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

[irenaeuslyons]

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 sensual experience of His banquet feast, receiving both the bread and wine is a “more full” experience than receiving only one…

The sensual experience is a private experience. Therefore it has no value in a debate because it is not accessible to everyone. You may think the sensual experience of wine is joy, an AA member may think it agonizing. This is why we teach about the outward signs of the sacraments because they are not private. They are public. This is why the Church does not compel us to believe private revelation. Its not accessible to us. It is for the same reason that private revelation cannot be used as an argument for one doctrine over another. So while I agree with you and Tim that there may be a more diverse private sensual experience by the faithful’s reception under both species, I don’t think it can be shown to have any uniform public value.

More specifically to the sensual experience, the consumption of bread is substantial.

No, the sensual experience is accidental, not substantial. In this case, the substance is Christ. The accidents are of bread/wine. But the accidents are subjective. If I receive a sip of the wine, and it is sweet, it is only sweet because I tasted it. It says something about me, not the wine.

 

[MrSnaith]

The sensual experience is a private experience. Therefore it has no value in a debate because it is not accessible to everyone. You may think the sensual experience of wine is joy, an AA member may think it agonizing. This is why we teach about the outward signs of the sacraments because they are not private. They are public. This is why the Church does not compel us to believe private revelation. Its not accessible to us. It is for the same reason that private revelation cannot be used as an argument for one doctrine over another. So while I agree with you and Tim that there may be a more diverse private sensual experience by the faithful’s reception under both species, I don’t think it can be shown to have any uniform public value.

Outliers don’t nullify the rule. You’re ignoring typology with respect to signs. You’re right that it isn’t necessary, but wrong is suggesting it doesn’t add anything at a public level.

No, the sensual experience is accidental, not substantial. In this case, the substance is Christ. The accidents are of bread/wine. But the accidents are subjective. If I receive a sip of the wine, and it is sweet, it is only sweet because I tasted it. It says something about me, not the wine.

I was unclear here. I wasn’t talking about substance with respect to the Eucharist. I was talking about substance with respect to food in general, and not in a technical sense, but in common parlance. Absolutely, the sensual experience is accidental with respect to the Eucharist. But as a sign, which is tied to the normal use of food, in a “bread and wine” mean, the bread is the substantive portion of the meal, while the wine is the “flavour” so to speak.

 

[boomerang]

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-

You’re not hijacking the thread, don’t worry about it. So what we’ve determined so far is that both species were the norm up to the middle ages, then bread alone became the norm. This seems to have sparked a rebellion amongst some of the laity who wanted both. The Council of Constance affirmed bread alone, and set it in stone. But there still isn’t a clear answer as to why the change in Holy Communion at that time.

 

[Vico]

You’re not hijacking the thread, don’t worry about it. So what we’ve determined so far is that both species were the norm up to the middle ages, then bread alone became the norm. This seems to have sparked a rebellion amongst some of the laity who wanted both. The Council of Constance affirmed bread alone, and set it in stone. But there still isn’t a clear answer as to why the change in Holy Communion at that time.

There are several reasons:

• Irreverence (includes spilling)
• Takes too long for communion
• Difficult reservation
• Hygiene - a deterrent to frequent communion
• Other similar reasons.

Catholic Encyclopedia, on Communion under Both Kinds:The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.
Toner, P. (1908). Communion under Both Kinds. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

 

[TimothyH]

I feel somewhat guilty for taking the thread off topic but would like to atone by offering the article Reception of the Eucharist Under Two Species by Mark E. Wedig, OP,

***In the twelfth century, however, the Latin Church undergoes a dramatic change in its practices concerning the chalice. This variance cannot be attributed to one factor. Yet an increased fixation on the host and reverence for its transformative ocular powers overshadows the place and importance of the eucharistic species of the wine. The eucharistic imagination shifts exclusively to the monstrance and away from the chalice. The pastoral practice of communicating the faithful with the host alone rapidly becomes customary. ***

The author is highly credentialed - an Associate Dean, chaired professor and a Dominican. The article is definitely worth reading, especially if we are able to put aside our pre-conceived ideas in order to learn from a real theologian.

-Tim-

 

[Vico]

I feel somewhat guilty for taking the thread off topic but would like to atone by offering the article Reception of the Eucharist Under Two Species by Mark E. Wedig, OP,***In the twelfth century, however, the Latin Church undergoes a dramatic change in its practices concerning the chalice. This variance cannot be attributed to one factor. Yet an increased fixation on the host and reverence for its transformative ocular powers overshadows the place and importance of the eucharistic species of the wine. The eucharistic imagination shifts exclusively to the monstrance and away from the chalice. The pastoral practice of communicating the faithful with the host alone rapidly becomes customary. ***The author is highly credentialed - an Associate Dean, chaired professor and a Dominican. The article is definitely worth reading, especially if we are able to put aside our pre-conceived ideas in order to learn from a real theologian.

-Tim-

It is not a contradiction but to mention it started even earlier.

According to USCCB it grew into custom in the eleventh century: “…late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow.”
It was recognized as custom in the twelveth century:“By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church.”
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[boomerang]

There are several reasons:

• Irreverence (includes spilling)
• Takes too long for communion
• Difficult reservation
• Hygiene - a deterrent to frequent communion
• Other similar reasons.

Catholic Encyclopedia, on Communion under Both Kinds:The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.
Toner, P. (1908). Communion under Both Kinds. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Yes, I can see those being significant factors in denying the chalice.

 

[boomerang]

I feel somewhat guilty for taking the thread off topic but would like to atone by offering the article Reception of the Eucharist Under Two Species by Mark E. Wedig, OP,

***In the twelfth century, however, the Latin Church undergoes a dramatic change in its practices concerning the chalice. This variance cannot be attributed to one factor. Yet an increased fixation on the host and reverence for its transformative ocular powers overshadows the place and importance of the eucharistic species of the wine. The eucharistic imagination shifts exclusively to the monstrance and away from the chalice. The pastoral practice of communicating the faithful with the host alone rapidly becomes customary. ***

The author is highly credentialed - an Associate Dean, chaired professor and a Dominican. The article is definitely worth reading, especially if we are able to put aside our pre-conceived ideas in order to learn from a real theologian.

-Tim-

Very good. This made me look up the history of Eucharistic Adoration. The Bread started becoming all-important at this time, surpassing the importance of the Wine. From Wikipedia:

The Franciscan archives credit Saint Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226) for starting Eucharistic Adoration in Italy. This process then spread from Umbria to other parts of Italy by the Franciscans…

The theological basis for the adoration was prepared in the 11th century by Pope Gregory VII, who was instrumental in affirming the tenet that Christ is present in the Blessed Host. In 1965, the confession of belief that Gregory imposed on Berengarius was quoted in Pope Paul VI’s historic encyclical Mysterium fidei:

“I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ”

**This profession of faith began a “Eucharistic Renaissance” in the churches of Europe. **As of the eleventh century in The Western Church, devotions began to focus on the Eucharistic gifts as the objective presence of the risen Christ and the Host began to be elevated during the liturgy for the purpose of adoration.

The lay practice of adoration formally began in Avignon, France on September 11, 1226. To celebrate and give thanks for the victory over the Albigensians in the later battles of the Albigensian Crusade, King Louis VIII asked that the sacrament be placed on display at the Chapel of the Holy Cross. The overwhelming number of adorers brought the local bishop, Pierre de Corbie, to suggest that the exposition be continued indefinitely. With the permission of Pope Honorius III, the idea was ratified and the adoration continued there practically uninterrupted until the chaos of the French Revolution halted it from 1792.

In the thirteenth century, the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted. From this point, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, both within and outside the Mass, became central in the piety of Western Christians.

So I see that the importance of the Bread surpassed the Blood in European culture in the middle ages. Combine that with the other reasons given:

Irreverence (includes spilling)
Takes too long for communion
Difficult reservation
Hygiene - a deterrent to frequent communion

The Church decides Bread is enough. But I wonder if there might have been some scandal involving the wine. Like perhaps people were selling it for profit. Also, the 1200’s and 1300’s was the biggest era for Eucharistic miracles. There were lots of them in these two centuries. I wonder if they played a role in the demise of the chalice?

 

[fred_conty]

Was this also the case in the Eastern Catholic Church?

 

[TimothyH]

Very good. This made me look up the history of Eucharistic Adoration. The Bread started becoming all-important at this time, surpassing the importance of the Wine. From Wikipedia:

So I see that the importance of the Bread surpassed the Blood in European culture in the middle ages. Combine that with the other reasons given:

Irreverence (includes spilling)
Takes too long for communion
Difficult reservation
Hygiene - a deterrent to frequent communion

The Church decides Bread is enough. But I wonder if there might have been some scandal involving the wine. Like perhaps people were selling it for profit. Also, the 1200’s and 1300’s was the biggest era for Eucharistic miracles. There were lots of them in these two centuries. I wonder if they played a role in the demise of the chalice?

You make a good point about hygiene and difficulty in reservation. There were no windows and flies were the reason why a pall was used over the chalice.

I can’t answer these questions but will point out that the Protestant reformers sought to restore the chalice for the laity. Father Edwig mentions Luther and Calvin by name in his article and these saw lack of chalice as a great injustice. Trent responded by stressing concomitance…

The Council of Trent reacted defensively to the Protestant case for the lay chalice and vehemently defended what it viewed as the ancient tradition of Communion sub una. Moreover, Trent underlined the eucharistic theology of concomitance, stressing that the Christ, whole and entire, as well as the true sacrament, are received under one kind. It also stated that those who receive in this manner are not deprived of any grace necessary for salvation.

This further entrenched and codified the Latin Churches use of bread only and I sometimes wonder if the Churches reaction to the reformation was not worse overall than it was better. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but we still suffer from some of the very zealous reactions to the Protestant reformation.

-Tim-

 

[jmr_1985]

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.

Timothy,
With respect, I would say that the USCCB is not infallible. After Vatican II, many in the Church thought that going back to pre-Trent and early Church customs was good ideas. I would argue that these reforms were a step in the wrong direction. While I normally do not attend the Extraordinary Form, when I have watched the Priest place the Host on the tongue of the kneeling communicant, it makes me sad for all that was lost. By trying to go in reverse and reclaim something from the past, as a Church, I would argue that we have lost so much respect for Our Lord in the Eucharist. Thus, while I have great respect for the USCCB as our bishops, their opinion that communion under both species is better does not automatically make it so. Of course, my opinion is not automatically correct either.

JMR

 

[RyanBlack]

Was this also the case in the Eastern Catholic Church?

What is posted here refers only to the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Constantinopolitan, or Byzantine, tradition. In the Byzantine tradition, the elements are mixed together in the chalice and distributed to the faithful from a spoon (except for the Melkites, who use intinction). I don’t believe that Catholics of the Eastern tradition have ever practiced communion in one kind only.

 

[Vico]

Was this also the case in the Eastern Catholic Church?

Melkites receive Holy Communion by the priest dipping the sacred Body in the chalice. This is called intinction. We have only done it this way for about 120 years. Previously, the sacred Body was placed in the chalice and the priest used a spoon to communicate the faithful, as is still done in the Slavic Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Intinction was first used in Aleppo, Syria due to a plague. It was remarked that more people approached to receive Holy Communion with the new method, so other Eparchies followed their example. It is good to note that the movement for frequent reception of Holy Communion started in the Melkite Church about 20 years before it started in Latin Church with Pope Saint Pius X.

melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/an-explanation-of-the-divine-liturgy

 

[Brendan]

I don’t believe that Catholics of the Eastern tradition have ever practiced communion in one kind only.

It is common at the Chaldean parishes I have been to, but I don’t know if that is a Latinization or a traditional practice.

 

[TimothyH]

Timothy,
With respect, I would say that the USCCB is not infallible. After Vatican II, many in the Church thought that going back to pre-Trent and early Church customs was good ideas. I would argue that these reforms were a step in the wrong direction. While I normally do not attend the Extraordinary Form, when I have watched the Priest place the Host on the tongue of the kneeling communicant, it makes me sad for all that was lost. By trying to go in reverse and reclaim something from the past, as a Church, I would argue that we have lost so much respect for Our Lord in the Eucharist. Thus, while I have great respect for the USCCB as our bishops, their opinion that communion under both species is better does not automatically make it so. Of course, my opinion is not automatically correct either.

JMR

I am a son of the Church. I make no apologies for this.

-Tim-

 

[RyanBlack]

It is common at the Chaldean parishes I have been to, but I don’t know if that is a Latinization or a traditional practice.

I don’t know either, but my remarks were limited to Eastern Catholics of the Constantinopolitan Rite, as my knowledge of other Eastern Catholics is very limited.

 

[JimG]

In my area, communion is still largely distributed under one species only, except on special occasions and for special liturgies.

We have some large parishes, some with up to 2500 or 3,000 families, which comes out to about 9 or 10 thousand individuals attending Mass on a weekend. Trying to have communion under both species is simply too unwieldy and too time consuming.

It is also difficult to estimate the amount of wine needing to be consecrated for a particular Mass, keeping in mind that all of the precious blood must be consumed—it cannot be reserved. The impracticalities of it overwhelm the advantages.

And I have been in parishes where communion is offered under both species, but most people elect to receive only the host. In those parishes were communion under both species is routine, I have noted an unwieldy number of EMHC’s and a lengthy pre-communion communion distribution for the EMHC’s which unduly draws out the Mass. And lengthening the Mass is no small matter when there are five or six Masses scheduled on a Sunday.

 

[TimothyH]

In my area, communion is still largely distributed under one species only, except on special occasions and for special liturgies.

We have some large parishes, some with up to 2500 or 3,000 families, which comes out to about 9 or 10 thousand individuals attending Mass on a weekend. Trying to have communion under both species is simply too unwieldy and too time consuming.

It is also difficult to estimate the amount of wine needing to be consecrated for a particular Mass, keeping in mind that all of the precious blood must be consumed—it cannot be reserved. The impracticalities of it overwhelm the advantages.

And I have been in parishes where communion is offered under both species, but most people elect to receive only the host. In those parishes were communion under both species is routine, I have noted an unwieldy number of EMHC’s and a lengthy pre-communion communion distribution for the EMHC’s which unduly draws out the Mass. And lengthening the Mass is no small matter when there are five or six Masses scheduled on a Sunday.

My parish has >3000 families and similar numbers in attendance. Over 1000 people can attend any given Mass. We have successfully resumed communion under both species.

Yes, it does take many extraordinary ministers but the whole Mass is typically done in 60 minutes. Our extraordinary ministers are highly trained, three hour training quarterly. They take it very seriously, know what is expected of them and do it very well. We also use emcees to make sure that the liturgies run smoothly.

A strong Pastor helps. Ours made it crystal clear in several homilies prior to restoring both species that he would not stand for profanation of the Precious Blood, that those who had requested it had better step up to the plate to help and that those in the pew must show proper reverence or respect. He made it clear that he was not going to have to answer to the Bishop for poor communion practices.

My point is not to discuss extraordinary ministers but simply to state that it can be done if the effort is put into it. The people have to want it and ask for it. Ours did to the point of donating all new chalices, ciboria, ablution cups, flagons, bowls, missal stand and a beautiful presider’s chalice studded with sapphires in honor of Our Lady.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know either, but my remarks were limited to Eastern Catholics of the Constantinopolitan Rite, as my knowledge of other Eastern Catholics is very limited.

Ah, sorry, I didn’t gather that from your statement. It seemed to refer to all Eastern Catholics

I live in an area with a large number of Chaldeans, three parishes are within a few miles of my house, and a Chaldean Cathedral is a few miles from where I work.

So that has been the most common experience for me.

 

[Brendan]

My parish has >3000 families and similar numbers in attendance. Over 1000 people can attend any given Mass. We have successfully resumed communion under both species. -

We have about 700 at our main Masses, with both species offered. The only Extraordinary Minister that is used is a Chaldean Sub-Deacon who assists at our parish.

In our parish, we the pastor and associate pastor offer Holy Communion intincted at the communion rail.

The Sub-Deacon goes about with a single species, offering Holy Communion to elderly and disabled who cannot come up to the rail and also to the ‘cry room’