Regarding wine in the Tridentine Liturgy

[TheLearner]

I was wondering if there is wine in the Tridentine mass, for laity, or for the priest? Or for both? Or for neither?

If not, why not? What is the explicit reason for excluding laity from the wine, if they are excluded from it?

 

[Penitant]

I was wondering if there is wine in the Tridentine mass, for laity, or for the priest? Or for both? Or for neither?

If not, why not? What is the explicit reason for excluding laity from the wine, if they are excluded from it?

The Blood of Christ is consecrated in the Tridentine Mass. It is, however, only consumed by the priest (and perhaps the Deacon and/or Subdeacon during a Solemn High Mass; I am unsure).

The Blood was reserved from the laity to combat a heresy which taught that one only received all of Christ if he received under both species.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[TheLearner]

The Blood of Christ is consecrated in the Tridentine Mass. It is, however, only consumed by the priest (and perhaps the Deacon and/or Subdeacon during a Solemn High Mass; I am unsure).

The Blood was reserved from the laity to combat a heresy which taught that one only received all of Christ if he received under both species.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

Though, why do the priests then continue to consume it, and why is it explicitly forbidden for the laity to do so?

 

[LilyM]

Though, why do the priests then continue to consume it, and why is it explicitly forbidden for the laity to do so?

Because the priests are to celebrate the Eucharist as Christ did - every time with both bread and wine, every time consuming both. The Eucharist is not properly celebrated without the priest consuming.

Besides which they had more training in Eucharistic theology than most laypersons and were therefore less likely to be under the misapprehension that laypeople need receive both elements.

The* laity*, on the contrary, need not receive at all - not Host nor Chalice - for the Eucharist to be properly celebrated. And in general had less education about such matters, so needed the greater protection from error.

 

[japhy]

Though, why do the priests then continue to consume it, and why is it explicitly forbidden for the laity to do so?

The completion of the Eucharistic sacrifice requires it be consumed under both kinds by the priest.

Trent considered giving the laity access to the Chalice again, but deferred that decision to the Pope. A later council – Vatican II – approved the concession of the Chalice to the laity under certain conditions. Those conditions have long since been superseded.

 

[Cluny]

Historically, the chalice was not so much “withheld from” the laity as “avoided by” them.

But this is a topic much too complex to deal with on computer boards.

 

[TheLearner]

Historically, the chalice was not so much “withheld from” the laity as “avoided by” them.

But this is a topic much too complex to deal with on computer boards.

I doubt it. You haven’t even tried.

 

[Cluny]

I doubt it. You haven’t even tried.

And of course, you know for sure that I’ve NEVER tried dealing with the topic elsewhere than this particular forum, right?

Would you bet your soul on it? Would you even bet next month’s house payment/rent on that fact I’ve NEVER dealt with this topic elsewhere?

There’s a good explanation in Dom Gregory Dix’s magnum opus THE SHAPE OF THE LITURGY.

Look it up.

 

[TheLearner]

And of course, you know for sure that I’ve NEVER tried dealing with the topic elsewhere than this particular forum, right?

Would you bet your soul on it? Would you even bet next month’s house payment/rent on that fact I’ve NEVER dealt with this topic elsewhere?

There’s a good explanation in Dom Gregory Dix’s magnum opus THE SHAPE OF THE LITURGY.

Look it up.

Thanks. Now you’ve engaged I will look it up.

I understand fully that on the one hand, there was a misconception that you have to receive both wine and bread/blood and body to receive “all of Christ”, which needed to be combatted, and that, on the other hand, both wine and bread has to be consecrated by the priest for the Eucharist to be fully celebrated.

What I don’t understand is why you would go to such an extreme as excluding laity from the wine, just because some might have had a misconception about the theology of the Eucharist. After all, both bread and wine have been consecrated and received in communion in the Eucharist since ancient times, since the liturgy of the early church, so why would you suddenly break with tradition merely because of a misunderstanding that some might have? Why change liturgy just because some people don’t understand it?

 

[thedavidwilson]

Thanks. Now you’ve engaged I will look it up.

I understand fully that on the one hand, there was a misconception that you have to receive both wine and bread/blood and body to receive “all of Christ”, which needed to be combatted, and that, on the other hand, both wine and bread has to be consecrated by the priest for the Eucharist to be fully celebrated.

What I don’t understand is why you would go to such an extreme as excluding laity from the wine, just because some might have had a misconception about the theology of the Eucharist. After all, both bread and wine have been consecrated and received in communion in the Eucharist since ancient times, since the liturgy of the early church, so why would you suddenly break with tradition merely because of a misunderstanding that some might have? Why change liturgy just because some people don’t understand it?

You are receiving the Body AND Blood of Christ when you receive the bread. The wine is consecrated to represent the separation of the Blood of Christ from His Body during the crucifixion, which is what the Mass represents. The Mass is the RE-Presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary.

The Mass is not the Last Supper or a party or get together with your neighbors. It is you being present at the murder and bloody sacrifice of our Lord. That is why we should not wear flip flops to Mass or act in a non-respectful way. People should act as they would if they were at their mother’s execution. Very different than how most people act/dress in church today.

If you truly believe in the Eucharist (bread) and what it represents then you should have no need/desire to receive the wine. Look up a book called Know Your Mass. It was a comic book written in the 1950’s that does and excellent job of explaining the Mass. Unfortunately most of this is not known anymore because the Mass has become more about the laity rather than God since Vatican II.

The desire/insistence of some laity to receive both species represents either a lack of understanding of the Eucharist and what the Mass is, or the person being so prideful that he/she wants what another (i.e. priest) has even though there is no need for it. The Church is a hierarchy and we should be happy with our station in that hierarchy. That is why the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” not “Thanksgetting”.

 

[TheLearner]

You are receiving the Body AND Blood of Christ when you receive the bread. The wine is consecrated to represent the separation of the Blood of Christ from His Body during the crucifixion, which is what the Mass represents. The Mass is the RE-Presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary.

The Mass is not the Last Supper or a party or get together with your neighbors. It is you being present at the murder and bloody sacrifice of our Lord. That is why we should not wear flip flops to Mass or act in a non-respectful way. People should act as they would if they were at their mother’s execution. Very different than how most people act/dress in church today.

If you truly believe in the Eucharist (bread) and what it represents then you should have no need/desire to receive the wine. Look up a book called Know Your Mass. It was a comic book written in the 1950’s that does and excellent job of explaining the Mass. Unfortunately most of this is not known anymore because the Mass has become more about the laity rather than God since Vatican II.

The desire/insistence of some laity to receive both species represents either a lack of understanding of the Eucharist and what the Mass is, or the person being so prideful that he/she wants what another (i.e. priest) has even though there is no need for it. The Church is a hierarchy and we should be happy with our station in that hierarchy. That is why the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” not “Thanksgetting”.

I understand that it is not absolutely necessary.

But if that is the argument, then why don’t you argue too, that it is not absolutely necessary to only receive one species, that the Eucharist is still valid if you receive both species? That in fact, in most liturgies for the first 1500 years, laity received both species? Even if it wasn’t absolutely necessary, it was not profitable, necessary or required to receive only one species, either.

 

[japhy]

The Mass is not the Last Supper or a party or get together with your neighbors. It is you being present at the murder and bloody sacrifice of our Lord.

The Mass is unbloody. The Mass is like the Last Supper in that both presented the sacrifice of Calvary. No one here is calling it a “party” or a “get together with your neighbors”.

If you truly believe in the Eucharist (bread) and what it represents then you should have no need/desire to receive the wine.

What does that say about Catholics (and Orthodox) throughout the centuries who have received under both species? I do not agree with your blanket statement.

The desire/insistence of some laity to receive both species represents either a lack of understanding of the Eucharist and what the Mass is, or the person being so prideful that he/she wants what another (i.e. priest) has even though there is no need for it.

I would be willing to be it is primarily that people don’t know about the doctrine of concomitance – they do not know that Jesus Christ is entirely present under the smallest recognizable particle of the consecrated Host and a single drop of the consecrated wine. It’s possible (but less likely, in my opinion) that they think of themselves as a “ministerial” priest. I don’t think it necessarily follows that they don’t understand the nature of the Mass – they could understand it as the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary and just not understand concomitance.

That is why education (catechesis) is the answer… or, if that fails, a change in discipline again (withholding the Chalice from the laity).

 

[PKinsale]

Did Catholics receive under both species before Trent?

Also, I do believe reception of both species is allowed or common at TLM wedding Masses, but I defer to the experts.

I question the trend to receive both species. It did not become common with Vatican II, but only more recently, at least in my experience.

There are practical reasons to not offer both species. You need fewer EMHCs and you do not run the risk of spillage.

 

[japhy]

Did Catholics receive under both species before Trent?

I was about to mention the Council of Constance, session 13 (15 June 1415), but it appears sessions 2-13 were nullified by Popes Gregory XII and Martin V. Session 13 dealt with ceasing to offer the Chalice to the laity and non-celebrating clergy. Now I’m not sure what to say…

Update: Ok, Denzinger 1198-1200 purports that Martin V specifically approved the decision from Session 13 concerning Communion under both kinds. (See #626 here for an English translation.)

I question the trend to receive both species. It did not become common with Vatican II, but only more recently, at least in my experience.

Vatican II permitted it under certain conditions, but those were quickly expanded and eventually (illicitly) superseded by bishops. Rome eventually acquiesced to their disobedience. See this post for a bit of a history lesson since Vatican II.

 

[thedavidwilson]

The Mass is unbloody. The Mass is like the Last Supper in that both presented the sacrifice of Calvary. No one here is calling it a “party” or a “get together with your neighbors”.

What does that say about Catholics (and Orthodox) throughout the centuries who have received under both species? I do not agree with your blanket statement.

I would be willing to be it is primarily that people don’t know about the doctrine of concomitance – they do not know that Jesus Christ is entirely present under the smallest recognizable particle of the consecrated Host and a single drop of the consecrated wine. It’s possible (but less likely, in my opinion) that they think of themselves as a “ministerial” priest. I don’t think it necessarily follows that they don’t understand the nature of the Mass – they could understand it as the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary and just not understand concomitance.

That is why education (catechesis) is the answer… or, if that fails, a change in discipline again (withholding the Chalice from the laity).

I did not say the Mass is the bloody sacrifice. I said we are PRESENT at the Bloody sacrifice. The Mass Re-Presents the bloody sacrafice on calvary.

It is a common belief amoung American Catholics in NO chruches that the Mass is the Last Supper which is not correct. If you go to a garden variety Catholic Church take a poll.

If you attend a NO parish try suggesting the stopping the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers (which should only be used in extreme circumstances) or to cease dispensing the Blood of Christ. I think you will have an uproar because the people feel they have a right to “participate” in the Mass. The Active Participation suggested in VII has become Activist Particpation.

Yes a great deal of education needs to be done, perhaps starting with some of our Bishops. It was mentionef above that the wine was withheld due to an error in believing that you need the bread and wine to receive the body and blood of Christ. Like you mention perhaps it is time to go back to it.

Does the wine consist of the Body AND Blood of Christ like the Bread specie or jis it just the blood?

 

[thedavidwilson]

Did Catholics receive under both species before Trent?

Also, I do believe reception of both species is allowed or common at TLM wedding Masses, but I defer to the experts.

I question the trend to receive both species. It did not become common with Vatican II, but only more recently, at least in my experience.

There are practical reasons to not offer both species. You need fewer EMHCs and you do not run the risk of spillage.

I only receive the bread specie at my Trid wedding.

 

[Cluny]

What I don’t understand is why you would go to such an extreme as excluding laity from the wine, just because some might have had a misconception about the theology of the Eucharist.

Did Catholics receive under both species before Trent?

Yes. Eastern Catholics (as well as Orthodox) receive in both Species and always have for centuries.

The Latin Church is not the whole of the Catholic Church, nor even the standard.

It is a common belief amoung American Catholics in NO chruches that the Mass is the Last Supper which is not correct.

The actual prayers of the EF do not say actually say this, tho this has been the classic devotional approach to it.

The Eastern approaches are quite different. The Byzantine tradition emphasizes the Resurrection. The Syriac underliens the eschatological meanings.

 

[japhy]

I said we are PRESENT at the Bloody sacrifice.

I just worry that such language can lead to confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There was a lengthy thread about this concept a couple months ago: are we present at the Crucifixion or at the Sacrifice of Calvary? The Apostles at the Last Supper were mystically present at the Sacrifice of Calvary (which had not yet taken place), just as we are mystically present.

Anyway.

If you attend a NO parish try suggesting the stopping the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers (which should only be used in extreme circumstances) or to cease dispensing the Blood of Christ. I think you will have an uproar because the people feel they have a right to “participate” in the Mass. The Active Participation suggested in VII has become Activist Particpation.

(They’re properly called extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.) I agree with your assessment. Communion under both kinds is the daily norm in my diocese, making EMHCs not so extraordinary. There’s a misunderstanding about what “participation” in the liturgy means, and it’s held by the laity because it’s taught by the clergy.

Does the wine consist of the Body AND Blood of Christ like the Bread specie or jis it just the blood?

The consecrated wine is identical in substance to the consecrated bread: every drop of the Precious Blood contains the whole Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

 

[Hesychios]

The consecrated wine is identical in substance to the consecrated bread: every drop of the Precious Blood contains the whole Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

I am not arguing with you here, I suppose I can agree with you. I just want to point out that this is a peculiarly Latin take on the subject. The rest of the world did not consider whether or not one of the Sacred Species or another contains the whole Jesus. They simply obeyed His divine command and always distributed both. It is really odd that the whole debate did not raise a peep in the East but tore at the very fibre of the Western church.

I wonder if some of the supposed western ‘heretics’ who insisted in receiving in both kinds were not just misunderstood? Perhaps some of them merely had an eastern outlook on the Holy Eucharist? A lot of this noise came out of Bohemia, which was originally evangelized by Ss Cyril and Methodios from Greece.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

The Blood was reserved from the laity to combat a heresy which taught that one only received all of Christ if he received under both species.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

I know that you are correct in your explanation. That is the correct textbook response.

But really, that is pretty poor reasoning. It is hard to believe the hierarchy went to that extreme, yet we know that is exactly what they did.

I am just musing over the subject…

Why would that debate start anyway? If the people were receiving both kinds all along I don’t see why they would start debating about whether Jesus was fully present in one or the other or both! It appears more likely to me that the bishops started to restrict the cup first, and then people likely objected to this change in the traditional form with various reasonings, some of which would not be valid arguments.

But what would motivate the bishops to restrict the cup in the first place?

Perhaps behind it all was the convenience of distributing just the stack of dry Hosts, or the cost savings, or fear of spreading disease…