (who practise it much lesser). What I find awful (again and again), is that here in the article you take "Romish" argments as universal arguments: eg, you take St Basil (interpreted by you and your fellows), while Byzantine Orthodox theologians would in no case agree with you. Whether saint Basil communicated under the kind on bread alone is not a matter of fact. You say: "It was not a general custom" etc. Oh yeah, please take the mass books of the Eastern churches, and you'll see that the custom is well kept in the most of the Eastern churches. What you say about the Presanctified gifts is simply a LIE. - Waelsch 04:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
