The Cup in Communiongreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
At what date and by whom was the cup removed from the people during communion? At what date and by whom was the cup restored to the people? Thanks, Yours in Christ, John
-- John E. Briscoe, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 14, 1999
I can't answer your question directly about the dates without doing some looking. I do know the "Cup" was removed from liturgical practice because of a heresy stating that you only received Christ whole and complete if you received under both forms. The Church never taught this, you receive the Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity of Christ under either form. It returned to the laity around Vatican II. However before this with Calvin, Huss and Luther the issue of the common Communion cup was debated with the Council of Trent allowing this to be decided by the Pope in each case. So you see certain actions of the Church are used to correct errors.
Br. Rich S.F.O.
-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (email@example.com), April 15, 1999.
in the primitive church the ordinary way of receiveing communion was under both species, but a few exceptions were made for sick people and for children.
from the XIII century on in the West it became an exclusive practice to give communion under the species of bread alone.
This custom became law with the ecumenical council of Constanza in 1415.
Vatican II allowed anew the faithful to recieve communion under both species.
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 17, 1999.
Thanks for the information. Enrique, the informatin on the dates etc. is particulary useful in placing the events in church history. I do not completely understand the comment from Br. Rich S.F.O. when he states that the "Cup", i.e. recieving the wine, was removed from liturgical practice because of a heresy stating that you only received Christ whole and complete if yiou received nder both forms. Did the church, at that time, disagree with this and therefore bared the laity from receiving the cup to prove the theological stance? I don't feel that I have made the correct deduction here, but like to have the nature of heresy explaine. John
-- Jo (email@example.com), April 19, 1999.
The heresy Bro. Rich is referring to is that of the Husites, who said that you don't receive the whole Christ y you are given communion under the form of bread alone. In a former answer I said that receiveng communion under the form of bread alone had become a practice in the Western (Latin)Church and that this became law by a decree of the council of Constanza (1415),which, by the way, condemned the heresy of the Husites.
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 21, 1999.
Thanks for your reply Enrique. I still must address the motivation of the Church. Did the Church in essence say "What the Husites say is a heresy and to prove that it is a heresy, we will remove the cup from the laity"? And then leave the laity without the cup for over 500 years to prove their point. Then Vatican II restored the Cup, having determined that sufficient time had elapsed to show the Husites that they were in error. I am sure that the theological basis is much more complex and that the real justification involves a more logical thought processes. I would like to know, if adequate information is still extant, what that reasoning was. John
-- John (email@example.com), April 21, 1999.
The cup was also distributed more narrowly out of fear of desecration of its contents by spilling, etc.
-- David Palm (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 26, 1999.
Again the man made rules caused pain among the faithful. The power structure of the church is being questioned and has been questioned since it's beginning. Even Peter and Paul had their dustups.
Chrsit remains central and that is good enough for me.
Peace And Well Being.
-- jean bouchard (email@example.com), May 11, 1999.