Why are Catholic lay people denied communion wine?
In the year 1414 the Roman Church forbade the cup of wine for the laity - the council of Constance. The Bible tells us to celebrate the death of Christ (the Eucharist) with bread and wine. See Matt.26: 27 and 1 Cor. 11:26-29. Do Catholics offered the bread and wine before 1414? If so, why then could decide only the priests drink the wine?
They did this for the same reasons that prohibited the laity have a Bible and gave their sermons in Latin only, none of the laity understood. They want absolute control over all those who claim to be Catholics. This was during the dark and that is what caused the darkness.
When Luther nailed the wrong deeds of the church to the church door in the darkness began to see a little light. When, in 1611, was published in the English Bible, the darkness disappeared.
I think it was a combination of fever and concern about a growing sense of the indignity of the common people to approach the sacred species. The bread was simpler to administer than the wine, it was the kind of choice and declaired sufficient for full reception of the Eucharist. (Not all that many lay people were released anyway in those days. They preferred to worship the Eucharist from afar.) This policy continued until the reforms of Vatican II in 1965.
I do not understand that this question is coming from. I'm not Catholic, but I attended a Catholic church in the meeting at which all members of both laity involved bread and wine. I do not know the history of the Catholic Church, but it is clear that the Catholic laity today are part of the two Sacraments.
EDIT: Hmmm … korban skepsis sounds like and have your answer. Interesting.
First you have to understand what Catholics believe about transubstantiation. During the Mass, the consecrated host becomes the body and blood. Both the bread and wine.
Secondly, a number of heresies happening at that time. Including the abuse of the sacraments. The whole reason for this advice was to put an end to this abuse.
You can search the full text papalencyclicals.com
Once everything is in order, then things continue like this. We are part of bread and wine.
PS: Gyrine, prohibit anyone from reading the Bible. The first letter in every English Bible, the Douay Rheims, an indulgence to everyday reading.
What was condemned was self-interpretation. We average Joes are not Bible scholars. The interpretation is for those who have studied. Also, the mass is said in latin, it is a sacred language. Did you know that there are two types? Norma Latin America and the Church - that is, the Latin of the Church.
different times different standards. the laity are invited to participate in the consumption of the blood of Jesus in a Mass every Sunday, even in some newspapers for the masses "
Its as if you've never been a Catholic mass before. You know that the whole congregation is in line for wine? those are not priests.
i do not usually drink the wine because the wine is gross. so if someone dumped again? I know I always did ….
Vatican II said that the Eucharistic bread, the figure of flesh and blood, so no need for both.
Some would say this was the beginning of the great apostasy in the church.
um, the laity are offered the wine during mass.
if that is true, then it probably has changed over the Council of Trent or something. but the sources?
The whole world has misunderstood your question and I apologizeze on their behalf. I understand your question and I have the right Skepsis.
I always came.
I know now nothing about Catholicism. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
It may have been considered unnucessary then. We are now able to receive wine and bread. The body of Jesus can not be separated from their blood, therefore, when you get the other one gets.
Not sure what you mean, I had wine in communion every time they took communion.
Um, I have taken the Communion wine, and I'm not a priest.
I suggest that you quote your sources.
I had the bread and wine of my life.
we are not denied the Precious Blood in Holy Communion. Why such an enemy of the Lord?
Cuz people get drunk
It was really an effort to end the heresy and abuse as described in the following explanation. The fact is that even the smallest particles of blood and the Governing Body of our Lord consecrated the whole containn Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.
"Session 13 - June 15 1415
[Condemnation of communion under both kinds, recently revived by the bohemians of Jakoubek Stříbro]
On behalf of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people in certain parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that Christians should receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in the form of bread and wine. Communicate around the world lay not only in the form of bread, but also because the wine, and which stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or without the need for a fast, Contrary to the custom of the church that has been commendable and wisely adopted, since the church's head down, but move to try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore, this general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the desire to provide security for the faithful against this error, after a long deliberation by the number of persons learned in divine and human law declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered to his apostles in the form of bread and wine, however, and despite this, the authority of the sacred canons and laudable adopted the custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament should not to be held after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of illness or some other need as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, as this practice is reasonable in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, similar or even more so is reasonably possible to observe the custom and that, while this sacrament was received by the faithful under of both types in the early church, however, was later received under both kinds only by those confecting him, and by the laity only in the form of bread. To this must be firmly convinced, and certainly not in doubt that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained in the form of bread and the wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and the Holy Fathers, and there has been a long time, should be held as a right that no one can reject or modify at will, without the permission of the church . Say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the contrary of that simply as heretics and severely punished by the bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which they try something against this presumption or decree, as canonical and legitimate sanctions have been wisely for the benefit of the Catholic faith against heretics and their supporters. "Council of Constance
In Christ
Fr Joseph