T. More said:3Lov: Great question. Withholding the wine from the laity is a liturgical corruption. It is also interesting to me that John 6:53, a passage commonly used by Catholics (rightly) for the necessity of the Lord’s Supper, says in part: " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Note the reuirement of “drinking” (wine) as well as eating (bread).
It was the practice of the early church for the laity to communicate through both wine and bread. Here is an excerpt from Justin Martyr’s First Apology, which describes second century worship and mentions the wine:
Note that wine is given to all present, as is the bread. This is the norm Protestant, and Anglican churches. I am pretty sure it is also the practice of Eastern Orthodox churches, but am not certain. Returning the cup to the laity was one reform of the Protestant Reformation, which sought to restore biblical and patristic practices.
T. More
Sorry, wrong awnser. The reformation did not seek to restore, the "reformations" goal was to hand the local churches over to local monarchs to rid themselves of any oversight by Rome.I have not seen what exactly motivated the change, but my research indicates that the practices of providing both wine and bread to the laity was practiced universally for at least 1,000 years. So was weekly communion. During the late middle ages the practice changes and only bread was given and only annually. Anyway, I think that 3Lov’s fiance has a good question.
Again wrong awnser, your research is faulty. Communion once a year was never the norm in the Latin Rite, yes, before Pope St Pius X, many only took communion once a month, and in some countries, this is still the practice that people do not recieve communion unless after going to confession. Yes, there were some dioceses in Westren Europe that were impacted by the Jansinist heresy, but this was by no means t he universal church.(emphasis mine)As to the text which seems to oblige Communion under both forms, it is a question of interpretation. The Catholic Church is the only authoritative interpreter of Christ’s doctrine; to none other has this power been granted. Omitting here the many meanings Catholic theologians attribute to the verse, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John, vi, 54), it should be noted that the Catholic Church has officially declared that these words do not make Communion under both forms obligatory (Denzinger-Bannwart, 930). This conclusion is substantiated by Scripture: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world” (John, vi, 52). It is true that some theologians believe more grace is conferred by Communion under both forms. But this question is speculative, not practical. It does not affect the Church’s dogma, nor is this opinion by any means common to all Catholic theologians.
As for communion once a year, for the most part that did not happen in the Latin rite, except in areas that were impacted by the Jansinist heresy.The “reformation” was a disaster for Europe. I wont denay the Catholic church had problems with errant bishops and issues of doctrine and even liturgy in the 1400s-1500s period, hance the Council of Trent. That said, the “reformation” in the end was about grabbing power. Again, refraining from communion was caused by the Jansinist heresyJNB: There are conflicting sources on the prevelance of the 1/yr communion. In any event, I would be pleased if frequent communion was the norm at the time. Whatever you think of the Reformation, 1/yr communion was one of many liturgical abuses that were condemned and resisted. If the practice was not common, that aspect of of the period makes no sense historically. This is entirely apart from which theological position is correct.
Thank you!!!..I found this to be VERY interesting and the best answer to 3Lov’s question.I found a detailed history of this at New Advent (newadvent.org). Their online Catholic Encyclopedia has a lengthy article for Ultraquism (the belief that one must receive both the consecrated bread *and *wine) and why this belief is rejected by the Church. The article can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm
JNB: I am not arguing about whether the Reformation was good or bad. I am just observing that infrequent communion was a real problem in the Western Church. Communion for the laity through bread only still is a problem.