Bread & wine?

[CatMan]

I was at a Bible Study last night and we were discussing communion. One of the members said she only takes bread. She feels she is missing out by not taking the wine. I told her botht the bread and wine are in the host. Am I right? Are both forms present here? What is the diffeence between the bread and the wine and do we need to consume both?

 

[mtr01]

With all due respect, after the consecration, the gifts are no longer “bread and wine”, they are the body and precious blood of our Lord. (sorry if I seem nit-picky, but this is a bit of a pet peeve with me, and I don’t mean it in an uncharitbale way).

As for your question, no the woman in your bible study is not missing out on anything by receiving the host only. Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity are present in both species. Receiving under both species is considered a “fuller expression” of communion, but nothing is lacking if she receives the host only. In fact, it was to reinforce the truth that the totality of the Communion was expressed under each species individually that Trent (I believe) made it a discipline for the faithful to only receive the host.

 

[martino]

Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in each and every particle of either species. The tiniest crumb from the Host (or drop from the Cup) contains Christ in His entirety.

 

[JimG]

Jesus is fully present–body, blood, soul, and divinity–under either the species of bread of the species of wine, so it is not necessary to receive both in order to receive the complete Christ.

Self-intinction is not permitted (that would amount to self-communication) i.e., if the communicant dips the host in the chalice.

However, it is permitted to receive the Eucharist by intinction, provided the priest dips the host in the chalice and places it on your tongue.

 

[OhioBob]

JimG:

…Self-intinction is not permitted (that would amount to self-communication) i.e., if the communicant dips the host in the chalice…

Yup. The body and precious blood of our Lord is never “taken”, it is only “received”. Hence, no dipping allowed. :tsktsk:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

JimG:

Jesus is fully present–body, blood, soul, and divinity–under either the species of bread of the species of wine, so it is not necessary to receive both in order to receive the complete Christ.

Self-intinction is not permitted (that would amount to self-communication) i.e., if the communicant dips the host in the chalice.

However, it is permitted to receive the Eucharist by intinction, provided the priest dips the host in the chalice and places it on your tongue.

Hi Jim,Okay lets toss out the blood because its in the already in the body. This is not the way Jesus instucted us . He said take this this is my body[bread] and He also said drink this wine for it is my blood. Two seperate commands. Man changed that because of their convenience. God Bless

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

CatMan:

I was at a Bible study last night and we were discussing afew things. One of th members said she only takes the Bread. She feels she may be missing out by not taking the wine. I told her both forms are present in the Bread. Am I right? What is the difference between the bread and wine and do we need to consume both?

Also, can a person dip the host into the Chalice to prevent the spreading of germs?

First we should never refer to the Body and Blood of Christ as bread and wine after the consecration. Many people just receive the Bosy of Christ and do not receive from the chalice as a personal preference. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christ is completely present under both forms. There was a heresy in the history of the Church that said that both forms must be received for a complete Communion. The Church responded that either form alone was only necessary and only allowed Holy communion under the form of Bread.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Br. Rich SFO:

First we should never refer to the Body and Blood of Christ as bread and wine after the consecration. Many people just receive the Bosy of Christ and do not receive from the chalice as a personal preference. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christ is completely present under both forms. There was a heresy in the history of the Church that said that both forms must be received for a complete Communion. The Church responded that either form alone was only necessary and only allowed Holy communion under the form of Bread.

Hi Br. BBUT what about what Jesus said? God Bless

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, Cat Man.

In the churches of our brothers and sisters in the Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, Communion is frequently received after dipping in the wine, so that it is received under both appearances.

 

[gladtobe]

I personally feel both the bread and wine should be offered. That’s the way it was for some 900 years until it was changed. In our parish both are offered. But even if one is offered, I do not believe this is directly wrong. Paul said that the cup OR the bread could be served. I Cor 11 RSV

 

[gladtobe]

I personally feel both the bread and wine should be offered. That’s the way it was for some 900 years until it was changed. In our parish both are offered. But even if one is offered, I do not believe this is directly wrong. Paul said that the cup OR the bread could be served. I Cor 11 RSV

 

[WanderAimlessly]

martino:

Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in each and every particle of either species. The tiniest crumb from the Host (or drop from the Cup) contains Christ in His entirety.

That is true. In fact, it has only been since (I believe) Vatican II that Christ is offered to everyone in both species. Before then, it was only offered in the Host to the laity.

If I remember right, offering only in the Host was done to counter a specific heresey that both the body and the blood was needed to receive all of Jesus. I do not remember the particulars. Maybe someone can fill in the blanks

PF

 

[gladtobe]

Not exactly. The consecrated bread was only offered for fear of spilling the cup, which makes good sense. Also some folks are allergic to alcohol. Also 100 people drinking from one cup can create germ problems. Cold germs, trench mouth and transference of cold sores as well. I do see why only one should be offered. So I have no problem with it, either way.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

gladtobe:

I personally feel both the bread and wine should be offered. That’s the way it was for some 900 years until it was changed. In our parish both are offered. But even if one is offered, I do not believe this is directly wrong. Paul said that the cup OR the bread could be served. I Cor 11 RSV

Hi Glad, Please quote the verse# in your statement. I see no such
comment made by St.Paul. God Bless

 

[JimG]

Certainly at the words of institution–at the Last Supper–and at every consecration, the bread and wine are consecrated separately. This follows the command of Jesus, and better shows forth the sacrifice that Jesus made in shedding his blood for us. The separate consecrations show the separation of his body from his blood in sacrifice.

But in the Eucharist we receive the living Christ, and in the living Christ, his body and blood, his humanity and divinity are together. So when we receive one, we receive the other. Where his blood is, there is his body. Where his body is, there is his blood.

 

[Patchunky]

BibleReader:

Hi, Cat Man.

In the churches of our brothers and sisters in the Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, Communion is frequently received after dipping in the wine, so that it is received under both appearances.

Not exactly…

The consecrated bread is mixed into the consecrated wine and then the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is distributed to the Faithful by means of gold spoon.

We don’t dip…

 

[gladtobe]

To Spokenword

                      Well shut my mouth and pass the biscuits, here is the verse you asked for;

1 Cor 11:27

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread **or **drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

RSV

 

[SPOKENWORD]

gladtobe:

To Spokenword

                      Well shut my mouth and pass the biscuits, here is the verse you asked for;

1 Cor 11:27

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread **or **drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

RSV

Hi Glad,You are interpreting incorrectly.You go to vs.24 &25 and you see the command to do this both for the body and the blood.It eating either the bread or the blood in an unworthy manner shall be guilty.You cannot do both at the same time. God Bless

 

[OhioBob]

This same question was posed on EWTN Faith Q&A:

*Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 09-02-2004:

Jesus Christ is alive. He simply cannot be received in parts. What we see at Mass is simply a sign, suitable to our life in this world. The reality is invisible to the natural eyes but known by faith - Jesus Christ Himself, which means whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. While the sign of bread points naturally to flesh, and the sign of wine points naturally to blood, the reality is simply the Lord, undivided and indivisable! So, while the sign of receiving Christ’s Body and Blood is fuller by the reception of both species, the reality is the same whether you receive one or two species. Christ’s life is given to us, either way.

The practice of receiving both species had already passed by the time of the Reformatiion, due to concerns about spilling the Precious Blood and the infrequent reception of Communion by the laity. The Reformers taught a number of Eucharistic errors, but among them were two that apply here, that Christ was not wholely present under one species alone, and that both species had to be received by the laity. The Council of Trent solemnly condemned both errors and excommunicated anyone who taught them.

After Vatican II it was thought that the practice of giving Communion under both species could be safely re-established without reviving the heresies. I hope that judgment is not proving wrong, since I personally like the practice. However, better to not have it, than have people be lead into error or profane the Blessed Sacrament. The Church has left the decision up to each bishop, as to its pastoral utility in his diocese. *

I’m not a theologian, but I trust the Church to teach the truth. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and I take him at his word.

This question has been around for centuries and the Church has answered it. Do you really think you are just now thinking this stuff up new all by yourself?

 

[PeterC]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Glad,You are interpreting incorrectly.You go to vs.24 &25 and you see the command to do this both for the body and the blood.It eating either the bread or the blood in an unworthy manner shall be guilty.You cannot do both at the same time. God Bless

Douay-Rheims 1 Corinthians 11:27:28

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice