Rhonda in GA:
In a Bible study I’m involved in, a lot of questions keep coming up about changes the Church has had over the years over receiving the Eucharist. Some examples are below:
I will try to give a brief reply, I’m sure someone else can give you better factual background though.
- When and why did the Church not allow the laity to receive the Eucharist?
The laity always received the Eucharist – as commanded by Christ at the Last Supper. However, in the early Church the division between the Liturgy of the Word (which anyone could attend) and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (which only those baptized believers could participate in) was much sharper.
Those who were attending Mass and who had not yet been received into the Church (or were not able to receive the Eucharist due to unconfessed sin, etc) actually left the Mass after the homily. All those who remained were the faithful who could, and did, receive the Eucharist.
All that remains of this historic practice today is found in the Church’s RCIA program, where the candidates and catechumans are led off after the homily by the catechist to learn about the teachings of the Bible and the Church’s Tradition.
- When did the Church begin to allow the laity to receive the Eucharist under both species?
I’m not really sure the answer to this one, I
think the Church always allowed the laity to receive under both species, however, it was not commonly offered outright to them at certain times in the Church’s history. I’m pretty sure that in the early Church both would have been offered, since the “congregation” would be smaller and more easily distributed under both species. This probably began to change when the Church was no longer under such harsh persecution, beginning to grow larger and be more public in it’s worship, which brings me to my next answer…
- Why did the Church not allow the laity to receive the Precious Blood?
I am not sure that it is true that the laity were not
allowed to receive the Blood, I think it was more that the Blood was not directly offered to them. This happened, I believe, because of the danger of spilling the Blood, when Blood is spilled it is much harder to purify than when the Host is dropped…
We are seeing this again today, now that both species are offered very frequently. In fact, at one of our Cathedral’s confirmation Masses a year or two ago, somebody dropped a cup of Blood that was pretty full… and the flooring is kind of absorbant (though not carpet, thank goodness!), so it was not a happy time… :crying: Purification took awhile.
However, going back to your question, I don’t know that it was ever directly
forbidden for the laity to participate in the cup. Perhaps someone else would know better than I.
I’m trying to discern if these were actual Church Teachings or just “practice” in certain times of history or places in the world and due to what reasons.
All of these are, I believe,
practices of the Church as opposed to actual Tradition (with a capital-T).
They are disciplines that are changeable, and yes, could be changed again in the future.
The reason for these practices is, however, due to the Church’s underlying teaching on the theology of the Eucharist – namely, that the main celebrant priest must partake of both the Host and the Blood in order to fulfill the command of Christ; but that Christ is substantially and equally present in either the Host or the Blood, and therefore it is not necessary for the faithful to partake of both species to receive the fullness of the sacrament. So long as the priest does, it is a valid Mass.
And also, is there a book or other Church document that can help answer some of these questions?
Off the top of my head I can’t think of one exactly… I’m sure someone else has a suggestion though
God bless,
+veritas+
