The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz

The Deryni Series => The Childe Morgan => Topic started by: Elkhound on March 23, 2009, 12:14:45 am

Title: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Elkhound on March 23, 2009, 12:14:45 am
In the Camber and post-Camber books, only the clergy  normally took both the Bread and the Wine; the Michaeline custom of everyone taking both was remarked upon as being unusual, and shocking to the ex-priest Cinhil.

In "The Priesting of Arilan" the fact that as a newly-ordained priest, Denys would take both the Bread and the Wine was a major issue.

HOWEVER, I have just re-read "In the King's Service" and "Childe Morgan" and in both there are numerous references to the laity taking the Wine.  As Arilan was ordained after ITKS and CM, this seems to be a contradiction.

In our own world, communion in both kinds was a major liturgical change in the Church of England after it broke with Rome under Henry VIII; one of the Anglican XXXIX Articles says "the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the laity."  In the Roman Church, the laity took the Bread only at least until Vatican II, and I am told that in some places even now that is the observance.




Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: john on March 23, 2009, 11:58:50 am
In the Archdiocese of Boston, (where I live) it is recommended that Catholics should recieve under both species.  I know some parishes are slow to make the change.

Historically, I know that the Church felt that the Host was enough for the laity.  Depending on local custom I know there were variations.

pax,
john mclaughlin
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Elkhound on March 23, 2009, 03:51:29 pm
Interesting, John, but not to the point.  KK depicts the laity taking both the Bread and the Cup in the novels, but in a short story set in the same time-period she depicts the Cup as reserved for the clergy.  Is this what over on the Harry Potter boards we call a "Flint"?
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: BalanceTheEnergies on March 24, 2009, 02:47:58 pm
It might be that only on certain occasions the laity might take Communion in both species--special events like First Communion, Confirmation, nuptial mass (one-offs, usually--Arilan's first Mass as a priest would fall into this category), or big events in the liturgical year (say, Easter). It might also be something under the discretion of the individual bishops, much as allowing girls to serve at Mass used to be--and still is, for all I know.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: thistlethorne on March 24, 2009, 05:40:40 pm
I'm in the Cleveland Diocese in Ohio and our parish distributes under both.  However, I remember my First Communion (more years ago than I want to think about) and it was a big deal that we were given Wine along with the Host.  It might have been a big deal because I was all of 8 years old and how many 8-year-olds get wine on a regular basis?  And as a First Communicate, we were the only ones, besides the priest, that got it under both forms.  It wasn't until the last 10 years or so that we routinely get it both ways.  Slow around here, I guess.

Beth
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Elkhound on June 25, 2009, 03:18:06 pm
I know that modern RC and Anglican practice favors both kinds, but it was not the practice in our own Midaeval church, nor (according to other parts of the Deryni canon) in the secondary universe of the XI Kingdoms.  Cinhil found the Michaeline practice odd, and the whole point of "The Priesting of Arilan" was that as a lay person Arilan never would have taken the Cup---yet in the Childe Morgan books we have lay communion of both kinds all over the place.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Camber on July 06, 2009, 08:50:16 pm
Being a non-Christian I find the act of Communion very odd.  The act itself is similar to the burnt offerings offered by older traditions.  After the offering was made, and the D/deity had taken its portion the rest was consumed by the person(s) making the offering, thus ingesting the D/eity and becoming more holy.

That aside, Jesus says to consume his flesh AND drink his blood.  Since the mandate is to do both, why is only one part done?  In our universe I can understand the wine not being shared from a communal cup because of the "Black Death".  I would think though that the RC and Anglicans would have used communion cups as many Protestant denominations do.  Bubonic Plague is not being experienced in the XI Kingdoms so I would think that both bread and wine would be part of the communion rite.   Guess that's something for a biblical scholar to answer.

Valentius
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Elkhound on July 06, 2009, 09:30:44 pm
Being a non-Christian I find the act of Communion very odd.  The act itself is similar to the burnt offerings offered by older traditions.  After the offering was made, and the D/deity had taken its portion the rest was consumed by the person(s) making the offering, thus ingesting the D/eity and becoming more holy.

That is exactly the point; Christ's sacrifice on the cross made subsequent blood offerings unnecessary.  Hence, the substitution of bread and wine for the flesh and blood.

Quote
That aside, Jesus says to consume his flesh AND drink his blood.  Since the mandate is to do both, why is only one part done?  In our universe I can understand the wine not being shared from a communal cup because of the "Black Death".

I'm not sure when the RC tradition of the priest only taking the wine emerged, but I don't think it had anything to do with the plague as germ theory wasn't known (or even suspected) then.

Quote
  I would think though that the RC and Anglicans would have used communion cups as many Protestant denominations do.  Bubonic Plague is not being experienced in the XI Kingdoms so I would think that both bread and wine would be part of the communion rite.   Guess that's something for a biblical scholar to answer.

Valentius

Anglicans have always used the common cup.  Protestants started using individual communion cups only after germ theory became commonly known. 
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: tenworld on July 09, 2009, 11:18:54 pm

Being a non-Christian I find the act of Communion very odd.  The act itself is similar to the burnt offerings offered by older traditions.  After the offering was made, and the D/deity had taken its portion the rest was consumed by the person(s) making the offering, thus ingesting the D/eity and becoming more holy.

have you read Stranger in a Strange Land?  its an interesting take on the rite of communion and a good SF novel (also inspired one of the first Star Trek episodes but they left out the communion part maybe for PC reasons)

Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Elkhound on May 14, 2010, 01:15:36 pm

Being a non-Christian I find the act of Communion very odd.  The act itself is similar to the burnt offerings offered by older traditions.  After the offering was made, and the D/deity had taken its portion the rest was consumed by the person(s) making the offering, thus ingesting the D/eity and becoming more holy.


Intentionally so.  The writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church speak of it as the 'bloodless sacrifice'.  The Protestant reformers reacted to this and emphasized that no, it wasn't a sacrifice, it was a memorial of Christ's one sacrifice.  Some went too far the other way and denied any spiritual significance--that Jesus was no more present in communion than He was in any other assembly gathered in His name--which is why up until the middle of the 20th C. in most Protestant churches, communion was monthly or even quarterly, and some Protestant traditions discarded it entirely.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: tenworld on May 17, 2010, 04:08:20 pm
the connection between ancient religions and modern practises is a very interesting study .  Very little of what is done in the Mass and in protestant rites is original.  for example a lot of the mass symbology came from Zoroastrian (who were erroneously called fire worshipers by the early church - an alien watching the Easter vigil lighting of the fire could easily conclude that catholics worship fire too).  The way KK has integrated Deryni mysticism into the Catholic rituals in these books is one of their charms.

just to clear something up, the quote attributed to me came from an earlier post - I have not mastered the art of quoting, probably because I do not worship the Bill of Gates as many users obviously do:)
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: farhomer on May 23, 2010, 11:32:50 pm
It would appear that the Church has evolved during the time span of writing the novels.  It still uses the same Latin of the Middle Ages, but may be closer to High Anglican than true Roman Catholic.  I know that the Archbishop of Valoret is the head primate, but he also shares duties with the Archbishop of Rhemuth - according to Kyri of the Camberian Council when they were discussing what would happen to Duncan after he knighted Dhugal and let the whole court know he was Deryi.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Goscamber on January 11, 2015, 09:29:38 am
I am a Quaker.  Our Meetings for Worship has no bread or wine, but we do believe in the Real Presence in the substance, not the accidents of spiritual worship.  The first Friends also felt that there were too many quarrels over trivialities, like one or both, transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, etc., that were distractions from the Inner Christ that is always present.

There does seem to be conflicts in the practice in Gwynedd.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: revanne on January 11, 2015, 10:22:28 am
I am a Quaker.  Our Meetings for Worship has no bread or wine, but we do believe in the Real Presence in the substance, not the accidents of spiritual worship.  The first Friends also felt that there were too many quarrels over trivialities, like one or both, transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, etc., that were distractions from the Inner Christ that is always present.

There does seem to be conflicts in the practice in Gwynedd.

Perhaps quarrels over Communion were not an issue in Gwynedd, the Deryni issue providing enough alternative scope for religious extremism, and therefore a variety of practise was acceptable.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Goscamber on January 11, 2015, 10:38:18 am
BTW, I was raised United Church of Christ (Congregationalist and Reformed). When our congregation merged with another, we became Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A.

We had Communion once a month, which always made it feel like a special occasion, especially since the other congregation was mostly Hungarian and they also had a Magyar service after the regular one.  I often had Communion twice.

We had individual bread cubes and wine cups distributed to the chairs then later the pews.  It emphasized that the Supper was both for the community and still one of a personal nature.
Title: Re: Communion in Both Kinds
Post by: Aerlys on January 19, 2015, 04:01:47 pm
This is an older thread, and one that I had missed until now. As is characteristic with KKs fan base, Elkhound is intelligent and observant. The original intent of his thread was to point out inconsistencies among the books, which I would simply classify as an oversight, due to the amount of time between the writing of the Camber books and the CM trilogy.  For consistency, it certainly would have been better and less confusing had Holy Communion been limited to one form.

However, this thread also led to other questions regarding Communion. Perhaps in my humble way I can clarify some of them, as regards Roman Catholic teaching. I will preamble this with the disclaimer that I am not a theologian, but I am fairly well-educated, and do strive to continually study and deepen the understanding of my Faith.

That aside, Jesus says to consume his flesh AND drink his blood.  Since the mandate is to do both, why is only one part done?

It is important to remember that, to Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching, the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, under the appearances of bread of wine.  Christ, being living and immortal now in heaven, is contained, whole and entire, under either the form of the bread or wine.  I refer to the following explanation from The Catechism of St. Pius X:

 Both in the host and in the chalice Jesus Christ is whole and entire, because He is living and immortal in the Eucharist as He is in heaven; hence where His Body is, there also are His Blood, His Soul, and His Divinity; and where His Blood is, there also are His Body, His Soul and His Divinity, all these being inseparable in Jesus Christ.

So, to answer this question, by the reception of only one form, the communicant is still partaking of both the body and blood of Christ, and is not thereby deprived of any sacramental graces necessary for salvation.

I'm not sure when the RC tradition of the priest only taking the wine emerged, but I don't think it had anything to do with the plague as germ theory wasn't known (or even suspected) then.

The Church can change the disciplinary laws regarding the reception of Communion under either form, and has historically done so for reasons of practicality,such as not having enough consecrated wine available for all the laity, or in response to heresy. Generally, Communion under either one or both species was in practice up until around the 12th century, depending on such things as local custom or practicality.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article, Communion Under Both Kinds, "...The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances*, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance**..."

The Council of Trent reiterated this decree in the 1500's. Exceptions to this had occasionally been granted. Currently, communion under both forms is again permitted following Vatican II. (The pros and cons of this are a whole other discussion.)

In the Camber and post-Camber books, only the clergy  normally took both the Bread and the Wine; the Michaeline custom of everyone taking both was remarked upon as being unusual, and shocking to the ex-priest Cinhil.


The Roman Liturgy was not codified until the publication of the Missal of the Council of Trent in 1570, and this was done in response to the Reformation. Prior to this, the Canon (the principal part of the Mass) was the same, but various prayers and rites were used in different places. Thus, in KKs world, while many parts the liturgy do seem to follow that which was promulgated by the Council of Trent, she certainly has the historical wiggle room to show variations of this in her books. Since this is her universe, it doesn't have to follow our own history, anyway.

For anyone interested in obtaining more detailed information, The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource, and the 1917 edition can be viewed at  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm  (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm) I would also would refer to the articles by Michael Davies on the history of the Mass, found at www.catholictradition.org (http://www.catholictradition.org)

Someone had also posted something regarding Kelson's reception of Communion in Torenth. (I thought it was Alice.)  I composed this response on my computer so I could take my time (too many interruptions prevent me from typing anything coherent in one sitting). I didn't copy the exact quote while I was writing, and planned to insert it now. Unfortunately, that post was either completely removed, or I saw it in another thread, but cannot find it, so I apologize for the lack of a quote. In any case, commentary was made about whether Kelson would have been allowed to receive Communion in the Torenthi church. It was also stated that the real-world Roman Catholic Church allows communion to people of other faiths.

First, I would like to point out that, historically, the liturgies of East and West did develop differently, retaining the Canon, but were still considered part of the same Church. After the Great Eastern Schism, there were still Eastern Catholics who were not schismatic, as there are today, who still retained their own rites and patriarchates. To my mind, at least. the church in Torenth could be simply another rite within the same church. Besides, whether there was ever a pope or schism in KKs world is undefined, and I am content just to let it ride. (This is fiction, after all.)

As regards the Roman Catholic Church allowing non-Catholics to receive Communion, and Roman Catholics to receive Communion from other churches, this is not strictly true. Canon Law has strict conditions regarding this, but unfortunately they are often overlooked or misunderstood. For further information, I refer to: http://www.ewtn.com/Expert/answers/intercommunion.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/Expert/answers/intercommunion.htm)
 
* circa 1408
** The Council of Constance was held from Nov. 5, 1414, to April 22, 1418


If anything I have written is found to be incorrect or imprecise, it is unintentional, and I concede to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.