Communiion Wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter remroger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

remroger

Guest
I am trying to understand Church doctrine and practice regarding the laiety receiving wine during commmunion. It seems to me that this was a common practice in the past, but it appears that this may no longer be the case. Is this no longer being done in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the country one may be in? Thanks for any illumination to my confusion you may be able to provide!
 
It was actually essentially forbidden until Vatican II, because when kneeling at the rail/in general it is far easier to spill liquid than it is drop a wafer, and liquid seeps in to things, where wafers do not.

Also, it is the Precious Blood, not wine, it just looks like wine.
 
It is common to receive the Precious Blood from the chalice during Holy Communion in the various dioceses of the United States.
 
I live in the midwest U.S. and I personally have never NOT seen the cup offered to the laity in any Mass I’ve attended. In other words, in my experience the cup is always offered.
 
muffinmojo said:
It was actually essentially forbidden until Vatican II, because when kneeling at the rail/in general it is far easier to spill liquid than it is drop a wafer, and liquid seeps in to things, where wafers do not.

Also, it is the Precious Blood, not wine, it just looks like wine.
Click to expand...
While it is true that the cup was not generally offered pre-VII, spillage wasnt’ the reason. The rule was made to combat a heresy that communion wasn’t complete without both cup and host.

And yes, it is offered at all Masses in my area except daily Mass in some small parishes and Masses primarily for children.
 
remroger said:
I am trying to understand Church doctrine and practice regarding the laiety receiving wine during commmunion. It seems to me that this was a common practice in the past, but it appears that this may no longer be the case. Is this no longer being done in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the country one may be in? Thanks for any illumination to my confusion you may be able to provide!
Click to expand...
Receiving communion under both species was common in the past. However, it eventually became the norm in the western Church to only receive the consecrated bread. Vatican II reestablished the practice universally for the Latin Church.
 
Corki said:
While it is true that the cup was not generally offered pre-VII, spillage wasnt’ the reason. The rule was made to combat a heresy that communion wasn’t complete without both cup and host.

And yes, it is offered at all Masses in my area except daily Mass in some small parishes and Masses primarily for children.
Click to expand...
👍
But it was still illicit in my opinion. This should never have happened. But the Church did make a point. The body, blood, soul and divinity is all present in either species.
 
vocatio said:
👍
But it was still illicit in my opinion. This should never have happened. But the Church did make a point. The body, blood, soul and divinity is all present in either species.
Click to expand...
What is illicit and should never have happend, “in your opinion”?
 
The decision to offer Communion under both species is taken at the parish level. In my present parish both species are offered at every Mass but if I go back to my hometown I find the Precious Blood is rarely offered to anyone but a bride and groom at their Nuptial Mass and it’s the same in all the surrounding parishes.

On a trip this summer I found that the two parishes (different provinces/dioceses) where I attended Mass didn’t offer the Precious Blood either.
 
In my diocese, the Bishop has mandated Communion under both kinds at every Mass (even daily Mass). The US Bishops got Rome to change the policy back in the 1980s; up until 1984, the rule for Communion under both kinds was summed up in this way (Inaestimabile Donum, n. 12):
Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.
But in 1978 the US Bishops decided (without clarifying the issue with Rome) that it was completely within that discipline to allow Communion under both kinds at any Sunday or daily Mass.

I’m not a fan of the practice being done so often. It causes some people to begin to believe that Communion has to be under both kinds, or that Communion under one kind is somehow “incomplete”, or that the Host is only the Body of Christ and the Chalice holds only the Blood of Christ.

Does no one teach concomitance anymore? Council of Trent anyone?
 
Corki said:
And yes, it is offered at all Masses in my area except daily Mass in some small parishes and Masses primarily for children.
Click to expand...
Our last all school Mass offered the Precious Blood. We offer the Precious Blood at every Mass including daily Mass.

Just an FYI what it’s like here…
 
‘Illicit’ means forbidden by laws or rules.

Unless you are the Pope and the Precious Blood was withheld against your order, it was not illicit. Not the ideal, perhaps, in your opinion, but not illicit.
 
Rusty_Halo said:
What is illicit and should never have happend, “in your opinion”?
Click to expand...
The bishops should never have tried to use something so precious by reducing the communion with both species like that. Yes. it’s my opinion. And that along with a $1 now will buy you a cup of coffe.
 
vocatio said:
The bishops should never have tried to use something so precious by reducing the communion with both species like that. Yes. it’s my opinion. And that along with a $1 now will buy you a cup of coffe.
Click to expand...
How has re-allowing the laity to receive both species reduced it?
 
Rusty_Halo said:
How has re-allowing the laity to receive both species reduced it?
Click to expand...
The Eucharist is not reduced, if that’s where you think I’m going. I stated clearly what I meant. I’m talking about vearing away from Sacred Tradition. I don’t believe Jesus said here is my body…here is my blood…but you don’t have to take it. I’m saying that the bishops made a decision I don’t agree with regarding communion. The entire communion is symbolic of something pointing to it…the paschal supper. It was required that the Jews ate the bread, lamb and drank the wine. It wasn’t optional. Read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper”. Read the Jewish tradition of the Passover. The Church reinstated the practice of the laity receiving the precious blood of Christ. The Orhtodox Church continues this Tradition and has never stopped it like the Catholic Church. I firmly believe that one of the reason the Protestant Reformation came about was simply a reaction to the lack of orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve and continues to devour us today. Historically there is ample reason to wonder if not question the authority of the Church when it changes long standing Tradition. I could pull out my gripe card, but I won’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top