After the 12th century, the Roman Catholic church withheld the cup from the laity. why?

[Filii_Dei]

No, it is not the form of the sacrament to merely touch one consecrated element to another non-consecrated element, but the practice allows for the liturgical symbolism of bread and wine, accompanied with at least one consecrated element.

The Council of Florence stated that:“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood”.
The Church later said that the words of Eucharistic Institution present in either a coherent narrative way and ad litteram or in a dispersed euchological way, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession, are valid.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Ah, I see. So basically this reinforces the importance of the presentation of Communion of under both species, rather than suggesting that consecration of unconsecrated gifts occurs through contact with consecrated species?

 

[choliks]

@Vico: Sanctification =/= Consecration?

 

[choliks]

And again disobey the command of Jesus .

No . Just leaning on Christ’s command .

Unfortunately that is the crazy opinion some seem to have . They are blind to what Jesus said . So ignore them , they are blind guides .

No . I am taking Jesus’ viewpoint .

These remind of what Pope Francis said, basically: Christ and His Church cannot be separated. What the Church commands is effectively Christ’s commandment.

 

[Vico]

Then why did you say that the union of the consecrated Body of Christ with the unconsecrated wine sanctified this wine by contact ?

By “sanctified” do you mean “consecrated” , if not why is there this strange practice when all the priest has to do is consecrate the wine ?

I don’t want sanctified wine . I want the Blood of Christ under the form of wine .

I did not say that the union of the consecrated Body of Christ with the unconsecrated wine sanctified the wine by contact. (See posts #65, #68, #70, #77.) In #68 I posted"St. Simeon the Theologian taught that what is in the chalice is consecrated by the sharing and union with the life creating Bread, which are then truly the Body of Christ in union with the Blood or Christ."
which relates back to post #65 which quotes from Light of Life:“This may stem from the belief that the union of the consecrated Body of our Lord with the unconsecrated wine sanctified this wine by contact.”

 

[JimG]

In my own parish communicants receive only the host, except for special occasions. This is done mainly for good practical reasons, of which some were stated above in post 61 in a quote from the Trent Catechism.

In addition, routinely offering both species in our parish would unduly increase the length of time for communion, increase the number of EMHC’s needed, lengthen the communion rite, increase the amount of altar wine to be purchased weekly, and increase the danger of spills. I’ve heard no complaints. But judging from this thread, perhaps the old heresy is still hanging around a little.

 

[petronus]

In my own parish communicants receive only the host, except for special occasions.

That is very unfortunate when Jesus’ command was that we both eat and drink of his Body and Blood under both forms of bread and wine .

 

[Vico]

Ah, I see. So basically this reinforces the importance of the presentation of Communion of under both species, rather than suggesting that consecration of unconsecrated gifts occurs through contact with consecrated species?

It is a different practice than the Latin Church has. In the GIRM , the Good Friday Presanctified has one species: Clearly there are some pastoral circumstances that require eucharistic sharing in one species only, such as when Communion is brought to the sick or when one is unable to receive either the Body of the Lord or the Precious Blood due to an illness. Even in the earliest days of the Church’s life, when Communion under both species was the norm, there were always instances when the Eucharist was received under only the form of bread or wine. Those who received Holy Communion at home or who were sick would usually receive under only one species, as would the whole Church during the Good Friday Liturgy.26

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So why does the priest say, take this all of you and drink

 

[JimG]

So why does the priest say, take this all of you and drink

The priest repeats the words of Jesus at the Institution of the Eucharist, which were spoken to the Apostles. That’s where the words of consecration come from. The priest is acting in the person of Christ in confecting the sacrament. He is not directing those words to the congregation as though they were an instruction to them.

 

[JimG]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Catholics are not obligated to receive the Eucharist at every Sunday Mass. They are obligated to attend Mass on Sunday or the Saturday vigil every week. They are only obligated to receive communion once a year during the Easter season.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

When did it become commonplace to even offer the blood? When I was a kid it was the host at the rail and that was that. The Domican church I attend on weekdays, only offers the host at the rail. The big church I attend on Sundays offers both the body and blood, all over the church. Granted it’s a lot of people, but in some ways it seems very chaotic and overkill with so many EM’s dispensing both species.

 

[liturgyluver]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Catholics are not obligated to receive the Eucharist at every Sunday Mass. They are obligated to attend Mass on Sunday or the Saturday vigil every week. They are only obligated to receive communion once a year during the Easter season.

That may be the obligation but the Church has promoted more frequent reception of the Sacrament among the failthful since the 1890s. Pope Piux X even issued a Sacra Tridentina on it in 1905 which gave impetus to liturgical reform.

When did it become commonplace to even offer the blood? When I was a kid it was the host at the rail and that was that. The Domican church I attend on weekdays, only offers the host at the rail. The big church I attend on Sundays offers both the body and blood, all over the church. Granted it’s a lot of people, but in some ways it seems very chaotic and overkill with so many EM’s dispensing both species.

It became permissible after Vatican II, and the church now teaches that

*Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.

The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly*

That does not mean, of course, that in receiving in one kind only one does not receive the whole of Christ, but the Church is clear about the fuller sign shining forth. The practice of the early Church right up until the 12th Century was that faithful received both the host and from the chalice, and in permitting this restoration the Church has simply recovered ancient tradition.

 

[JimG]

When did it become commonplace to even offer the blood? When I was a kid it was the host at the rail and that was that. The Domican church I attend on weekdays, only offers the host at the rail. The big church I attend on Sundays offers both the body and blood, all over the church. Granted it’s a lot of people, but in some ways it seems very chaotic and overkill with so many EM’s dispensing both species.

It has become more commonplace since Vatican II.

My parish is quite large and with a lot of Sunday Masses, so as a matter of general practice, the chalice is not offered to the congregation. It might not matter a great deal though, if it were. At another parish in a different city which I frequently attend, EHMC’s offer communion under both species every Sunday. But I’ve noticed the times I have been there, that only a rather small percent of those going up for communion receive from the chalice. Nor, of course, are they required to do so.

 

[otjm]

In my own parish communicants receive only the host, except for special occasions. This is done mainly for good practical reasons, of which some were stated above in post 61 in a quote from the Trent Catechism.

Certainly this is within the legitimate exercise of the Bishop’s authority.

However, looking at the numbers laid out in post 61:

1. Since reception of the Cup started, I have never seen any spilled, and have only heard from one other individual that they had seen a spill. That does not mean that spilling does not occur. However, in the years I was an altar boy (having started while Pope Pius 12 was in the Chair), I saw Hosts “spilled”; usually from either one not sticking their tongue out far enough and the Host not sticking to the tongue, or more likely the Host being flipped oof because it hit their teeth. That, by the logic of the statement, would militate against COTT, a place I would not recommend, but one that would be the logical result. In other words, The Host is far likelier to be “spilt” than the Cup.
2. One should be able to make a reasonable judgment of how much wine to consecrate after a few Masses. Pouring with a light hand rather than a heavy one solves the issue; and further, any left over is consumed by whomever has the Cup, so spoilage is a complete non-issue.
3. Pastoral concern for those who may have a reaction to the accidents of alcohol should be self-correcting; they are not required to receive. Many people choose not to receive from the Cup and alcohol is rarely noted as the reason.
4. Wine is relatively inexpensive and certainly not scarce.
5. Counteracting heresy: catechesis solves this. and catechesis is needed - in some circumstances sorely needed; but that applies to the Eucharist itself, and not simply to the issue of form of reception. So terribly many who received “education” in the faith in the 70’s, 80’s and 90.s have an almost total lack of understanding of wht the Church teaches - but withholding Communion from all is not the answer; catechesis is. The same applies to the Cup.

I

In addition, routinely offering both species in our parish would unduly increase the length of time for communion, increase the number of EMHC’s needed,

So we should hurry up the reception fo Communion? Rush it? I thought we were looking to increase reverence. Going back to when I was an altar boy, our pastor would rush through distribution of Communion. If distributing the Cup takes a bit more time (and it doesn’t take much more at all because those receiving both are at two stations) are we really in that much of a time crunch?

lengthen the communion rite,

The increase of time is minimal. My comparison? Holy Friday, when only the Host is available takes just about as long with the same number of people. Non-issue.

increase the amount of altar wine to be purchased weekly

In terms of the overall budget of a parish that is so minimal as to be a non-problem.

I’ve heard no complaints.

Complaints should not be the driving force; see the comments as to why Rome feels it has value (noted in liturgyluver’s quote.

But judging from this thread, perhaps the old heresy is still hanging around a little.

You are right - some don’t get it. The answer to that is catechesis. The far greater problem is the lack of understanding of the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. Withholding is not the answer to either problem.

 

[JimG]

Let me give an example of what I meant by “lengthening the communion rite.” At a parish I often attend in another city, communion is distributed under both kinds, and there are about 8 EMHC’s at every Mass. Following the priest’s communion, they all gather in the sanctuary to receive communion, and then are presented with the chalice or ciborium. It is not a short exercise; it almost seems like a separate rite. Afterwards, they all line up for the ablutions. It does take extra time, both before and after.

At my own parish, for the weekend Masses, seven Masses in total, perhaps 10,000+ people attend. The distribution of communion is already fairly lengthy. It would be even longer if we provide communion under both kinds for 10,000 people every week.

But that doesn’t worry me, because most people would not receive under both kinds even if it were offered. That is their choice. If they did, though, the Mass times would have to be extended considerably.

Something just occurred to me about my previous post discussing the words of consecration, which are just that–words of consecration, not directions to the congregation. I never thought of it before, but this was actually quite apparent in the Tridentine rite prior to the Council, where the entire proper of the Mass was said in Latin, with the priest generally facing the altar, not the people.

We all knew what he was saying. We could read the words in the missal. He was conducting the sacrifice of the Mass as directed by Jesus. Now it seems, it is much easier for us to get the idea that the priest is speaking to us. But he isn’t. The Mass is a prayer directed to the Father.

 

[Gorgias]

When did it become commonplace to even offer the blood?

Oh, at least by 300 A.D. or so…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Let me give an example of what I meant by “lengthening the communion rite.” At a parish I often attend in another city, communion is distributed under both kinds, and there are about 8 EMHC’s at every Mass. Following the priest’s communion, they all gather in the sanctuary to receive communion, and then are presented with the chalice or ciborium. It is not a short exercise; it almost seems like a separate rite. Afterwards, they all line up for the ablutions. It does take extra time, both before and after.

At my own parish, for the weekend Masses, seven Masses in total, perhaps 10,000+ people attend. The distribution of communion is already fairly lengthy. It would be even longer if we provide communion under both kinds for 10,000 people every week.

But that doesn’t worry me, because most people would not receive under both kinds even if it were offered. That is their choice. If they did, though, the Mass times would have to be extended considerably.

Yes that has exactly been my experience at the Church I attend on Sundays.

 

[drforjc]

So why does the priest say, take this all of you and drink

Are you and “Petronus” denying the authority of the Catholic Church to regulate the administration of the Sacraments? Jesus’ audience at the time he spoke those words was the Apostles. The Church has defined that the complete, entire, Christ is present under either species, both His Body and His Blood, for they cannot be separated again, since “death has no more power over him.”

The Church, from the beginning, in fact, brought only the Consecrated Bread to the sick and homebound. This is well attested to in the early writings of the Church. Will you insist that the Church was disobeying Christ in that early time, almost within the lifetime of the Apostles?

 

[otjm]

Let me give an example of what I meant by “lengthening the communion rite.” At a parish I often attend in another city, communion is distributed under both kinds, and there are about 8 EMHC’s at every Mass. Following the priest’s communion, they all gather in the sanctuary to receive communion, and then are presented with the chalice or ciborium. It is not a short exercise; it almost seems like a separate rite. Afterwards, they all line up for the ablutions. It does take extra time, both before and after.

At my own parish, for the weekend Masses, seven Masses in total, perhaps 10,000+ people attend. The distribution of communion is already fairly lengthy. It would be even longer if we provide communion under both kinds for 10,000 people every week.

But that doesn’t worry me, because most people would not receive under both kinds even if it were offered. That is their choice. If they did, though, the Mass times would have to be extended considerably.

Something just occurred to me about my previous post discussing the words of consecration, which are just that–words of consecration, not directions to the congregation. I never thought of it before, but this was actually quite apparent in the Tridentine rite prior to the Council, where the entire proper of the Mass was said in Latin, with the priest generally facing the altar, not the people.

We all knew what he was saying. We could read the words in the missal. He was conducting the sacrifice of the Mass as directed by Jesus. Now it seems, it is much easier for us to get the idea that the priest is speaking to us. But he isn’t. The Mass is a prayer directed to the Father.

I have been in parishes in North Dakota, Washington, Oregon, California, and Utah and all of them have received under both Species. In all of them, the Cup was out of the way of the flow of people receiving the Host, so no one receiving from the Cup impeded the flow of people to receive the Host. Therefore there was no delay to the distribution of Communion by adding the Cup; those who received from it did so on their way back to their pew. It is simply not an issue or a problem, nor does it lengthen the time of distributing Communion.

 

[otjm]

Oh, at least by 300 A.D. or so…

I don’t know of any evidence one way or the other, but the presumption is that it started with the Apostles as there is no evidence that suddenly it was added back into the Mass. If someone has evidence to the contrary, they should offer it.