An oddity in Rome. . .

Although its permission has not been uniformly or evenly granted, it has become regular enough so that it is no longer rare to have the chalice offered to Roman Catholic laity.  That said, the practice since roughly 1414 AD has been for laity not to receive from the chalice and more profoundly formulated in the Council of Trent a little more than one hundred years later.  It was only after Vatican II that this changed and it did not change universally.  Apparently some bishops are returning to a more restrictive practice and attempting to change what had become a more routine practice of offering reception of the precious blood to those other than clergy.  Some bishops are suggesting that the offering of the chalice to the laity should be reserved to more "special" occasions which, for some anyway, do not include Christmas or Easter.  It seems rather odd to me as a Lutheran and I suspect for many others as well.

The decision for this is and has always been at the discretion of the local bishop.  That is one oddity.  It means that across the invisible line from one diocese to another, very different practices may be operative.  Since Vatican II, communion in both kinds moved from an impossibility since Trent to pretty much the normal practice 400 years later.  Tradition is in the eye of the beholder and even though the first 1400 years or more did one thing, from the Council of Florence on was another practice.  So the tradition here is at best about 600 years old.  Another problem I have with Rome.  Tradition here is hardly different than someone in a Lutheran circle insisting that is not the way it was in great-grandpa's church.  This is really goofy.

What is even more goofy is the insistence that this is not "more" Jesus or "less" Jesus but that Jesus received in the bread is all the Jesus there is and so no more is needed.  Except that Jesus said differently.  If Jesus' words about this can be abrogated (Trent's words have not been overturned), then why can't they be ignored or altered for other things.  The reality is that this restriction of the laity from receiving the wine was not majority or universal in the Western church until the 1400s.  Plague (read Covid in modern terms) may have justified this emergency practice but what made it normative is exactly the problem.  It should be noted that Lutherans followed the Eastern practice which never withheld the chalice.  We followed Rome when Rome followed Jesus and we departed when Rome did not.  While some of the issues with Rome may seem rather sophisticated and not altogether practical, the restriction of the chalice from the laity is an every Sunday concrete issue.  Every Lutheran would agree, this is not about how much Jesus you get (as if a bigger host or larger sip would grant more grace) but whether the words of Jesus are normative and how that normative practice since the Upper Room are the definitive word on the issue.  Nobody should make normal practice of what happens in an emergency.

Do we get to depart from Jesus' clear words or not?  Rome seems to be saying that they do.  The rest of us should give pause to embracing this idea.  Furthermore, this treats Jesus' body and blood as something the Church must protect while this is exactly how our Lord has made Himself accessible to us.  Here, some Lutherans may sound a bit like those who, when speaking of who communes, sound like they are protecting Jesus.  Close communion protects not Jesus but those whose communion may harm them and not benefit them.  We are gatekeeping for Jesus but for the sake of those unprepared or unable to receive the body and blood of Jesus as blessing.  Jesus does not need us to protect Him from those for whom He has come but those who are unable to receive a worthy communion must be protected by Jesus.  The scandal of the Sacraments is that they are for sinners.  Rome seems to try to remove this offensive generosity and make Jesus blood less accessible for sinners than His body.  If that is not offensive, it is the strangest oddity.