Who receives the wine/blood? Contradiction?

[sarks]

I’m not a Catholic and have lots of (probably annoying) questions. For now I’ll ask a few questions about the history of the Eucharist.

1. Is it true that in the past lay members have been forbidden to receive the wine/blood?
2. Is it true that lay members may now receive it?
3. I’m pretty sure that these were not ex cathedra dogmas, but were they infallible?
4. If this has in fact changed, can someone explain how the changes came and why they were OK?
5. If lay people are not allowed the wine/blood, can someone explain why?

Thanks!

 

[joeganshert]

I’m not a Catholic and have lots of (probably annoying) questions. For now I’ll ask a few questions about the history of the Eucharist.

1. Is it true that in the past lay members have been forbidden to receive the wine/blood?
2. Is it true that lay members may now receive it?
3. I’m pretty sure that these were not ex cathedra dogmas, but were they infallible?
4. If this has in fact changed, can someone explain how the changes came and why they were OK?
5. If lay people are not allowed the wine/blood, can someone explain why?

Thanks!

I’m not sure how much I can help, but I’ll try. It is my understanding that the Eucharist is fully the body of Christ, containing the both the blood and flesh of Christ. There is no need to receive the blood because the you have already received it in the Eucharist. This is what I have been taught, if anybody notes any errors in my thoughts, please correct me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not a Catholic and have lots of (probably annoying) questions. For now I’ll ask a few questions about the history of the Eucharist.

1. Is it true that in the past lay members have been forbidden to receive the wine/blood?

Yes. At one point the Church felt that there was a misunderstanding about the fact that Jesus is fully present in the host and fully present in the chalice. Therefore, to combat this theological error, the Church offered only the host so that people would realize that they received Jesus fully present under one species.

1. Is it true that lay members may now receive it?

Yes. The decision was made that the previous error has been corrected, and most parishes offer both species to all communicants today.

1. I’m pretty sure that these were not ex cathedra dogmas, but were they infallible?

These were not doctrines; they were disciplines which the Church can change at any time.

1. If this has in fact changed, can someone explain how the changes came and why they were OK?

I hope I just did!

1. If lay people are not allowed the wine/blood, can someone explain why?

They are allowed to receive the cup as I just explained.

Hope this helps.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m not a Catholic and have lots of (probably annoying) questions. For now I’ll ask a few questions about the history of the Eucharist.

Thanks!

1. Is it true that in the past lay members have been forbidden to receive the wine/blood?
2. Yes
3. Is it true that lay members may now receive it?
4. Yes
5. I’m pretty sure that these were not ex cathedra dogmas, but were they infallible?

No, they were discipline issues.

1. If this has in fact changed, can someone explain how the changes came and why they were OK?
2. If lay people are not allowed the wine/blood, can someone explain why?

4&5. There was a heresy that held that one must receive under both forms in order to receive a complete Communion. The Church has always taught the receiving under either form was a complete Communion. Once this heresy became a non-issue Vatican II allowed each Bishop to determine if allowing the Chalice to the faithful, would be of Spiritual benefit to their faithful.

 

[LilyM]

Yes. The decision was made that the previous error has been corrected, and most parishes offer both species to all communicants today.

Not here in Oz - at least not at every Mass. I’m sure there are still some parishes that never offer the chalice to the laity.

But it is correct that these have always been disciplinary issues, much like the form of the Mass itself (used to be only available in the Latin language, now more usually wholly in local languages or in a mix of Latin and vernacular) and that priests now have at least the option to offer both species.

 

[jmcrae]

1. I’m pretty sure that these were not ex cathedra dogmas, but were they infallible?

The “how to” of receiving the Eucharist has never been a “teaching” (dogma) of the Church; rather, this falls under the category of discipline.

Disciplines of the Church change according to need, and vary from place to place. Many parishes now offer both the Host and the Blood to the people, but it isn’t required, and if the Pastor of that parish sees a need to withhold the Blood for any reason, he can do that.

For example, at my parish, there are a great many people who suffer from the disease of alcoholism. Because of this, our pastor, with the permission of the Bishop, has chosen to offer only the Host, except on special occasions, so as not to place a stumbling-block of temptation into the road of these recovering alcoholics - it is out of care for their well-being that he does this.

 

[sarks]

Thanks for all the helpful responses!

 

[Todd_Easton]

The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on this topic that goes into some of the history, entitled, “Communion Under Both Kinds.”