Communion Wine

[rgoffeney]

Until Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church reserved Communion Wine for priests. Even today, many Catholics still do not partake of both the bread AND the wine.

Can anybody tell me why this is? As a former Catholic, I’m ashamed to admit my ignorance, but I’m dying to know.

[CalMeacham]

It’s my understanding that in the early days of the Church, both laypersons and priests partook of a true meal, not merely bread and wine, although the bread and wine were the essential parts. I think that they cut back in order to emphasize the spiritual nature of the Mass, and to discourage “freeloaders”. With time the separation between priest and laity grew, until they were physically separated, and shared only the eucharistic bread. When I was an alter boy, there was a “communion rail” dividing the pews from the altar area.

Vatican II sought to break down these barriers and emphasize the communal sharing, so the altar got flipped around, the priest facing the people. The rails were taken out, and communion was given in both “species”.

I notice that there’s a lot less wine-drinking now than there used to be. It takes more time (and more wine). I suspect some people are afraid of spreading germs. And some of it may just be laziness. AFAIK, there’s no reason you can’t still receive both forms, as long as the Mass provides them.

[Dogface]

It should be noted that the Orthodox Church has always and continues to give Communion in both Species (bread and wine).

[rgoffeney]

Lutheran Churches give both forms, and I think always have. My guess is that this has always been a “protestant thing” - breaking down the barriers between the Priest/Minister and the congregants.

Every Lutheran Church I’ve attended also still had the altar rail, only they call it the “table” - harkening back to the old days of a true Eucharistic meal, I suppose.

[Dogface]

*Originally posted by rgoffeney *
Lutheran Churches give both forms, and I think always have. My guess is that this has always been a “protestant thing” - breaking down the barriers between the Priest/Minister and the congregants.

I would hardly call the Orthodox Church “protestant”. Orthodoxy sometimes has and sometimes does not have a rail. In old-fashioned Orthodox liturgies there are also no pews, so there are no ultra-regimented rows of people.

[Guinastasia]

He wasn’t, Dogface, was just suggesting what other denominations do.

[Chronos]

Vatican II sought to break down these barriers and emphasize the communal sharing, so the altar got flipped around, the priest facing the people. The rails were taken out, and communion was given in both “species”.

Many older churches still have the rails, but the eucharistic ministers (the people who serve communion) still come out front of the rail for communion. And I’ve been to churches where they only had the wine on special occasions: I think this was largely due to a shortage of eucharistic ministers. And the official theology is that receiving either species of the Eucharist is equivalent to receiving both, so if you only have the bread (or only have the wine), that still “counts”.

[Walloon]

The 1908 edition of the Catholic Encylcopedia, after acknowledging “that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds,” gives reasons both doctrinal and practical on why the chalice was now “strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.” The doctrinal: Apparently up to the 12th century, on occasions when the distribution of only one species was practical, the “body of Christ” was given. However, certain followers of the heretic John Hus insisted that Communion under both species was necessary for salvation. Since the Church held that Christ is present whole and entire under each species, the Church rejected the Hussite view in the Councils of Constance (1415) and Trent (1562).

[These counter reforms] were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament.

The practical:

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.

[Alan_Smithee]

Scholars think that in 1 Corinthians Paul is talking about a communal meal when he describes the Eucharist (and of course, there was the Last Supper), but it seems to have died out quickly. There are practical as well as spiritual difficulties with making a full meal part of a worship service, especially when you are gathering (as early Christians often did) in secrert. The earliest non-biblical accounts, from Justin Martyr and Hippolytus (A.D. 150 and 215, respectively) only mention bread and wine.

During the Middle Ages, changes in philosophy and theology gradually led to a “high” view of both the priesthood and the Eucharist. The Eucharist was seen less as a communal meal (even a token one) and more as a sacrifice performed by the priest (often with no congregation at all, save a deacon to assist the priest) which transformed the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This lead to great care being taken with the elements (as can still be seen in many churches today, including many Protestant churches). Since there was a high chance that the hoi poloi might spill some of the wine occasionally, and no great theological reason (seen at the time) for letting them have it anyway, it became common for the priest alone to drink it. This was also when the practice of placing the wafer directly on the tounge began, to prevent superstitious parisioners from pocketing it. Vatican II recognized that increased couthness amoung the masses made both practices unnecessary (though permissable), and reemphasised the importance of lay participation in the service.

For the record, IANAP, but I am a seminarian (Protestant).

[moriah]

From
Norms for the Distributionand Reception of Holy Communion
Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses
of the United States of America

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
17. 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.

18. 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) 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.

19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
    The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)

20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
    Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. (30)

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” (31)

21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” (33)

Peace.