Catholic and Orthodox rites, sacraments and "rituals"

[Miriam_M]

I take it, Michael Wilson, that that's what Josh may mean about "it [the Filioque argument] doesn't affect him."  I agree.  If we're fixated on what/how other religions believe -- to the point where we're actually concerned about the "effect" on Catholicism -- then it seems to me that we're somewhat weak in our faith, no?

Miriam, I don't doubt Josh's good intentions; but the statements that follow show a very marked effect of the desire to minimize the difference between Catholic doctrine and that of non-Catholics; such as,  how it is pointless to worry about who proceeds from whom in the Blessed Trinity; or that whatever proceeds from the Father must proceed from the Son too, and whatever proceeds from the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son also IMO. As if it were a question of mere personal opinion, and not a matter of faith.

Yes, I did see that earlier and don't disagree.  I think I'm speaking more generally about the frequent habit of Catholics overall to "worry" over (concern themselves with) what Protestants, the Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists think, and how they think.  We know that these belief systems proceed from error, and in the case of some of them and their various sects, their errors reach the utterly irrational and self-contradcitory (such as the religion of Atheism).

We have enough confusion and distraction in the modern world -- some of it engineered and/or exploited by the demons, seeking to destroy Catholicism ultimately, often by sowing doubt.  I think it's important to avoid hand-wringing over error, especially in these perilous times when it has never been more important to build up our defenses against persecutions present and future.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Because unless we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man we have no life in us (John 6:54).

A literal reading of this, without a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence (including the doctrine of concomitance) would imply that people who don't receive Holy Communion under both species are bound for hell.  This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

It's easy to see how important doctrine is.

[Melkite]

This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

Only in the West, and only from sometime in the Middle Ages until Vatican II.

[Michael Wilson]

This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

Only in the West, and only from sometime in the Middle Ages until Vatican II.

By the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of concomitance, one literally "eats My Body and drinks My Blood" by taking only the host. It became necessary in the West to abolish the taking of both species by the laity, because heretics were denying that our Lord was totally present under both species. The West could just as easily prohibited the receiving of the host, and people would still be fulfilling this precept of our Lord by only receiving from the chalice.

[Michael Wilson]

Council of Trent, Introduction to the canons on the Holy Eucharist:
"It is not enough to teach the truth, if one does not also,unmask the errors and refute them".
The reason that so many and so great errors are seen to have gained the minds of so many of our contemporaries, is because the Catholic Church in her official capacity, has ceased to condemn the errors and has preferred to seek conciliation with those who oppose the true faith.
 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

Only in the West, and only from sometime in the Middle Ages until Vatican II.

Eastern Catholics make up 1.3% of the Church.

[Melkite]

Eastern Catholics make up 1.3% of the Church.

You said almost every single saint.  In the first millennium, the East outnumbered the West, and the West also didn't restrict laity from the chalice at that time.  The way you phrased it made it sound like reception under one species was the historical norm.

[Melkite]

By the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of concomitance, one literally "eats My Body and drinks My Blood" by taking only the host. It became necessary in the West to abolish the taking of both species by the laity, because heretics were denying that our Lord was totally present under both species. The West could just as easily prohibited the receiving of the host, and people would still be fulfilling this precept of our Lord by only receiving from the chalice.

I just meant it as a historical point.  Reception of the host only is more of an exception to the rule than the rule, when all of Catholic history is considered.  There are many saints who would have received only the host, but I wouldn't say it was the majority of them.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

In the first millennium, the East outnumbered the West

In the first millennium, there was no "East" or "West".

[Melkite]

In the first millennium, the East outnumbered the West

In the first millennium, there was no "East" or "West".

   In the first millennium, Greek-, Syriac- and Coptic-rite Catholics outnumbered Roman-rite Catholics.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

In the first millennium, the East outnumbered the West

In the first millennium, there was no "East" or "West".

   In the first millennium, Greek-, Syriac- and Coptic-rite Catholics outnumbered Roman-rite Catholics.

What is the point of this?

[Michael Wilson]

Josh,

Because unless we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man we have no life in us (John 6:54).
So this one is a big deal, therefore I think resolving the leavened vs unleavened difference is a FAR greater issue than the filioque (The irony that it was the Filioque and not this, priorities were out of order IMO). Nevertheless, they still use Red Wine which is valid matter thankfully. 

When it comes to the doctrines of our faith, there is no "big-deal" vs. "small-deal" They are all "big-deal".
The issue of "unleavend" vs "leavend" was resolved a long time ago. Both are equally valid matter in the Eucharist.
There was not "issue" with the "Filioque" until those who wanted to separate themselves from the Church suddenly decides that it was an 'issue'.
Josh,

he Real Presence has huge bearing on how we live our Faith due to John 6:54.

Yes indeed, but so does the authority of the Pope and the bishops that teach us the truths of our faith, such as the doctrine of the real presence and the Filioque.

Not unimportant, just not "that" important

Not the Catholic attitude; they are all "that" important.

So what of those who learned the original Nicene Creed and said "Proceeds from the Father" and then later the Filioque was added? Were they all wrong? Including the original Council of Nicaea?

They were right, the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Father, as the Council of Nicea taught; but as other heretics attacked the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Church authorities had to refute their errors and oblige Catholics to confess the truths being denied by these heretics. If one compares the Apostles Creed to the Symbol of Nicea, one perceives the addition or "explicititation" of doctrines that were hitherto believed but not always explicitly.

but those who strictly adhere to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque are not exactly wrong, just that as our understanding improves, the Filioque makes more sense.

They are wrong, because their present adhesion to the original Nicene Creed, involves a formal rejection of the Filioque. Those who adhered to the original Creed were right, because they adhered to the authority of the Church, which is the very authority of Christ Himself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

[Melkite]

What is the point of this?

Only to correct this:

A literal reading of this, without a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence (including the doctrine of concomitance) would imply that people who don't receive Holy Communion under both species are bound for hell.  This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

What is the point of this?

Only to correct this:

A literal reading of this, without a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence (including the doctrine of concomitance) would imply that people who don't receive Holy Communion under both species are bound for hell.  This would include just about every single saint who wasn't a priest or bishop...

I should not have exaggerated.  I should have said "most" rather than "just about every single".