Question on the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigTurkey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BigTurkey

Guest
Why did the Catholic church not allow the laity to drink the cup in communion for so many years? Was this a change in doctrine? Was it a way to show that the priests were more close to God?

Sorry about all these questions…a friend is asking me and I don’t know how to respond.

Micah
 
At one time there was a feeling among the laity that if you did not receive both species, you were not getting the full Body and Blood of Christ. This is of course wrong as either form is the complete Christ. I think it was at the Council of Trent that it was decided to limit the laity to just the host. The thought was that offering both the host and the cup was confusing the laity.
 
I believe it was simply because there was more risk of spilling the precious blood, whereas communion on the tongue invovled much less risk.

Scott
 
yes to prevent spillage and let us also think that there is what we called as intinction of the Sacred Host as another way.

The Sacred Host alone is enough to recieve Christ. in the Eucharist.
 
The separate consecration of the bread and wine serves as a reminder that once in history Christ’s blood was separated from his body when he died on the cross. When the Eucharist is celebrated, however, Christ’s blood is not separated from his body. The Christ who becomes present at the words of consecration is the risen, glorified Christ so Christ is fully present in both the bread and wine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top