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

[PJM]

=boomerang;12787445]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!

There was a REAL fear of desecration of the sacred Species AND the ENTIRE Christ; Body, Soul and Divinity ARE contained in the Transubstanuated “Bread” Alone:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[JimG]

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’

If communion under both species is to be offered, I highly recommend that it be offered by intinction. That reduces the necessity for handling of chalices by the congregation, since the intincted host is placed on the tongue. And it reduces the amount of wine to be consecrated. Intinction is ideal for reception under both species. Realizing of course, that reception under both species is entirely optional, and the option to do it rests with the priest.

 

[Brendan]

If communion under both species is to be offered, I highly recommend that it be offered by intinction. That reduces the necessity for handling of chalices by the congregation, since the intincted host is placed on the tongue. And it reduces the amount of wine to be consecrated. Intinction is ideal for reception under both species. Realizing of course, that reception under both species is entirely optional, and the option to do it rests with the priest.

And, it reduces the need for additional ministers.

 

[Vico]

And, it reduces the need for additional ministers.

Take a look at an excerpt from Many Gifts, One Spirit: Sacramental and Pastoral Policies for the Archdiocese of Seattle:V. CARE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

EU 14. The practice of intinction by the dipping of the consecrated host into the precious blood by the communicant himself is not allowed.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) makes no allowance for either extraordinary ministers of Holy Eucharist, nor members of the worshipping assembly to intinct. However the General Instruction of the Roman Missal does allow priests and installed acolytes to perform this practice (see GIRM, 287). Given the practice of large numbers of extraordinary ministers assisting the clergy in so many parishes of the Archdiocese of Seattle it is not practical for intinction to be practiced. This is because the General Instruction requires a cleric or installed acolyte to physically intinct the consecrated host into the precious blood and does not allow communicants to do this themselves.

Eucharist.pdf can be found here: seattlearchdiocese.org/archdiocese/policies/contents.aspx

 

[JimG]

Take a look at an excerpt from Many Gifts, One Spirit: Sacramental and Pastoral Policies for the Archdiocese of Seattle:V. CARE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

EU 14. The practice of intinction by the dipping of the consecrated host into the precious blood by the communicant himself is not allowed.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) makes no allowance for either extraordinary ministers of Holy Eucharist, nor members of the worshipping assembly to intinct. However the General Instruction of the Roman Missal does allow priests and installed acolytes to perform this practice (see GIRM, 287). Given the practice of large numbers of extraordinary ministers assisting the clergy in so many parishes of the Archdiocese of Seattle it is not practical for intinction to be practiced. This is because the General Instruction requires a cleric or installed acolyte to physically intinct the consecrated host into the precious blood and does not allow communicants to do this themselves.

Eucharist.pdf can be found here: seattlearchdiocese.org/archdiocese/policies/contents.aspx

Certainly, self-intinction is not allowed. The priest intincts the host and places it on the communicant’s tongue. This remains the best practice for reception of communion under both species. Furthermore, it would allow for a reduction in the number of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. EMHC’s after all, ought to be extraordinary, not ordinary, as they have now unfortunately become.

 

[Brendan]

Take a look at an excerpt from Many Gifts, One Spirit: Sacramental and Pastoral Policies for the Archdiocese of Seattle:

V. CARE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
​

Yes, if you read my post above, you will note that Holy Communion is intincted by the priests of our parish.

Not even the Sub-Deacon ( an actual cleric) intincts, but only offers Holy Communion via one species​

 

[TimothyH]

Realizing of course, that reception under both species is entirely optional, and the option to do it rests with the priest.

There was a REAL fear of desecration of the sacred Species AND the ENTIRE Christ; Body, Soul and Divinity ARE contained in the Transubstanuated “Bread” Alone:thumbsup:

What you are both talking about is concomitance - that the entire Christ is present under both species. This is absolutely true but you are coming a bit late to the thread and we have discussed this previously.

It has already been put forth that communion under both species is unnecessary or optional or that there is no theological reason for it because of concomitance. This simply isn’t true. There are good theological reasons for reception under both species. Please see posts 9, 18 and 25. User MrSnaith explains it extremely well in post number 20.

Also see the USCCB website about communion under both kinds. It explains signs well. usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/.

Mark E Wedig OP also has an outstanding article on the topic at pastoralliturgy.org/resources/0705ReceptionEucharistTwoSpecies.php.

Incidentally to all, I emailed Dr. Wedig last night to thank him for the article. He replied with his warmest regards to everyone here at CAF.

I received under both species this evening and thought about and prayed for you all as I did. I was the extraordinary minister of communion tonight with the chalice. Not a drop spilled, I assure you all.

-Tim-

 

[JimG]

What you are both talking about is concomitance - that the entire Christ is present under both species. This is absolutely true but you are coming a bit late to the thread and we have discussed this previously.

It has already been put forth that communion under both species is unnecessary or optional or that there is no theological reason for it because of concomitance. This simply isn’t true. There are good theological reasons for reception under both species. Please see posts 9, 18 and 25. User MrSnaith explains it extremely well in post number 20.

Also see the USCCB website about communion under both kinds. It explains signs well. usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/.

Mark E Wedig OP also has an outstanding article on the topic at pastoralliturgy.org/resources/0705ReceptionEucharistTwoSpecies.php.

Incidentally to all, I emailed Dr. Wedig last night to thank him for the article. He replied with his warmest regards to everyone here at CAF.

I received under both species this evening and thought about and prayed for you all as I did. I was the extraordinary minister of communion tonight with the chalice. Not a drop spilled, I assure you all.

-Tim-

Well, the doctrine of concomitance is a given. It was not my intent to stress it any further. My point was simply that receiving under both species is optional. I understand that there are good reasons for receiving under both species. Certainly the congregation ought not to come to view the practice as a necessity.

My own view is that IF the distribution of communion under both species results in an unnecessary multiplication of EMHC’s then perhaps receiving only the host might be preferred for practical reasons.

The USCCB says in the article linked above: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

I have been in some parishes where the number of EMHC’s who approach the altar for communion prior to distributing communion to the congregation constitutes almost a lengthy rite in itself, delaying the start of communion.

I also think it’s good to remind everyone that our obligation is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. We are not obliged to receive communion at every Mass. Indeed, it is the seemingly widespread view that one must receive communion at every Mass that seems to lead to some discontent among those who are precluded from doing so, such as those in invalid marriages.

I do agree with the practice of communion under both species, as long as the practicalities are kept in mind.

 

[Vico]

Yes, if you read my post above, you will note that Holy Communion is intincted by the priests of our parish.

Not even the Sub-Deacon ( an actual cleric) intincts, but only offers Holy Communion via one species

I see you just have one priest for the 700 faithful. I believe that the Archbishop of Seattle was making the point that they would not be able to replace all the extraordinay ministers with priests and instituted acolytes, due to the large number. That is, it does not actually reduce the need.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Actually that is a good point. One who thinks about it too much may wonder if this is fuller, what is fullest?



But the Latin is signi pleniorem, a fuller sign. Will look for instance of fullest.

 

[Brendan]

I see you just have one priest for the 700 faithful. I believe that the Archbishop of Seattle was making the point that they would not be able to replace all the extraordinay ministers with priests and instituted acolytes, due to the large number. That is, it does not actually reduce the need.

Actually we have two who do the primary distribution. Then, at our largest Mass ( 9:30am) the Sub-Deacon will assist with one species. He is an Extraordinary Minister.

The main factor in the speed is the use of the communion rail. The intinction provides both species.

And I wonder why the Archbishop neglected to mention Deacons?

 

[Brendan]

It has already been put forth that communion under both species is unnecessary or optional or that there is no theological reason for it because of concomitance.

The first two parts, I think we can all agree is true.

For the third part of your statement, I don’t remember seeing anyone claiming that there was no theological reason, only that there was no theological need. Which is factually true.

There are certainly theological reasons for offering both species, as well as theological reasons for offering only a single species. The Eastern Churches also have theological reasons for offering intinction ( it is more complete sign of the reunion between the Body and Blood, and hence a sign that we are receiving the Resurrected Christ)

 

[TimothyH]

Well, the doctrine of concomitance is a given. It was not my intent to stress it any further. My point was simply that receiving under both species is optional. I understand that there are good reasons for receiving under both species. **Certainly the congregation ought not to come to view the practice as a necessity. **

My own view is that IF the distribution of communion under both species results in an unnecessary multiplication of EMHC’s then perhaps receiving only the host might be preferred for practical reasons.

The USCCB says in the article linked above: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

I have been in some parishes where the number of EMHC’s who approach the altar for communion prior to distributing communion to the congregation constitutes almost a lengthy rite in itself, delaying the start of communion.

I also think it’s good to remind everyone that our obligation is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. We are not obliged to receive communion at every Mass. Indeed, it is the seemingly widespread view that one must receive communion at every Mass that seems to lead to some discontent among those who are precluded from doing so, such as those in invalid marriages.

I do agree with the practice of communion under both species, as long as the practicalities are kept in mind.

Regarding the section in red/bold, again, I think you are stressing concomitance.

Receiving communion isn’t even a necessity except for once at Easter and EMHC’s are besides the point of both the topic and the linked article.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

The first two parts, I think we can all agree is true.

For the third part of your statement, I don’t remember seeing anyone claiming that there was no theological reason, only that there was no theological need. Which is factually true.

There are certainly theological reasons for offering both species, as well as theological reasons for offering only a single species. The Eastern Churches also have theological reasons for offering intinction ( it is more complete sign of the reunion between the Body and Blood, and hence a sign that we are receiving the Resurrected Christ)

You said there was no need in post 3 and no reason in post 6.

I would like to know the theological reason why communion should not be given to the faithful under both kinds. The sufficiency of only one kind is not a theological reason but rather the same reductionism many traditionalist complain about.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

…EMHC’s are besides the point of both the topic and the linked article.

I disagree. Whether you’re for employing EMHC’s or not, the USCCB guidelines apply to either method of receiving communion or both. If you have enough in the congregation who can receive only the Blood, then you have a case for employing the use of EMHC’s in the matter.

 

[Brendan]

You said there was no need in post 3 and no reason in post 6.

You are correct, I meant to imply need

I would like to know the theological reason why communion should not be given to the faithful under both kinds. -Tim-

It is a more complete sign of the doctrine of concommittence. To help the faithful in their understanding that Christ is present fully and completely in a single species.

sufficiency of only one kind is not a theological reason but rather the same reductionism many traditionalist complain about.

This is a false claim, as it carries an accusation that the Church, in previous centuries, limited the reception of the faithful sub una without theological reasons.

 

[PJM]

=TimothyH;12793263]What you are both talking about is concomitance - that the entire Christ is present under both species. This is absolutely true but you are coming a bit late to the thread and we have discussed this previously.

It has already been put forth that communion under both species is unnecessary or optional or that there is no theological reason for it because of concomitance. This simply isn’t true. There are good theological reasons for reception under both species. Please see posts 9, 18 and 25. User MrSnaith explains it extremely well in post number 20.

Also see the USCCB website about communion under both kinds. It explains signs well. usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/.

Mark E Wedig OP also has an outstanding article on the topic at pastoralliturgy.org/resources/0705ReceptionEucharistTwoSpecies.php.

Incidentally to all, I emailed Dr. Wedig last night to thank him for the article. He replied with his warmest regards to everyone here at CAF.

I received under both species this evening and thought about and prayed for you all as I did. I was the extraordinary minister of communion tonight with the chalice. Not a drop spilled, I assure you all.

-Tim-

While I’m in complete agreement with you post, it nevertheless does not negate my response to the OP

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[jilly4ski]

We could maybe look at historical factors. At that time, the Cathedral system and the great abbeys were/were being built. Large groups of pilgrims would travel to these holy sites to venerate relics or other things. It is possible that a large number of people upon completing their pilgrimage would then receive communion at their destination. Thus the pilgrimage site would run short, or not offer it at all given the numbers and expense of the sacred species of wine and the large number of people present and receiving. The pilgrims would then bring that practice back to their home parishes and those seeing a cost saving measure, it would have been easy to implement and spread, even before it was restricted for heresy fighting and fear of spills.

It would be interesting to look at documents regarding pilgrimage sites to see what was common practice.

 

[TimothyH]

You are correct, I meant to imply need

It is a more complete sign of the doctrine of concommittence. To help the faithful in their understanding that Christ is present fully and completely in a single species.

This is a false claim, as it carries an accusation that the Church, in previous centuries, limited the reception of the faithful sub una without theological reasons.

I think we are arguing semantics, whether certain reasons are theological or practical.

The Church clearly limited reception to only one kind for many reasons as was stated by Dr. Wedig in the article I posted. Many of these reasons were practical, as well as a growing emphasis on adoration of the host and general de-emphasis of the chalice.

My assertion is that making reception sub una a matter of policy or church law was, in part, an (over)reaction of Trent to Protestant claims that denying the chalice to the laity was a great injustice. Restoration of the chalice to the laity was one of the demands of Martin Luther. John Calvin made issue of it as well. Both were correct in that the chalice should not have been withheld except with good reason. Perhaps stressing concomitance was a good enough theological reason in 1520 but it isn’t in 2015.

In many ways we are still suffering from the reactions of the Church to the Protestant reformers. I am glad that we are moving away from that now and that I am part of the rebirth - restoration of the permanent diaconate, chalice for the laity, a renewed interest in scripture study by ordinary catholics, etc.

I realize that much of what I have written is opinion. I prefer clarity to agreement and understand the positions voiced by all here. I hope you all understand mine, even if we don’t agree.

I hope you are all at peace today. Me not so much and I could use your prayers that God’s will be done this afternoon, and that I have the patience and strength to accept whatever His will is.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan]

I realize that much of what I have written is opinion. I prefer clarity to agreement and understand the positions voiced by all here. I hope you all understand mine, even if we don’t agree.

I think we are in agreement far more than disagreement

I hope you are all at peace today. Me not so much and I could use your prayers that God’s will be done this afternoon, and that I have the patience and strength to accept whatever His will is.

-Tim-

Praying