Why was the Precious Blood denied to the laity for centuries?

[boomerang]

I have not been able to find a clear, detailed answer to this question. Starting in the 13 century, wine was generally denied to the laity until after Vatican II. Reasons given in the few articles I could find hint at desecration of the Precious Blood, drunkenness, and transmission of plague germs. Also, this was the era when communion on the tongue was started, presumably to avoid desecration. I know the Church considers Christ to be fully present in both species, but this does not explain this change in practice.

Are there any council documents online that detail exactly why wine was denied? Something that gives specific reasons and examples is what I’m looking for. Thanks!

 

[Vico]

I have not been able to find a clear, detailed answer to this question. Starting in the 13 century, wine was generally denied to the laity until after Vatican II. Reasons given in the few articles I could find hint at desecration of the Precious Blood, drunkenness, and transmission of plague germs. Also, this was the era when communion on the tongue was started, presumably to avoid desecration. I know the Church considers Christ to be fully present in both species, but this does not explain this change in practice.

Are there any council documents online that detail exactly why wine was denied? Something that gives specific reasons and examples is what I’m looking for. Thanks!

Infants were excluded from Latin communion when bread only began to be used (1215 A.D., Fourth Lateran Council, transubstantiation defined).* The people were afraid of spilling the blood of Christ and infants could not receive (eat) the body of Christ (bread).*

An interesting book is: Ages of initiation: the first two Christian millennia, by Paul Turner, pp. 28-33 (chapter 8 is on the age of discretion 1215-1519 A.D.).

Something significant happened in the Latin Church that changed their sacramental discipline: confession and communion was less frequent. So as a result annual confession and communion was legislated at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.). The age of discretion was the time at which annual communion was first required, but infant communion was not prohibited by the Council. In practice, first communion was delayed till ages 10-12 with confession preceding it. Confirmation was promoted before communion, as early as at baptism, when the bishop was present, otherwise the bishops would tour the diocese and confirm those that were baptized, so some received it as adults. The Synod of Cologne (1280 A.D.) first urged confirmation at or after age 7. It *gradually *became expected to receive catechesis before first communion. Three of the earliest reasons (given in the Paul Turner book, and detailed below) show that the change was gradual. Meanwhile, the eastern churches continued to follow the original tradition of infant communion.

The reasons given in the book for disappearance of infant communion:

1. 
   *] Since infants do not need communion for salvation, and the annual communion was only required by the Church (Lateran IV 1215) at or after the age of discretion, people began to wait.
   *] St. Thomas Aquinas (lived 1225-1274) expressed concern that the precious blood would be spilled.
   *] Pope Leo X (Pope: 1513-1521) prohibited infants from receiving, to resolve an issue in Bohemia.
   
   Also, chapter 7 of the book states that during the period of 965 A.D. and 1215 A.D. were a time of relative prosperity and cultural revival in the west along with Pope Gregory VII’s (Pope: 1073-1085 A.D.) declarations of central papal authority, allowed practical adjustment of the sacramental rites. In contrast, the Crusades during 1095 A.D. to 1270 A.D. were very hard on the east.

 

[Brendan]

It was primarily in response to the Utraquist heresy, which, among other things, stated that the faithful had a right and duty to receive both species.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-you-an-utraquist

But even by then, it had been, in practice, in decline in the Western Church.

Mostly for the reason you stated, that the faithful were actually being denied nothing. There was, and even is, no need to offer both species

They received the Precious Blood in the same way that they received the Body, under the species of bread.

 

[boomerang]

St. Thomas Aquinas (lived 1225-1274) expressed concern that the precious blood would be spilled.

So the fear of spilling the Precious Blood was the main reason for denying wine at communion?

 

[boomerang]

It was primarily in response to the Utraquist heresy, which, among other things, stated that the faithful had a right and duty to receive both species.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-you-an-utraquist

But even by then, it had been, in practice, in decline in the Western Church.

Mostly for the reason you stated, that the faithful were actually being denied nothing. There was, and even is, no need to offer both species

They received the Precious Blood in the same way that they received the Body, under the species of bread.

My understanding is that the Utraquist revolt was in response to the laity not being able to receive under both species. So my question is: what were the reasons given by the Church for only offering bread and not wine until Vatican II? I understand that before the 13th century, Catholics received both species.

 

[Brendan]

My understanding is that the Utraquist revolt was in response to the laity not being able to receive under both species. So my question is: what were the reasons given by the Church for only offering bread and not wine until Vatican II? I understand that before the 13th century, Catholics received both species.

No, the Utraqist heresy was in regards to a requirement to receive both species, along with a suspension of the requirements that the Church had placed on Holy Communion ( such as being in a State of Grace)

In regards to why, that was the second part of my response. There was no reason to offer it

In addition, it was never actually prohibited in the last few centuries. It just rarely done

It was customary, for example, for the married couple to receive both species at the nuptial Mass.

My parents both received their First Holy Communions under both species ( intincted) in Ireland in the 1920’s and 30’s

So your statement on Vatican II somehow allowing this is factually incorrect. It was offered, just rarely. And even then, the point remains, there simply wasn’t a theological need to do so.

 

[Dorothy]

It is required, of course, that the priest who celebrates Mass, consecrates both the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Whether we receive just the consecrated bread alone, or a drop of the consecrated wine we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Vico]

So the fear of spilling the Precious Blood was the main reason for denying wine at communion?

Yes, based on my reading, the fear became acute at the time that transubstantiation was defined.

Not allowed from 1415 to 1594 and 1621 to 1965, with indults from 1594 to 1621, and also from 1963.

Church prohibited the chalice to the laity from the Council of Constance in 1415, so that Communion in the form of bread alone was the law.

But later in 1564., Pope Pius IV granted indults giving permission allowing Communion under both kinds.

That changed again 1621, when those indults were revoked.

Finally is was 1965 that Communion under both kinds was reconsidered as a valid Latin Catholic practice. Then the Rite for Distributing Communion Under Both Kinds was promulgated in 1965.The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.
…
The Holy Father considered the two rites [Note: the first was concelebration, the second is both kinds] very carefully, … He ordered it to be published and to be observed by everybody from Holy Thursday, 16 April, 1965, and to be accurately transcribed into the Pontifical and Missal.
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/333

 

[TimothyH]

We receive Jesus under either species and are not deprived of any grace when we receive under only one species. It does not follow however, that there is no theological reason for it to be given under both species.

The sacraments use signs to convey sacred realities…

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father. Read more at usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

The Church calls reception under both species a “more fitting participation in his [Christ’s] memorial of eternal life.” That is why the Church brought it back. Christ commanded “take and eat” and 'take and drink." That is what we should do.

-Tim-

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Each species is the whole Christ. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Communion under Both Kinds
newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

 

[TimothyH]

Each species is the whole Christ. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Communion under Both Kinds
newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Yes, It is Jesus under both species but two people posted that there was no reason for it to be given to the laity under both kinds and that simply isn’t correct. There is a very good reason.

It is a fuller sign under both species. The Eucharistic banquet is made more evident to our senses under both species. It reflects more fully the realities which the liturgy signifies - Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension and the supper of the lamb in which we participate.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

-Tim-

 

[boomerang]

Yes, based on my reading, the fear became acute at the time that transubstantiation was defined.

Not allowed from 1415 to 1594 and 1621 to 1965, with indults from 1594 to 1621, and also from 1963.

Church prohibited the chalice to the laity from the Council of Constance in 1415, so that Communion in the form of bread alone was the law.

But later in 1564., Pope Pius IV granted indults giving permission allowing Communion under both kinds.

That changed again 1621, when those indults were revoked.

Finally is was 1965 that Communion under both kinds was reconsidered as a valid Latin Catholic practice. Then the Rite for Distributing Communion Under Both Kinds was promulgated in 1965.The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.
…
The Holy Father considered the two rites [Note: the first was concelebration, the second is both kinds] very carefully, … He ordered it to be published and to be observed by everybody from Holy Thursday, 16 April, 1965, and to be accurately transcribed into the Pontifical and Missal.
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/333

Thanks for those details. The picture is getting a little clearer…

 

[boomerang]

Yes, It is Jesus under both species but two people posted that there was no reason for it to be given to the laity under both kinds and that simply isn’t correct. There is a very good reason.

It is a fuller sign under both species. The Eucharistic banquet is made more evident to our senses under both species. It reflects more fully the realities which the liturgy signifies - Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension and the supper of the lamb in which we participate.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

-Tim-

Yes, I think it is better to receive both kinds. In the early church it was so, but the practice waned at some point and then was banned entirely at the Council of Constance.
So my original question was: Why was it banned? So far we’ve determined there was fear of spillage, which seems rather a flimsy reason, but maybe that was it. There has to be other reasons, though.

 

[boomerang]

From EWTN:

"So it was that the Council of Constance, in its 13th Session on 15 Jun 1415, totally rejected the need to reintroduce the practice of giving the chalice as well as the bread to the laity (Communion under both species), and prohibited it…

So the wine was not given even before the Council of Constance. Why?

From the Council of Constance June 15, 1415:

“…although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread.”

More from the Council of Constance:

"That no priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine.

This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church’s fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church’s censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance."

I’m just interested in the reasoning to deny the blood to communicants. So far - fear of spillage. I don’t think that’s the whole story.

 

[brian_custer]

wine is expensive. unleavened hosts are not

both/either are the body blood soul & divinity of Jesus when they have been consecrated by the priest at Mass

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Yes, It is Jesus under both species but two people posted that there was no reason for it to be given to the laity under both kinds and that simply isn’t correct. There is a very good reason.

It is a fuller sign under both species. The Eucharistic banquet is made more evident to our senses under both species. It reflects more fully the realities which the liturgy signifies - Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension and the supper of the lamb in which we participate.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

-Tim-

I think the principle reason it was altered was to reinforce against heretics that each species was the whole Christ. Despite this, that fuller sign is always present at every Mass because the priest consumes both species. But i understand your position, I just think it implies too strongly that something was lacking in the previous norm. I personally think the OF should have just adopted the silver spoon instead

 

[Vico]

**USCCB: Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds**

1. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the  Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in  fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and  drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both  kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic  liturgical practice.

2. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass  continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of  distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone  began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor  speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church.[28](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/#footnote-26299-28)  This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed  that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed  to the faithful.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[TimothyH]

I think the principle reason it was altered was to reinforce against heretics that each species was the whole Christ. Despite this, that fuller sign is always present at every Mass because the priest consumes both species. But i understand your position, I just think it implies too strongly that something was lacking in the previous norm. I personally think the OF should have just adopted the silver spoon instead

This isn’t my personal opinion.

All of what I have stated comes from the Church and is discussed clearly at the USCCB page which I have linked to twice already. Vico also linked to that page. That page clearly states that nothing is lacking when we receive under one species.

The fuller sign is present at Mass if the priest receives under both species but only to the priest’s senses, If I don’t receive under both species then the fuller sign is not present to my senses.

I don’t know why it was done away with in the first place and am sorry to have hijacked the OP’s thread. I just wanted to correct the error which states that there is no reason for both species. I’ve done so three times and so will withdraw out of respect for the OP with nothing to add to the topic. I’d be happy to continue this topic if another thread is started.

-Tim-

 

[irenaeuslyons]

This isn’t my personal opinion.
All of what I have stated comes from the Church and is discussed clearly at the USCCB page which I have linked to twice already. Vico also linked to that page. That page clearly states that nothing is lacking when we receive under one species.

Right, and i have clearly stated the same truth. It is the whole Christ under either species.

The fuller sign is present at Mass if the priest receives under both species but only to the priest’s senses, If I don’t receive under both species then the fuller sign is not present to my senses.

Here is the problem i am driving at. When something is full, you cant say something else is fuller. It just doesn’t make sense. Something is full or not full. Do you see what i am saying? So the thinly veiled implication is that the previous norm (of one species) was not full. That is where I take exception.

These are outward visible signs, like all the sacraments truly are. The priest still receives the Body and Blood as an outward visible sign even if the faithful only receive one species.

Therefore, you cannot argue from the vantage point of private experience which is inaccessible to debate. These are visible and outward signs.

 

[MrSnaith]

TimothyH is correct on this point.

You’re right, full is full, but we’re talking about different senses of fullness here.

On the one hand, the full nature of Christ is communicated through either species. You don’t get “more” of Him by communicating under both species. In this sense, the sense of speaking of the fullness of Christ’s nature being received, yes, you’re right, full is full and receiving under both species is not “fuller.”

On the other hand, the communion bread and wine are distinct from Christ’s nature, and also distinct from each other. When speaking of the sensual experience of a banquet, you experience something different when eating than when drinking, and again something different when doing both. And the Eucharist is a banquet feast.

With respect to participating in the communion of Christ, the experience is full under either specie. With respect to participating in the sensual experience of His banquet feast, receiving both the bread and wine is a “more full” experience than receiving only one.

More specifically to the sensual experience, the consumption of bread is substantial. It provides for a sense of fullness and a satisfaction of hunger. But bread is not a joyful food. It’s practical. It serves the needs of the body, and this is a good thing, but it does not go beyond this. Wine, however, does go beyond just the needs of the body. It satisfies thirst, but it is a joyful drink. It enriches the feast, enlivens the celebration. Can you imagine going to a party at a friend’s house, and they served only loafs of bread? No spinach dip to spice it up either. Just plain old bread. Period. Sure you could still have a good time. You’re with friends after all. But the party would be missing a certain flavour.

Well, these signs that we have at Mass serve these different purposes. Christ didn’t choose bread and water, which would strictly serve our needs. He chose bread and wine, to satisfy our need, and to celebrate with us.

Yes, from a need standpoint, bread is all we need, both really (in our need for union with the whole Christ) as well as symbolically (in the sign of the bread). But there is something missing in the sensual experience of Communion if we receive under only one specie, and it is the celebratory sign of the Eucharist. Yes, the priest participates in it, so it’s present at every Mass, but the congregation may not (if you lived 100 years ago, for example). So the lay person’s experience might be incomplete, despite fully receiving our Lord.