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

[bsroufek]

No . Just leaning on Christ’s command .

Basically, you’re taking a Protestant viewpoint: “My belief in Jesus’ words above what the Church teaches.” The Church teaches that the Body, Christ entire, is enough for us. May you begin to accept the Church’s teachings.

Jesus said, “If he will not even listen to the Church, then treat him like a” tax collector, a sinner. So, the Church is necessary for our Salvation and you reject Her teaching that the Body is enough.

 

[Brendan]

No . Just leaning on Christ’s command .

So when the Latin Church withheld the Chalice from the laity, or as the Chaldean Catholic Church generally does now, are you claiming that the Church is violating a Command of Christ?

In other words, are you claiming to have a deeper insight to the Commands of Christ than the Church itself?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

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

The Catechism of Trent (Part II, section on the Eucharist) gives several main reasons (in English editions, under the heading “Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species”). I paraphrase: (1) To avoid spilling when administering to large numbers of people; (2) To avoid having too much left over to consume (which could spoil); (3) Pastoral concern for those who cannot take wine (or the accidents thereof); (4) Wine in those days was scarce and expensive; (5) To counteract the heresy mentioned above by other posters. It states that there are “other reasons” as well, which can be “brought forward by pastors.”

As to the claim that withholding the cup would be “disobeying Christ’s command,” the same Catechism states:

Christ the Lord, it is true, . . . instituted . . . this most sublime Sacrament under the species of bread and wine; but it does not follow that by doing so our Lord and Saviour established a law ordering its administration to all the faithful under both species. For speaking of this Sacrament, He Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only, as, for instance, when He says: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

 

[ProVobis]

So could there be a valid reception of holy communion on the part of the laity in receiving only from the chalice? Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord are just as present there as in the ciborium.

Yes, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are contained in any amount of consecrated wine and bread. It is all basically inseparable. Unconsecrated wine and unconsecrated bread are obviously separated. Seems to me reception in such a way leads to the belief that they still are separated. If anything I’d like to go to intinction. It is not prohibited in the Latin Rite.

 

[petronus]

Basically, you’re taking a Protestant viewpoint: .

No . I am taking Jesus’ viewpoint .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’ve always wondered if only the blood were offered how many people that champion taking only one species would refuse to take the cup due to germophobia?

Which would be foremost–their belief in one species or their fear of germs?

I guess what I’m really saying is that for SOME taking only the Body isn’t about their knowing that one needs to take only one species–it is more about taking the Eucharist THE WAY they want it which IS the body only.

My whole point is one species is certainly fine and I’ve taken only one species but every chance I’ve had to take both species I take BOTH.

Not because I’m protestant but because I don’t think that making the theological point of only needing to take one species should mean that only one species should be offered.

In other words–don’t change to just one species because SOME people are theologically ignorant.

And try changing to only the precious blood and then see how many of the pious champions of taking only one species go berserk!

 

[Vico]

Yes, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are contained in any amount of consecrated wine and bread. It is all basically inseparable. Unconsecrated wine and unconsecrated bread are obviously separated. Seems to me reception in such a way leads to the belief that they still are separated. If anything I’d like to go to intinction. It is not prohibited in the Latin Rite.

From p. 104, Light For Life, Part Two, The Mystery Celebrated, 1996, God With Us Publications:The Ruthenian Church reserves only the Body of our Lord, which appears to be the more ancient custom … 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.

 

[petronus]

. 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.
[/INDENT]

What does this mean ?

 

[Augustine3]

I’ll wager that the Eastern Christians are giggling at this thread.

…:clapping:

 

[Vico]

What does this mean ?

In the Divine Liturgy of the the Ruthenian (Byzantine) Catholic Church, the Body and Blood of Christ is combined and given by spoon, and also the liturgical practice that during Lent the Eucharist is confected on Sunday and reserved on the Holy Table. It is not mixed with the Blood at the time of reservation. During the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during the following week, the reserved Eucharist is brought forth for those receiving and unconsecrated wine is added. It is also possible to add unconsecrated bread to the Eucharist so there will be more gifts in combination during the Divine Liturgy.

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.

 

[petronus]

It is also possible to add unconsecrated bread to the Eucharist so there will be more gifts in combination during the Divine Liturgy.
.

And in this way the unconsecrated bread becomes consecrated ?

 

[Vico]

And in this way the unconsecrated bread becomes consecrated ?

Since both species are combined, there is not required to make that assertion. However, recall post 65 speculation on sanctification by contact: “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.”

 

[ProVobis]

Since both species are combined, there is not required to make that assertion. However, recall post 65 speculation on sanctification by contact: “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.”

This theology by contact does change things a bit. Would the chalice itself become the Soul and Divinity of Christ too, for example, and anyone touching that would receive these?

 

[Filii_Dei]

This theology by contact does change things a bit. Would the chalice itself become the Soul and Divinity of Christ too, for example, and anyone touching that would receive these?

The very fact that the chalice is not valid matter pretty much rules this out.

 

[ProVobis]

The very fact that the chalice is not valid matter pretty much rules this out.

Understood but the point is that contact covers a lot of ground, especially on a secondary and tertiary nature.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Understood but the point is that contact covers a lot of ground, especially on a secondary and tertiary nature.

I too wonder the same. I think a better question would be to ask what would happen, then, if a piece of the Body of Christ were to be accidentally dropped in unconsecrated wine. The ramifications are pretty amazing.

 

[petronus]

Since both species are combined, there is not required to make that assertion. However, recall post 65 speculation on sanctification by contact: “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.”

So does the consecrated bread consecrate the unconsecrated wine ? Yes or No .

 

[ProVobis]

So does the consecrated bread consecrate the unconsecrated wine ? Yes or No .

If yes, add another question. Does adding unconsecrated bread to consecrated bread consecrate them as well?

 

[Vico]

So does the consecrated bread consecrate the unconsecrated wine ? Yes or No .

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

 

[petronus]

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.
]

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 .