Communion in Both Kinds

[Elkhound]

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.

[john]

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

[Elkhound]

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"?

[BalanceTheEnergies]

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.

[thistlethorne]

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

[Elkhound]

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.

[Camber]

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

[Elkhound]

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.

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.

  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. 

[tenworld]

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)

[Elkhound]

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.

[tenworld]

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:)

[farhomer]

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.