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

[fabio_rocha]

1.Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times." (Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 176)
2.“Popes Leo & Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice.” (Catholic Dictionary, 202)
3.Communion “under both kinds … abolished in 1416, by the Council of Constance” (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, I, 111)

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

 

[YoungTradCath]

To stomp out a heresy which stated that, in order to receive Communion, one has to receive both the Host and from the chalice.

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/quickquestions/when-should-communion-be-distributed-under-both-forms

 

[Bookcat]

To stomp out a heresy which stated that, in order to receive Communion, one has to receive both the Host and from the chalice.

Correct – due to the rise of a heresy …

 

[BVMFatima]

 

[tabycat]

 

[Grailseeker]

In the “Anglican Use” Catholic mass they receive the Eucharist in both forms and I believe this is also true for the Eastern Rite (where the bread and wine are comingled and a special gold spoon is used) but these exceptions do not mean it is NECESSARY to do so because either is sufficent (and communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria as far back as the mid 3rd century)
.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…
3.Communion “under both kinds … abolished in 1416, by the Council of Constance” (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, I, 111)

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

You may find the following information regarding the Hussite heresy of use to you:

newadvent.org/cathen/07585a.htm

The distinctive tenet of the Hussites is the necessity, alike for priest and layman of Communion under both kinds, sub utraque specie whence the term Utraquists. Hus himself never preached Utraquism. During his presence at the Council of Constance, his successor in influence at the university of Prague Jacobellus von Mies, taking His stand on the Bible as the supreme rule of faith and practice in the Church, persuaded the people that partaking of the chalice was of absolute necessity for salvation, this being expressly taught by Christ: “Amen amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” (John 6:54)

 

[BVMFatima]

In the “Anglican Use” Catholic mass they receive the Eucharist in both forms and I believe this is also true for the Eastern Rite (where the bread and wine are comingled and a special gold spoon is used) but these exceptions do not mean it is NECESSARY to do so because either is sufficent (and communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria as far back as the mid 3rd century)
.

I’ve been to a Roman Catholic parish where it happens, infact I’ve seen pope Francis do so.

 

[L_Marshall]

The initial reason is to act against a heresy which was prevalent at the time which taught that Communion must be received in both species to be valid.

I also suspect that it may have to do with the fact that it was much easier to accidentally desecrate (i.e. spill) the Precious Blood.

Some parishes still withhold the cup on some days. I know many parishes that only distribute the Precious Blood on Solemnities.

And: one last reminder, it wasn’t completely abolished (or maybe observed is the correct term–I’m honestly not sure), most Tridentine Nuptial Masses had the groom and bride communicate from the Chalice.

 

[otjm]

I also suspect that it may have to do with the fact that it was much easier to accidentally desecrate (i.e. spill) the Precious Blood.

In 67 yers I have seen Hosts dropped; I have yet to see the Blood spilled. That does not mean that it does not occur; only that I have not seen it. And I have seen far, far more Hosts dropped either because the communicant did not stick out their tongue far enough or the priest did not insert if far enough back, or because the Host hit the communicant’s teeth and flipped off; I think I have seen one dropped from a hand.

Again, that is just personal observation; there is nothing I can find historically that says the Cup was withheld because of fear of spillage.

 

[Gorgias]

The initial reason is to act against a heresy which was prevalent at the time which taught that Communion must be received in both species to be valid.

YoungTradCath:

To stomp out a heresy which stated that, in order to receive Communion, one has to receive both the Host and from the chalice.

Bookcat:

Correct – due to the rise of a heresy …

Are ya’ll sure that you don’t have it backward? The practice of the laity taking communion from the chalice began declining due to the emergence of the ideas of concomitance and of transubstantiation. Given that Christ is completely present in each of the species (and not as ‘Body’ in the host and ‘Blood’ in the chalice) and that Christ is truly (sacramentally) present in the Eucharist, the historical result was that people became more unwilling to risk profanation (and also, became hypersensitive to the elements themselves). Therefore, although it continued to be necessary to consecrate both species, the laity only consumed the host.

Later, the Hussite ultraquist controversy compelled the Council of Constance to uphold the (already-existing) custom of reception under one species and declare it to be the law of the Church…

 

[Brendan]

In 67 yers I have seen Hosts dropped; I have yet to see the Blood spilled.

I have. I was unfortunate enough to witness a glass crystal chalice being dropped while being passed from the communicant back to the EMHC.

Consecrated wine interspersed with shards of glass.

Droplets were found 10 feet away, and yes people did need to crawl on their knees looking to make sure it was all found and properly treated with water and purificators ( which then had to be rinsed out into the sacrarium.

 

[Lormar]

I witnessed something almost as bad, but not quite.

After receiving Holy Communion, a woman proceeded to take the Host and dip it into the chalice the EM was holding, flick it a few times (like you might a cookie or donut you were dunking in something) to get rid of the excess Precious Blood, and put the Host in her mouth.

 

[St_Nephi]

Maybe it’s inappropriate to post this here in this thread, but it’s at least tangentially related:

If the chalice was withheld in order to combat a heresy, but now hundreds of years after the stomping out of that heresy the chalice was reintroduced, why couldn’t the same be done with the Filioque in the creed? As I understand it, it was added to combat a heresy, which today no longer exists. For the sake of ecumenism, couldn’t the Catholic Church now abolish the Filioque as it has outlived its utility?

 

[Gorgias]

If the chalice was withheld in order to combat a heresy, but now hundreds of years after the stomping out of that heresy the chalice was reintroduced, why couldn’t the same be done with the Filioque in the creed? As I understand it, it was added to combat a heresy, which today no longer exists. For the sake of ecumenism, couldn’t the Catholic Church now abolish the Filioque as it has outlived its utility?

Well, first off, it wasn’t originally done to combat a heresy – as I mentioned upthread, the development happened earlier, but was later formalized in response to a heresy.

In any case, withholding the chalice was simply a matter of a liturgical practice. Since the Church determines the standards for liturgy, it can decide whether to withhold the chalice or not, and it can change this standard as the situation requires.

However, doctrine is another thing altogether: it is an expression of the truth, as revealed by God. When the Church decides on a point of doctrine, it will never go back again and say, “nope, we didn’t really mean that”. Instead, that doctrinal stance becomes a permanent part of the Church’s teaching. The Church may later modify its expression of that truth, to clarify its position and avoid misunderstanding, but the doctrinal teaching can’t ever be ‘vetoed’ or ‘abolished’. The statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is exactly this sort of doctrinal teaching. So, no matter what the situation, the Church cannot decide to get rid of it for the sake of expediency.

In any case, there has been much discussion between the Catholic Church and Orthodox leaders that debatefiloque; the issue now is the endorsement of the various ecclesiastical authorities on this iss.e

 

[babochka]

In the “Anglican Use” Catholic mass they receive the Eucharist in both forms and I believe this is **also true for the Eastern Rite (where the bread and wine are comingled and a special gold spoon is used) but these exceptions **do not mean it isNECESSARY to do so because either is sufficent (and communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria as far back as the mid 3rd century)
.

This is the normative and ancient usage of our church. It is not an exception to the rule, but the rule itself, for us.

In our parish, we have an alcoholic gentleman who only receives under the form of bread. This is the exception.

 

[petronus]

I don’t know why , but I do know what Jesus commanded .

Jesus commanded that we both EAT and DRINK .

Jesus commanded that we receive his body and blood under BOTH forms , the two forms of bread and wine .

If anyone says otherwise I would be interested to know which Bible they are using .

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Well, first off, it wasn’t originally done to combat a heresy – as I mentioned upthread, the development happened earlier, but was later formalized in response to a heresy…

Do you have a source for this?

The heresy (as indicated in my source above) indicates that the heresy developed about 1380. If you have something indicating that the development occurred earlier, that would be helpful. If the source provided could explain why the Church decided to distribute Communion under one form that would be helpful as well.

Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

Do you have a source for this?

Yes! Thank you!

Receiving Holy Communion under both SPECIES (sub utraque specie) was typical for both the Western and the Eastern Catholic churches until about the twelfth century.

… In the years leading up to the twelfth century, two factors contributed to the gradual disappearance of the communion from the chalice by the lay faithful. First, a surge of cultic devotion to the Eucharist in the West resulted in a growing fear of spilling the Precious Blood. The articulation of the doctrines of TRANSUBSTANTIATION and concomitance further contributed to the decline of the reception of both species, because if Christ is present equally and fully in both species there appeared to be no need to risk irreverence toward the Precious Blood. Thus does St. THOMAS AQUINAS employ this same argument, suggesting that it is a “prudent custom” of some churches to withhold the chalice from the faithful because some do not exercise due caution (Summa Theologiae, 3a, q. 80, a. 12).

… In the early part of the fifteenth century, with lay communion from the chalice practically unknown, the followers of John HUS, later known as the HUSSITES, began preaching the necessity of reception of Communion under both species by priests and laity alike. … An ecumenical council was convened in Constance in November 1414 to settle the matter. On June 15, 1415, the council responded to the arguments of the Hussites and decreed that because Christ is wholly present under both species, it was not necessary for the laity to receive the Precious Blood. The council called the custom of withholding the chalice from the laity a “sensible introduction” and established the custom as law (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1965, no. 1199ff).

from “Communion Under Both Species.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2009. Detroit: Gale, 2009. 170-172. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 May 2013.

The heresy (as indicated in my source above) indicates that the heresy developed about 1380. If you have something indicating that the development occurred earlier, that would be helpful. If the source provided could explain why the Church decided to distribute Communion under one form that would be helpful as well.

The NCE places the utraquist heresy in the first part of the fifteenth century. Note that, if reception under one species only wasn’t something already in existence, the heresy would have had no reason to start: that is, if both species were being distributed to the laity at Catholic Masses, then the Hussites would have had no reason to assert “hey! you’ve got to distribute both species!!!”. It would make no sense for the timeline to be “distribution under both species”, “Hussite utraquist heresy”, “decree of Council of Constance”, “cessation of distribution under both species”…