Bread & Wine or Wafer (Holy Communion)

[Tamelyne]

The question of “excluding” the wine always reminds me of The Merchant of Venice, where the plaintiff had the legal right to one pound of the defendant’s flesh, and was therefore granted that right - but he had not included the defendant’s blood in the contract. Therefore, if he took the pound of flesh but shed a single drop of the defendant’s blood, he would be guilty of assault for shedding the defendant’s blood. Needless to say, he ended up NOT taking the pound of flesh, because he knew he couldn’t get the flesh without shedding blood too!

Forgive the reference to Shakespeare, but I always think of that story when it comes to Roman Rite Eucharist and only receiving the wafer. To use the Shakespearean analogy, when you receive Christ’s Flesh in the wafer you are automatically receiving His Blood with it, because you can’t separate the flesh from the blood!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pravoslavac,

As far as I know (and I hope someone can please correct me if I am mistaken!) there isn’t an official pronouncement that if the priest doesn’t consume under both species then a) the communion of the rest of the faithful isn’t valid or b) the sacrifice of the mass is invalid.*

It is extremely illicit, gravely so, for the priest not to consume both species. But transubstantiation is not affected by this – all who receive (including the priest under one species) will truly receive Christ.

Does that help?
VC

*One will find that the sacrifice isn’t complete or perfected without the priest consuming under both kinds – but I’ve not found anything that say no sacrifice occurs.

 

[Ghosty]

Ok going back to one of the previous posters comment on the Council of Trent where it was stated the Christ is fully present in each species individually, from what I know both the RC and EO believe in full transubstantiation (EO would be the chalice that would contain both bread and wine) why would the notion of transubstantiation not apply to a communicant receiving the host (wafer) only and the priest not drinking the wine?

I’m a little confused about what you’re asking here. Are you asking how transubstantiation can occur if only one element is consumed? If that is your question then the answer is pretty simple, as transubstantiation occurs prior to the consumption of the Eucharist and not at the moment of consumption; it is the Body and Blood on the altar, not only in a persons mouth.

Since we are dealing with a mystical reality the fullness of Christ is found in both the Body and the Blood; eating just one or the other doesn’t mean you only eat “half of Christ”. This, again, is why the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts is still a true participation in the Eucharist, and not merely “halfway”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

And of course receiving the Precious Blood alone is perfectly acceptable.

Except for clerics participating in the liturgy as ministers. Specifically, the celebrants, concelebrants, and assisting deacons must receive according to the rubrics, which explicitly call for them to receive under both species separately. (Both Roman and Byzantine Rubrics.)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Except for clerics participating in the liturgy as ministers. Specifically, the celebrants, concelebrants, and assisting deacons must receive according to the rubrics, which explicitly call for them to receive under both species separately. (Both Roman and Byzantine Rubrics.)

Aramis,

As an aside, I think there might be an exception (in exceptional circumstances) for a concelebrant to receive under one species only.

VC

 

[Formosus]

Thanks for the informative post!
I had no idea that the formal decision to restrict reception to one kind was actually that late in date.

Is this related to a specific Papal Encyclical or Bull?

Michael

It was a council, I can’t recall which one exactly. I will get back to you on that.

And yeah, I agree that removing it was a bad call to being with but I suppose hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Hesychios]

It was a council, I can’t recall which one exactly. I will get back to you on that.

If I was to guess, the first place I would look would be Constance (and proceed backward from there), because of the father Hus connection mentioned earlier.