J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Do you have a reference to when the Church, I assume there was some sort of Papal decree, forbade priests to offer both species?
- Status
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No. But go to any EF mass and you will not be offered the chalice, and ask anyone else on this forum about the EF mass and they will tell you the same thing.
In fact, I don’t know if it was ever part of the Latin liturgical tradition (at least until VII), as far back as we can trace the Latin liturgical tradition, to offer the chalice to the faithful.
I don’t think it was about explicitly forbidding priests to offer both species via papal decree, more that is just wasn’t done, and there was no provision, and I’m sure somewhere in the Code of Rubrics (EF GIRM, basically) it was said that the chalice should not be offered to the faithful. It would have been highly illicit in the Latin Church to do so. Why this was the way it was, I have no idea. I think the most plausible theory is that it was to combat heresies.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Was it Jesus’ intention that the majority of communicants in His Catholic Church receive only one species when He instituted the sacrament? Was that His intention in John chapter 6?
C
centurionguard
Guest
I’ve read about the same thing you bring up here. Especially before and after the Reformation period. The Catholic Church has long had to combat heresies pertaining to the Holy Eucharist. And it leaves little doubt more than ever in today’s modernistic world of adulterated secular humanism, heresies and the like are an ongoing combat for the Church and not just from outside forces as many might choose to think.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Which is why I think that, even as it is a plausible and certainly true argument–in some cases–that it is good to offer the chalice to the faithful, it is perhaps more prudent to offer the Body only so as to help squash absolutely every possible instance of Eucharistic heresy.
C
centurionguard
Guest
It has been said in polls that 30% of Catholics have true devout Faith in the True Holy Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
Many reasons could be given as to why the remaining majority of 70% lack faith in the Eucharist or have absolutely no faith at all.
Is it just the influential bombardment of secular society to blame?
Or does the Church today share in (“some part”) of the blame in this?
Is it really such an easy question to answer.
Have many chosen to throw away the Pearl of Great Price or do they hide the Faith under a bushel?
B
Brendan
Guest
It’s been communicting the faithful with both the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood for close to 2000 years now.
The faithful recieve the Precious Blood and the Sacred Body in the form of either species.
B
Brendan
Guest
He certainly gave the CHurch the authority to do so, and even provided for that in the Sacrament itself, that it is full and complete in a single species.
B
Brendan
Guest
The reception of both species in the EF is actually an option. Via intinction by the priest.
My parents received their First Holy Communions via both species intincted back in the 30’s and 40’s.
It was also offered that way on Feasts that had a special connection with the Eucharist, such as Holy Thursday, Easter SUnday, and the Feasts of both Corpus Christ and Corpus Christi.
That was in Ireland, and intinction was FAR less prevelant here in the US, but it was a valid option.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I don’t think intinction is licit in the EF. I shall look it up.
B
Bob_Aliano
Guest
Communion in both species is not necessary and is responsible for the addition of 8 EMHC at our OF parish, also not necessary. At my EF parish we receive only the Host and intinction is never done.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Actually, the faithful were offered the chalice in the West into the Middle Ages, where concerns about profanation of the Most Precious Blood of our Lord led to communion of the laity under the sign of the Bread alone. In turn, heretical beliefs that communion under one kind alone reduces the sacramental graces received arose, so the Church responded by codifying that the Church has the right to administer communion under one sign alone, and that both the body and blood of the Lord are received under one sign alone.
P
ProVobis
Guest
None to my knowledge. But then there was no great outcry for the consecrated Wine as Trent said it was enough to consume the accidents of bread.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How do we know that there was no outcry then? Was there a Catholic Answers Forum back then were people will post their complaints? Were there newspapers back then to write about public opinion?
B
Bob_Aliano
Guest
What difference does it make? Public outcry does not set Church policy.
J
japhy
Guest
Hard to believe, but yes. The reaction to the utraquist heresy (that the Eucharist must be received under both kinds) was very severe:
From the Council of Constance, Session XIII (15 June 1415):
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen.
Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious.
Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church.
Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine.
Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.
This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church’s fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church’s censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
This matter was considered again a century later, at the Council of Trent, but the Council did not change the ecclesial law on Communion under both kinds. However, individual grants were given to certain countries to permit the practice.
This changed drastically after Vatican II, of course.
P
ProVobis
Guest
People have lodged complaints since Cain. You think we high-techers have developed the only venue of expression?
Probably the only big outcry may have been to reduce the fasting requirement, especially since they were putting more emphasis on receiving communion. Around the time of Trent, very few received (spiritual communion was stressed) until Pius X stressed more frequent sacramental communion. Today almost everyone receives so one would expect more discussion surrounding methods of receiving, more efficient distribution, whether one should receive both species, etc. Just saying.
C
Colt
Guest
It most certainly is licit in both the OF and EF Masses.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
This is really excellent, thank you so much for going to all the trouble and taking the time.
So, the issue was that some insisted “bread only” was not licit, and there were abuses in the form of not fasting, and the people saying this referred back to the Scripture. It sounds like this was really correcting these people’s insistence that it had been done “wrong” and that those who had been offering communion under both species belonged to the rebel faction, so to speak, rather then the document insisting the only licit form was bread only, they were saying that bread only was always a licit form. I imagine they ordered offering the two forms to be halted because at the time only the opposition did this and they didn’t want to confuse the faithful. Also, there was a lot of Eucharistic abuse, breads are much easier to control than wine. And no refrigeration and wine was made seasonally, so, way lots of issues here. Protecting the Eucharist must be the first consideration.
I was thinking about why this seems to have been a Roman Rite practice so specifically and then thinking of people going trough the streets to meet secretly at the tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs. You can easily be carrying a small amount of bread and conceal it, carrying wine would be much more problematic and evidence of possibly going to a Christian Mass, either going to or from, because you have to carry the container back with you. So it bread only could easily become the common practice.
Of course, these objectors are then saying all those Masses for all those centuries were somehow… invalid? Naturally, the Councils must uphold their validity. But then, in modern times, most of the issues around wine, availability, freshness, control, no longer exist and so Vat 2 recognizes this. Which makes sense.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Not to stir the pot (though it may be perceived as such), but my understanding is that while we might make a convincing argument that it is incorrect to hold that communion under both kinds confers more sacramental grace, it wouldn’t be, strictly speaking, heretical.
To my knowledge, this is an open theological question, although the majority opinion is that communion under both kinds does not increase sacramental grace per se, and obviously good and cogent reasons to think it does not.
VC
- Status