After the 12th century, the Roman Catholic church withheld the cup from the laity. why?


That heresy persists today. Many poorly-catechized Catholics believe that unless they receive under both species, they haven’t received the full Christ.


Which is why I also think it’s time to withhold the Cup yet again.


An example (the Council of Lambeth, 1281) is illustrated in this thread.


Right… 'cause it’s far better to scandalize the poorly catechized than it is to properly teach them. :rolleyes:


It worked the last time. No one doubted that the Host with Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under one species. Now that the Cup is offered, the doubts are springing up again.

Sure, withhold the cup. Will it confuse the faithful? Yes. With it scandalize them? No, because scandal is teaching one to sin, which Communion under one species does not do. But the parish can then open up the catechesis as to why the Cup is being withheld.


No one? You mean “other than Luther, who (by the way), through his teachings (which included the teaching that ‘the Church invalidly withheld the Precious Blood’), led millions away from the Church”? Yeah, I’d categorize that firmly in the ‘success’ column… :wink:

Now that the Cup is offered, the doubts are springing up again.

Correlation does not imply causation. Let’s see what else I can correlate: “Now that the Cup is offered, Soviet Communism has been overthrown.” “Now that the Cup is offered, no more World Wars have occurred.” “Now that the Cup is offered, no additional Councils have taken place.” Yes, I’m being facetious, but the point is this: the lack of knowledge about the Eucharist is based on poor catechesis, not on the presence of the distribution under both species.

Sure, withhold the cup. … But the parish can then open up the catechesis as to why the Cup is being withheld.

So: we could withhold the cup, and then catechize properly… or we could continue to offer the cup and catechize properly. I’m failing to see what withholding the cup accomplishes, vis-a-vis catechesis.


Fine fine.


That’s why people should be kneeling at the communion rail and the paten should be under the person’s chin when they are receiving. (although I heard that the paten is actually relatively new, 100 years old or so) - they used to have a cloth that coverered the rail to catch the bits of the host that might fall.

But all these EM’s dispensing the hosts and the blood willy-nilly these days. I’m not surprised these mishaps happen. I truly believe communion should be served at the rail, by mouth, and only by the priest.


I think you are misreading the text

Christ gave that command to the Apostles, who had received the Grace of Holy Orders. That command came at the same time Christ gave the Apostles the command to 'Do this in memory of me", to conduct the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The command to celebrate Mass is thus binding on the Sacerdotal Priesthood, as well as the command to Take both forms.

We, the laity, are not to take the command to “Do this in memory of me” as a command to celebrate Mass, we cannot.

Likewise we were not given the command to “Take and eat…Take and drink”. We, as the laity RECIEVE Holy Communion as a gift, we do not TAKE it at all.

We see that at Mass, a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating, takes the Blessed Sacrament themselves, and always both species. They do not receive it from the hands of another.

And, as a gift, the laity can receive in either form alone, or together, as the Church chooses to offer it to us.

We receive it from the hands of another, and do not take from the paten as do the priests.

So yes, the Church reads the same Bible that you do, but we look to the Church for the correct interpretation. The Church, we know, cannot violate a command of Christ as does not do so when it offers only a single species.


Even worse, I have been encountering a growing number of Catholics who lack the Church’s understanding of concomitance.

They think of the species of wine as being the Blood to the exclusion of the Body, and of species of bread as being ‘Body’ to the exclusion of Blood.

As often as I can, I go to a noon Mass near work. It is not my home parish.

Chatting with one lady, an EMHC, she asked why I never received the Blood. I answered that I did, at just about every Mass. She replied that she often held the chalice and never saw me receive from it. I replied that was immaterial, as I received the Blood present in the Host.

It took the involvement of the priest to get her to understand that, yes I received the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ with the reception of a single species.

And even then, I think the acceptance was grudging.


Many times I have heard people call into either Catholic Answers Live or another Catholic radio show and complain because they attended Mass at a church that did not offer both thinking they had been deprived.


=fabio rocha;10686996]1.Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times." (Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 176)
2.“Popes Leo & Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice.” (Catholic Dictionary, 202)
3.Communion “under both kinds … abolished in 1416, by the Council of Constance” (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, I, 111)

After the 12th century, the Roman Catholic church withheld the cup from the laity. why?

ABUSES and fear of further abuses. ALSO; it is in a sense redundant. The ENTIRE CHRIST is in the sacred Host alone and any part of the Host; this is also true of the Consecrated Wine; so it’s a judgment call.

The World Wide norn remains just the sacred Host.

God Bless you,



Why would anyone withhold the Cup, when something as simple as catechesis would resolve the problem?


Perhaps I did not make myself clear - the Hosts I saw dropped were from those at a communion rail with a paten under their chin and all occurred prior to the introduction of the OF. Not from EM’s “dispensing the Hosts and Blood willy-nilly”.

And by the way, I have never seen any “willy-nilly”; what I have seen is a real sense of reverence.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion; but in the meanwhile, using language that effectively denigrates the distribution of Communion is not going to win any points.


I was never convinced by this condemnation of a ‘heresy’ called Utraquism. The Lord did not say “do this in remembrance of me” only after having taken bread & blessed it, but after He had also taken wine and blessed it. The completion is clearly there in the text, and all the early Fathers spoke in great measure about receiving from the precious chalice of the Blood of Christ.

It seems to me that the actual heresy would be to claim that the fullness of Communion is in each species separately, despite the very clear words from the Lord that one is His Body and one is His Blood. This bizarre marriage of blood & body in Host & in chalice is a result of scholastic tinkering. Thank God for the Church, however, which may reign in my opinion if it is wrong.


A question that has gone through my mind when I hear this topic come up from time to time, would withholding the Bread serve the same reverse purpose? Why was the Chalice selected to be withheld at the time? Were there theological reasons, merely an accesibility choice (bread is seemingly far simpler to produce), or some other deciding factor?


One of the great things about the Catholic Church is that it’s not up to us to be “convinced” by anything. Whether we believe Utraquism was indeed a heresy is unimportant. The fact that the Catholic Church teaches it is heresy is all that should concern us, and the arguments they use are amazingly convincing.

I might disagree with the Church on any number of issues, but my opinion means nothing in the eyes of the Church.


For the western Church, infants were communed with wine only and adults with both, then after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that defined transubstantiation, infants began to be excluded because bread only was adopted. The wine was received either via fistula or by intinction. Due to the doctrine of Concomittance the Whole Christ is contained under one species making the reception of both unnecessary.

(The Ethiopian Church uses unleavened bread with intinction, and the following source states, intinction was popular with the Greek people.)

The laity was afraid of misuse of the Blood: “A withdrawal of the cup instigated by the clergy did not take place. The abandonment of the cup was rather a layman’s practice due to fear of dishonoring the sacrament by misuse of the wine. Such anxiety had manifested itself as early as the seventh century in the adoption of the Greek custom of dipping the bread in the wine-a practice repeatedly disapproved by ecclesiastical authority, but supported by lay sentiment. By the twelfth century the laity were avoiding the use of the wine altogether, apparently first in England. By the time of Aquinas [1224-1274] lay communion in the bread alone had become prevalent.”
Ref: Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 99, 274.

This ties in with the order of Christian Initiation.

  1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist.

  2. In the Middle Ages (5th-13th centuries) Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later Confirmation by the bishop in very early childhood.

  3. During the thirteenth to sixteenth century, infant Baptism was the norm but Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (seven), with First Eucharist between the ages of ten and fourteen.

  4. By the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century infant baptism was the norm, Confirmation was between seven and fifteen years, followed by First Eucharist.

  5. In modern times infant baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation between seven and eighteen became common.

  6. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so it is not a full restoration to before the fifth century.

  7. BCE

  8. BE…C

  9. B…C…E

  10. B…CE

  11. B…E…C

  12. B…CE…ur_Spirit.html




Your error is in assuming that Christ stanted “This is my Body alone” and “This is my Blood without the Body”

Christ said neither.

The separation of Body and Blood is death, but we receive the Risen Christ, whose Blood flows through the veins of His Body.

In your theology, we receive the dead Christ, that Death in the Victor. The Church teaches otherwise.

That is why the Church teaches that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present, because they cannot be separated in the Risen Christ.

Yes, it might be Scholastic, but the Scholastics correctly taught of the Resurrection., You seem to deny it.

Given the choice, I’ll take Scholastic though any day.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit