S
sambos671
Guest
Why don’t Catholic Laity drink wine for communion?
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
The Roman Catholic clergy don’t drink wine for communion, either. They receive the Sacred Blood.
GKC
L
LilyM
Guest
Semantics aside (important though it is to name things properly for what they are), each element of the Eucharist (host and chalice) in and of itself contains Christ whole and entire - body AND blood, soul AND divinity.
Christ doesn’t split himself off into bits such that the Eucharist is incomplete if we do not drink the cup.
S
sambos671
Guest
But why absent one? Jesus didn’t at the Last supper? The wine is an essential part of both Passover, and The Last Supper.
G
GKC
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
And it IS an essential element of every Mass - the priest celebrating must consume both Host and Chalice. Doesn’t mean that EVERYONE has to have both - no-one apart from the priest, of course, need have anything at all, Communion is not compulsory.
That doesn’t mean, however, that the laity can’t receive only one form - meaning they can choose just to receive the Chalice if, for example, they are allergic to wheat flour products and cannot have the Host.
I’ve explained why - Jesus does NOT split Himself into bits and pieces such that the Host is ONLY flesh and the cup ONLY blood, but rather Body and Blood both exist in both Host and Cup.
As GKC pointed out, this is longstanding Catholic teaching, formalised at least by the time of the Council of Trent.
G
GKC
Guest
S
sambos671
Guest
Sorry I don’t have a copy of the Council of Trent. The same council that wanted to exterminate protestants.
G
GKC
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Yeah, the Council wanted to exterminate Protestants so badly that
a) it absolutely agreed with Luther that the sale of indulgences was wrong and banned it, as well as agreeing with a good dozen others at least of his 95 theses, and
b) it offered Protestants safe conduct to attend and take full part in the Council - to protect them from the EMPEROR who was not so tolerant.
G
GKC
Guest
Not at all.
To a Catholic, of any sort, one doesn’t receive either bread or wine, but the Blessed Body and Sacred Blood. And, as defined by the same authority which defined the concept of the Real Presence, one who receives the body, also by that fact receives the Blood, and vice versa. The wine and bread, after consecration, are not the Body and Blood respectively. They are each of them, both of them.
Serious answer.
The Canons and decrees of Trent can be found by googling.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Trent was a long, contentious, politically motivated, reform minded, and fascinating series of sessions, comprising a really lengthy Council. Worth careful study, of the whole process.
GKC
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
But what Christ did do was first take bread, and say “this is my Body…”, and then take the chalice, and say “This is my Blood…” At no time, that I’m aware of, did He take either the bread or the chalice and say “This is my Body and my Blood”.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
I will try to give you a straight answer.
Even though communicating from both the bread and the chalice during the Eucharist was the uniform tradition in the Church in the first 1100 years, to the point that one of the early popes (I believe it was Pope Gelasius, though I could be wrong) condemned the practice of communicating with one element only, the western church sometime in the 12th-13th centuries started the practice of withholding the Cup from the laity. The stated reason was to prevent supposed “abuses” that were occurring in offering the cup, such as spillage, although there is no reason to think it was more of a problem that it had been in the first 1100 years. This practice coincided with a tendency in the western church to regard receiving communion as something most of the laity were unworthy of, so that communicating at all was very infrequent. It also had the effect of emphasizing the difference between the clergy and the laity.
The Protestant reformers protested the withholding of the Cup, referring both to scripture and the early practice of the Church. This provoked the Council of Trent to formally defend and mandate the practice. Trent went so far as to declare anathema anyone who challenged the church’s reasons for instituting the practice.
The liturgical reforms of Vatican II allowed the offering of the Cup to the laity once again, but, as you know, it is still not uniformly done.
The Eastern Rites of the Church, both separated and united to Rome, have never withheld the Cup.
I hope that was helpful.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
they do, in places where the logistics make it possible and it is allowed. In fact at least in the US it is more common than not that the cup is offered. In the Eastern Rites it lay faithful have always received under both forms. In places where it is not, it has more to do with the availability of ministers, fear of abuse etc.
You posed this on the wrong forum, the question has nothing to do with any non-Catholic religion. Why?
Since from the way the loaded question was framed (classic tactic of asking “why do/don’t Catholics do/don’t” something that is not even accurate) and the tone of succeeding posts I deduce your purpose in posing it is to generate animosity, I now withdraw.
P
Peter_J
Guest
What’s really sad is that just when the Church was allowing a return to the original way of receiving communion (i.e. in both species), a whole new innovation sprung up: receiving the host “on the hand”.
- Status