Receiving the Wine


#1

I am presently debating the receiving of Communion.

I need some information on the The Council of Lambeth (1281). Did it restrict receiving the wine to the Priest only, if so why, and when was this lifted?

I am arguing that the fullness of God is in both species of Communion (bread and wine).


#2

I don't know anything about that council.

However, I do know the church teaches that God is fully and completely in both species equally.


#3

[quote="sulkow82, post:1, topic:321520"]
I am presently debating the receiving of Communion.

I need some information on the The Council of Lambeth (1281). Did it restrict receiving the wine to the Priest only, if so why, and when was this lifted?

I am arguing that the fullness of God is in both species of Communion (bread and wine).

[/quote]

The Lambeth Conference is an assembly of Anglican bishops, which has met periodically since the mid 19th century or so. Not Catholic.

If you are Catholic (in union with the Pope):

Catholics believe that we receive the fullness of grace by receiving either species of the Eucharist. We fully receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ whether we receive Him in the host, the Precious Blood, or both.

However, the Catechism teaches us that "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."


#4

It is no longer wine but the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
You can say we receive "under the species of wine" but it is no longer actual wine.


#5

I was an Eucharist minister at the beginning. I was told never to refuse anyone communion. I was also taught that the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood. It is my choice to only drink from the chalice on special days. Christmas Easter and holy days. I also took communion to shut ins. I met many wonderful people. This can be a great time for reflection.


#6

[quote="sulkow82, post:1, topic:321520"]
I am arguing that the fullness of God is in both species of Communion (bread and wine).

[/quote]

Of course it is.

The tradition is to receive only the consecrated host. This is also to avoid causing offense to Christ accidentally - it is very easy for this to occur with the Blood of Christ, and unlike the sacred Host, it can't be picked up - especially since the mandated communion paten is almost nowhere to be seen...

In the East, there is another most ancient tradition (incorporated after VII to the Roman Rite as well): intinction, in which the Bread of Life is dipped into the Chalice.

Receiving the Blood of Christ directly from the chalice is as far as I know a novelty for the lay faithful - especially since it used to be that the minor orders were required even to touch the Sacred Vessels. *However, *the Church allows it, and we can only bow in obedience. Furthermore - correct me if I'm wrong - I believe that to distribute Communion from the chalice requires a special permission from the Holy See, which was given to the US Episcopal Conference presumably by their own request - meaning this is not a standard, universal liturgical practice.

Also, we do not have an obligation to receive Communion under both species. I personally receive only the host, on the tongue, and kneeling.


#7

[quote="sulkow82, post:1, topic:321520"]
I need some information on the The Council of Lambeth (1281). Did it restrict receiving the wine to the Priest only, if so why, and when was this lifted?

[/quote]

The Council of Lambeth was not an Ecumenical Council of the Church, but a regional synod of bishops held to institute various reforms in the local church. As such, it had the power to establish disciplinary norms for the region (such as restriction of the cup to the clergy), but not to dictate dogmatic principles.

I have never done any great historical research into the question, but it is generally believed that these restrictions were put in place to combat the Utraquist heresy (google Utraquism), which holds that both species must be received in order to communicate fully. (Then again, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the false doctrine of Utraquism "was first promulgated in 1414," nearly a century and a half after the Council of Lambeth.) But it was always understood that these restrictions were a prudential, not a doctrinal, issue. That is why Session XXII, Chapter XI of the Council of Trent (1562) could contain the following remarks by the Council Fathers:
DECREE TOUCHING THE PETITION FOR THE CONCESSION OF THE CHALICE.

Moreover, whereas the same sacred and holy Synod, in the preceding Session, reserved unto another time, for an opportunity that might present itself, two articles to be examined and defined, which (articles) had been proposed on another occasion, but had not then been as yet discussed, to wit, whether the reasons by which the holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread, laymen and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to any one soever; and, whether, in that case, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation, or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions; and what are those conditions; It has now,--in Its desire that the salvation of those, on whose behalf the request is made, may be provided for in the best manner,--decreed, that the whole business be referred to our most holy lord, as by this present decree It doth refer it; who, of his singular prudence, will do that which he shall judge useful for the Christian commonweal, and salutary for those who ask for the use of the chalice.


#8

[quote="MarkThompson, post:7, topic:321520"]
The Council of Lambeth was not an Ecumenical Council of the Church, but a regional synod of bishops held to institute various reforms in the local church. As such, it had the power to establish disciplinary norms for the region (such as restriction of the cup to the clergy), but not to dictate dogmatic principles.

I have never done any great historical research into the question, but ......

[/quote]

Wow thank you MarkThompson for the history lesson! Interesting!


#9

There was a time when the Church restricted the chalice to only the priest. It was to fight the heresy that one needed both to receive all of Jesus.


#10

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