Prohibition against receiving the precious blood?

[MooCowSteph]

Am I reading this right? The Catholic Church at one point prohibited the laity from receiving the precious blood? This is new to me. I just read and reread this new advent article to understand this issue after being asked by a former Catholic why the church doesn’t require distribution of communion under both species. I’m honestly not content with the answers in this article, and even more flabbergasted that the church would deny the laity the precious blood under the purpose of fighting a heresy. I fully understand that Christ is fully present under both species, but we were commanded to drink his blood. Maybe the church interprets that to meet the apostles and their successors and not the laity, but then the same argument could be made to deny is his flesh.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Am I reading this right? The Catholic Church at one point prohibited the laity from receiving the precious blood? This is new to me. I just read and reread this new advent article to understand this issue after being asked by a former Catholic why the church doesn’t require distribution of communion under both species. I’m honestly not content with the answers in this article, and even more flabbergasted that the church would deny the laity the precious blood under the purpose of fighting a heresy. I fully understand that Christ is fully present under both species, but we were commanded to drink his blood. Maybe the church interprets that to meet the apostles and their successors and not the laity, but then the same argument could be made to deny is his flesh.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.

Communion under one or both kinds since Vatican II has been a matter for the bishop conferences.
In the Western countries, Communion under both kinds is a rule. In the Eastern Europe: Poland, Russia, etc. - Communion is usually under one kind, except for special occasions (First Communion, Confirmation Mass, etc.).
The Traditional Mass also involved the Communion under one kind only.

It is a pure matter of liturgy.

Personally I communicate under one kind only. The reasons: 1) hygiene, 2) fear to spill the Precious Blood.

 

[porthos11]

Am I reading this right? The Catholic Church at one point prohibited the laity from receiving the precious blood? This is new to me. I just read and reread this new advent article to understand this issue after being asked by a former Catholic why the church doesn’t require distribution of communion under both species. I’m honestly not content with the answers in this article, and even more flabbergasted that the church would deny the laity the precious blood under the purpose of fighting a heresy. I fully understand that Christ is fully present under both species, but we were commanded to drink his blood. Maybe the church interprets that to meet the apostles and their successors and not the laity, but then the same argument could be made to deny is his flesh.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.

You already correctly cited it: we already drink his blood as it’s present in the Host. This is also the Church’s stance for the laity, and the Chalice is required only of the celebrating priest. IF people continue to insist that the laity MUST drink the chalice, then perhaps the Church would probably wise to withhold it from the laity again just as it did before. As you said, to fight the heresy.

 

[Upgrade25]

You already correctly cited it: we already drink his blood as it’s present in the Host. This is also the Church’s stance for the laity, and the Chalice is required only of the celebrating priest. IF people continue to insist that the laity MUST drink the chalice, then perhaps the Church would probably wise to withhold it from the laity again just as it did before. As you said, to fight the heresy.

I agree. The catechisis must be strong on the matter, which it wasn’t when the Eucharist was permitted under both forms. Save faithful Catholics from material heresy!

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

You can read more about how the Council of Trent dealt with this several centuries ago in the Roman Catechism under the subtitles “The Rite of Administering Communion” and “Why the Celebrant alone receives under both species”. Several reasons are given there as to why they forbade the reception of the Precious Blood by laymen. There are also decrees & canons from the Council about this, where there are even anathemas given concerning Communion under one kind. Reading this might help you understand why the Church rightfully withheld the Precious Blood.

 

[Neofight]

Reading this might help you understand why the Church rightfully withheld the Precious Blood.

Maybe, and I hope, am misunderstanding you.

Please don’t say you mean that if was “rightfully withheld”, that offering the Precious Blood now is somehow wrong.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You already correctly cited it: we already drink his blood as it’s present in the Host. This is also the Church’s stance for the laity, and the Chalice is required only of the celebrating priest. IF people continue to insist that the laity MUST drink the chalice, then perhaps the Church would probably wise to withhold it from the laity again just as it did before. As you said, to fight the heresy.

In point of fact, what you articulate is not the Church’s stance. That’s why the Council Fathers decreed at Vatican II that Communion was indeed to begin to be made available under both species to the laity…because there is an irreplaceable theological significance to receiving both species.

When we receive only the Body of the Lord, we do not thereby drink His Blood; we receive His Blood in virtue of Eucharistic concomitance because He Whom we receive is the Living Christ. But the sign value – eat, drink – is not realised.

There are cases where it is not possible to receive one or the other. But that does not mean that the two species, separately consecrated and separately received, are without their proper significance. It is thus the Lord established the sacrament.

Beyond that, next month our beloved Holy Father will inaugurate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in a commemoration we will observe with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters.

We will be reminded throughout this historic commemoration that many things we today experience as Catholics that were things called for 500 years ago – increased access to Sacred Scripture, liturgy that is in the vernacular, greater reflection on the common priesthood of the faithful, and…of course…the return in the West to communicants who both “take and eat” as well as “take and drink.” Communion by both species for the congregation was never lost in the East…and was a powerful witness to the Council Fathers of the West at Vatican II.

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe, and I hope, am misunderstanding you.

Please don’t say you mean that if was “rightfully withheld”, that offering the Precious Blood now is somehow wrong.

It’s not wrong to to offer the Precious Blood, but the Church had and has the authority to determine how the liturgy is celebrated and how Communion is administered to the laity. The Church may have had prudential reasons in regards to reverence towards the Precious Blood, the expensive cost and unavailability of it for many parishes, the difficulty in preserving it, to respond to a particular heresy, etc . . . It is within the Church’s jurisdiction to determine the appropriate celebration of the liturgy for the times. There was no offence here.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You can read more about how the Council of Trent dealt with this several centuries ago in the Roman Catechism under the subtitles “The Rite of Administering Communion” and “Why the Celebrant alone receives under both species”. Several reasons are given there as to why they forbade the reception of the Precious Blood by laymen. There are also decrees & canons from the Council about this, where there are even anathemas given concerning Communion under one kind. Reading this might help you understand why the Church rightfully withheld the Precious Blood.

More important though is the reality that the Council Fathers of Vatican II altered the practice derived from Trent, seeing the need to do so. That is what matters today. That along with the reality that this provision was so extraordinarily well received that permission was vastly extended subsequently by the Council Fathers and their successors, from their dioceses and within the conferences of bishops mandated by Vatican II, and, of course, with the permission of the Holy See.

Sacrosanctum Concilium
*55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.*
Thus, the Council Fathers reminded us, thanks in large measure to the work of the Liturgical Movement that preceded the Council and in many ways informed the thoughts of the Fathers about reform and renewal of the Church’s liturgy, recourse to the reserved sacrament should be minimal since it is preferable for the laity to receive from the Hosts that were consecrated at the Mass in which they assisted with full, conscious and active participation…just as it is more to be preferred for Communion to be available under both species…and the ever growing extension of these points across my priesthood I have both encouraged pastorally and in my academic lectures and I have been delighted to see it spread.

 

[Upgrade25]

Father, I have great respect for you. I also understand that your theological knowledge is much vaster than mine. However, in my experience, I have encountered many who separate the Host and Cup, saying the Host is only Body and Cup is only Blood. However, I also see the inverse. Thanks for giving us all food for thought.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I have great respect for you. I also understand that your theological knowledge is much vaster than mine. However, in my experience, I have encountered many who separate the Host and Cup, saying the Host is only Body and Cup is only Blood. However, I also see the inverse. Thanks for giving us all food for thought.

Thank you.

One encounters many things in life – and in priestly ministry. The corrective of a lack of understanding is catechesis.

The distinctions can be subtle. The Host is the Body of the Lord. The Blood, Soul, and Divinity are concomitantly present by necessity, since it is the living Body of Christ. The content of the Chalice is the Blood of Christ, again with the Body, Soul and Divinity concomitantly present.

One who receives under either or both species has received the Risen Lord…but one cannot say that you both took and ate as well as took and drank if you received under one species alone.

It is this aspect, derived from the theology of sign, among other aspects of import, which prompted the change in discipline by the bishops of the world gathered in ecumenical council.

It is also very important that the Church never be seen as co-terminous with the liturgical practices of the West. “The Church” is not the West. One must look also to the East and its liturgies, as we did when the form of the sacrament of Confirmation was changed for the Roman Rite to one that better expresses the theology of that sacrament.

As for the decision made centuries ago, I always remember what Pope Benedict wrote in a letter to the world’s bishops in July 2007
Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today
As demands were made, had the response been more pastorally sensitive, there would have been a difference in outcome.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Maybe, and I hope, am misunderstanding you.

Please don’t say you mean that if was “rightfully withheld”, that offering the Precious Blood now is somehow wrong.

Well, yes, I think the Precious Blood was rightfully withheld back then and, in my opinion, I think it should be withheld today. I for sure think so back then since I’d be anathema if I said the Church didn’t withhold the Precious Blood for just reasons according to the Council of Trent.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

More important though is the reality that the Council Fathers of Vatican II altered the practice derived from Trent, seeing the need to do so. That is what matters today. That along with the reality that this provision was so extraordinarily well received that permission was vastly extended subsequently by the Council Fathers and their successors, from their dioceses and within the conferences of bishops mandated by Vatican II, and, of course, with the permission of the Holy See.

Sacrosanctum Concilium
55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
Thus, the Council Fathers reminded us, thanks in large measure to the work of the Liturgical Movement that preceded the Council and in many ways informed the thoughts of the Fathers about reform and renewal of the Church’s liturgy, recourse to the reserved sacrament should be minimal since it is preferable for the laity to receive from the Hosts that were consecrated at the Mass in which they assisted with full, conscious and active participation…just as it is more to be preferred for Communion to be available under both species…and the ever growing extension of these points across my priesthood I have both encouraged pastorally and in my academic lectures and I have been delighted to see it spread.

Thank you for pointing that out, Father. I was just trying to help the original poster see why the Church forbade the offering of the Precious Blood to the laymen back then, but it’s good to keep in mind that the prohibition was gotten rid of.

 

[MooCowSteph]

I agree. The catechisis must be strong on the matter, which it wasn’t when the Eucharist was permitted under both forms. Save faithful Catholics from material heresy!

While I am sure there are plenty of people who do not understand the mystery of the eucharist even at the most basic terms of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity being present under each species, I do not think the matter at hand of heresy, as I will elaborate on below.

In point of fact, what you articulate is not the Church’s stance. That’s why the Council Fathers decreed at Vatican II that Communion was indeed to begin to be made available under both species to the laity…because there is an irreplaceable theological significance to receiving both species.

When we receive only the Body of the Lord, we do not thereby drink His Blood; we receive His Blood in virtue of Eucharistic concomitance because He Whom we receive is the Living Christ. But the sign value – eat, drink – is not realised.

There are cases where it is not possible to receive one or the other. But that does not mean that the two species, separately consecrated and separately received, are without their proper significance. It is thus the Lord established the sacrament.

Beyond that, next month our beloved Holy Father will inaugurate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in a commemoration we will observe with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters.

We will be reminded throughout this historic commemoration that many things we today experience as Catholics that were things called for 500 years ago – increased access to Sacred Scripture, liturgy that is in the vernacular, greater reflection on the common priesthood of the faithful, and…of course…the return in the West to communicants who both “take and eat” as well as “take and drink.” Communion by both species for the congregation was never lost in the East…and was a powerful witness to the Council Fathers of the West at Vatican II.

This is exactly where my mind is heading, and where my formerly Catholic friend’s mind is on this matter. Why would the church at one point actually ban the reception of the precious blood, and currently allow reception only under one species as a matter of course and convenience when, by doing so, we are depriving the laity of the full participation in this sacrament, which is the source and summit of our faith? If the Eucharist is so very central to all that we do and who we are, WHY are there churches everywhere that choose to omit the blood on a regular basis? This has been a real sticking point for my friend in returning to the church, so she asked me. I answered to the best of my ability, but it really got me thinking. Now, most of the churches in my diocese, at least the ones I attend, do offer the precious blood every Sunday. But the church she was looking into (modern, “popular” style music, and the like) does not, and she was really offended by his reasoning of convenience, cost, and space.

 

[tee_eff_em]

While I am sure there are plenty of people who do not understand the mystery of the eucharist even at the most basic terms of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity being present under each species, I do not think the matter at hand of heresy, as I will elaborate on below.

Proper catechesis is especially important then, would you not agree?

This is exactly where my mind is heading, and where my formerly Catholic friend’s mind is on this matter. Why would the church at one point actually ban the reception of the precious blood, and currently allow reception only under one species as a matter of course and convenience when, by doing so, we are depriving the laity of the

full participation

in this sacrament, which is the source and summit of our faith? If the Eucharist is so very central to all that we do and who we are, WHY are there churches everywhere that choose to omit the blood on a regular basis? This has been a real sticking point for my friend in returning to the church, so she asked me. I answered to the best of my ability, but it really got me thinking. Now, most of the churches in my diocese, at least the ones I attend, do offer the precious blood every Sunday. But the church she was looking into (modern, “popular” style music, and the like) does not, and she was really offended by his reasoning of convenience, cost, and space.

:tsktsk: The Church does not teach that reception of the two species is a *fuller participation *-- She teaches that it is a fuller ***sign ***of the paschal mystery. One who receives either species alone fully participates in the sacrament.

Insert repeated emphasis on the need for proper catechesis here

tee

 

[JimG]

In my own parish, communion is generally offered daily and on weekends only under the species of the sacred host. Some parishes around here offer it under both species but many communicants elect to receive only the host. For special occasions and some solemnities, we do offer the Eucharist under both species as well as by intinction, but that is the exception. One reason is simply that routinely offering communion under both species would require an extraordinory number of EMHC’s, which has some disadvantages in itself.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Proper catechesis is especially important then, would you not agree?

:tsktsk: The Church does not teach that reception of the two species is a *fuller participation *-- She teaches that it is a fuller ***sign ***of the paschal mystery. One who receives either species alone fully participates in the sacrament.

Insert repeated emphasis on the need for proper catechesis here

tee

Well that was a little uncharitable. Thanks for trying to make me feel like an uncatechized idiot, which I am not.

Anyway, you failed to address my question, which is that, if it is a fuller*** sign*** of the mystery to receive under both species, then one could speculate that the church should have very solid reasons for denying that fuller sign to the laity. But the reasons are largely for convenience, with the exception of concerns over spills and excessive use of EMHS.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Well that was a little uncharitable. Thanks for trying to make me feel like an uncatechized idiot, which I am not.

Such implication was not my intention. Mea culpa.

Anyway, you failed to address my question, which is that, if it is a fuller*** sign*** of the mystery to receive under both species, then one could speculate that the church should have very solid reasons for denying that fuller sign to the laity. But the reasons are largely for convenience, with the exception of concerns over spills and excessive use of EMHS.

And the confusion of the poorly catechized, which you can wave your hands as much as you want, it still happens.

The Church authentically regulates the administration of the Sacraments (It is in this sense which I interpret [user]Confiteor Deo[/user] can claim the Church can “rightfully withhold” the species of wine from the faithful). For instance: Baptism by immersion is a fuller *** sign*** of incorporation into Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection – But I don’t know anyone who would argue the Church wrongfully allows Baptism by pouring and sprinkling, even if it is done for reasons largely for convenience.

:twocents:
tee

 

[MooCowSteph]

While I as a faithful Catholic can just accept “the church says it and so it’s true”, many other Catholics and especially non-Catholics cannot. I can see how people will take issue with the withholding of the precious blood as not in line with the command in Matthew 26. We take the first part very seriously, and thus many people receive the Eucharist daily. I’m just not understanding the theological reasons behind withholding of the precious blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[ProVobis]

I must admit when I saw the title of this thread, I thought of the Prohibition era in the U.S. and other countries when drinking alcohol was indeed prohibited. The priest must have been given some kind of permission, I would think.