ๆญฃๅจๅ ่ฝฝ่ง้ข...
่ง้ขๅ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟโ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐พ๐๐ฒ ๐ท๐๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฒ๐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐. ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ This track doesnโt hint at Catholic truth, it shoves it in your face: One Church from Pentecost. One Apostle given the keys. One unbroken line your pastor cannot explain away. Two... show more
0 ๆก่ฏ่ฎบ
ๆๆ ่ฏ่ฎบ
ๅๅงๅธๅญ็่ฏ่ฎบๅฐๆพ็คบๅจ่ฟ้
![In preparation for this, I checked out Dr. Jordan Cooper's (Dr Jordan B. Cooper) video on Chemnitz's examination of traditions and he made the remark that the Catholic Church contradicts the consensus of the Fathers on communion in both kinds, and that there is "no example of" communion in one kind in the Fathers. Respectfully, I think this is a messy critique which misses what is going on at the Reformation and what the precise claim of the Reformers was. I have already made a video extensively citing examples of communion in one kind starting in the 3rd century, through Tertullian, Ss. Jerome, Basil, etc, such as the widespread practice of private communion at home with the Eucharistic bread only. I will link it below. These are usually dismissed as "extraordinary instances," but this only shows that the Fathers did not actually agree with the Reformers. Remember, the Reformers (specifically the Lutheran orthodox) said that communion in one kind can NEVER happen. Johann Adam Scherzer, for example, said that if someone cannot receive wine, โ[he] should be kept away from the whole, than that he should not receive the wholeโ (Anti-Bellarmine, disp. 11, th. 6, obj. 9). To demonstrate that the Catholic Church "contradicts" the Fathers on communion in both kinds (which is Dr. Cooper's internal critique), one needs to show that the Fathers of any age unanimously (at least morally) taught that it was a matter of faith to hold that both kinds must be received. Certainly, no consensus ever existed. On the contrary, we know they often did make the exception and allowed Christians to receive only one kind, which shows they did not agree with the Lutherans that this is a divine precept (to receive both). Dr. Cooper conflates the ordinary liturgical practice with what Catholics mean by a "consensus on the Fathers." For more, I recommend reading St. Robert Bellarmine who has a really good response to Martin Chemnitz. Here is a helpful example. It was truly a unanimous practice to preserve the Eucharist after the liturgy and treat the elements as consecrated. The Reformed (to my knowledge) unanimously deny this is the case, and the Lutherans (from my reading of Chemnitz and Gerhard) admit that Christ's presence persists but only for taking the Eucharist to the sick. The early Church affirmed Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the Catholic sense; they preserved it even for reasons which were not for the sick and nevertheless affirmed its lasting consecration (Ss. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Jerome, to name a few). The Catholic view of tradition tells us that this practice/belief (that Christ is still present post-liturgy) must be valid and true (since the universal church cannot err), but it does not establish a precept i.e. just because the whole Church often preserved the Eucharist, it does not mean we actually have to do it; it just means we can do so validly and licitly; it also means this is a certain rule which Protestants contradicted (from a Catholic POV). Even if communion in both kinds was the universal practice (which it was not), this would not suffice to say the Tridentine Church is in contradiction, since this would only tell us it is valid (duh, so does Scripture). There would need to be a unanimous testimony from the Fathers of, let's say, the fourth century, that communion in both kinds is the only way and that to oppose this is heresy; a testimony which does not exist and is even contradicted.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2081096782948213085/amplify_video_thumb/2081092202709553152/img/a8TxxtUS50pmGBfu.jpg)
