Communion wine clergy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rudolph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rudolph

Guest
So I heard from an anti-Catholic that most Sunday’s during the Eucharist wine is reserved only for clergy while the lay people take only bread. I’m currently converting to Catholicism and honestly haven’t paid much attention to the Eucharist during service. So what is a response to this?
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
So I heard from an anti-Catholic that most Sunday’s during the Eucharist wine is reserved only for clergy while the lay people take only bread. I’m currently converting to Catholicism and honestly haven’t paid much attention to the Eucharist during service. So what is a response to this?
Click to expand...
Perhaps something along the lines of:

“Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass recently? Why don’t you go then come back when you actually know what you’re talking about.”

Too snarky?
 
Last edited:
At my parish that is only true during the flu season. For most of the rest of the year both the body and blood are available. But you only need one.
 
Ok, to be more forward. I’m ignorant so do churches now give lay people wine every. Sunday? I understand flu season. Lol.
 
Oy. First, the bread and wine at the consecration become the Body and Blood of Jesus. Now, Jesus is not divided into two separate things, Body and Blood. His body and blood are together.

SO a person who receives the bread that becomes Christ’s Body is receiving not simply ‘bread’, not simply ‘body without blood’, but the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ.

And a person who receives the wine that becomes Christ’s Blood is receiving not simply ‘wine’, not simply ‘blood without body’, but the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ.

Now every diocese and its parishes is a little different. Most in the US today offer to priest AND lay people the opportunity to receive both the body (the bread) AND the blood (the wine).

In some places or at some times (like flu season), only the Body is offered, but that’s fine because the Body (bread) contains everything: Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Your anti-Catholic friend is misinformed.
 
Rudolph said:
Ok, to be more forward. I’m ignorant so do churches now give lay people wine every. Sunday? I understand flu season. Lol.
Click to expand...
Nah, I said that kinda tongue-in-cheek.

In truth, most North American parishes probably offer the chalice to all who wish to receive. There may be exceptions here and there, but I’ve found that to be the general practice these days.

Try to observe your own parish the next time you go, see what their practice is. It may be that only the Host is offered, which is completely sufficient.

I framed my “snarky” response more because most anti-Catholics have probably never attended a Catholic Mass, and the greater likelihood is that the Cup is offered at Sunday Mass more often than not, so what they “know” is more of an assumption than something they actually bothered to learn.
 
Last edited:
Well during the last supper Jesus used bread and wine and turned it into his body and blood. You need both. But you don’t need to receive both to receive Jesus entirely. His body, blood, soul, and divinity is fully presence under either species. Some parishes offer the Eucharist under both species, but it is unnecessary and often too complicated.
 
Yeah. Lol. My whole family was/is pretty anti-Catholic and all of the claims I have heard growing up have proven to be untrue.
 
I think what this person is talking about is reception under one kind and reception under both kinds. Reception under one kind was the norm until the Second Vatican Council. Since the reforms of Vatican II, reception under both kinds is permitted and has become the norm (at any rate where I live). If the person you were talking to thinks that reception under one kind only is still the norm they are presumably either quite old or out of touch with developments since 1965.
 
Londoner said:
If the person you were talking to thinks that reception under one kind only is still the norm they are presumably either quite old or out of touch with developments since 1965.
Click to expand...
I can see how this might be the case, but I’ve also thought perhaps this person has only ever attended the EF of the Mass? Wherein Communion is only under one form - the Blessed Sacrament/host.
 
Yes, that is also possible. They could also have attended an SSPX or similar Mass. If the person is an “anti-Catholic” they may even just be basing their ideas on TV, films, etc.
 
Priests are required to receive under both species (I’m looking for a reference for that, but so far coming up empty).

From the Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 1"

"That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.

Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness,(f) and following the judgment(g) and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating,(h) are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, (l) that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution(k) of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said ; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said ; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.) "~The Council of Trent - Session 21~

The following link is not an official Church source, but I believe it should be helpful why the priest must receive under both kinds. The Priest's Communion - Part 2, Chapter 4 of The Priest in Union with Christ by Garrigou-Lagrange
 
spiderweb said:
Priests are required to receive under both species (I’m looking for a reference for that, but so far coming up empty).
Click to expand...
I’ve found this for you to consider:- under Catholic doctrine and modern discipline
" (1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19)."
 
Thanks for the assist, I completely forgot to check the New Advent website.
 
Dear Rudolph…please pay full attention to the Eucharist during Mass. It is the whole point…
 
Rudolph said:
So I heard from an anti-Catholic that most Sunday’s during the Eucharist wine is reserved only for clergy while the lay people take only bread.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

First of all, you shouldn’t be listening to “anti-Catholics”, much less responding to them.

Second, many Catholic parishes offer Holy Communion to the congregation in both forms - Body (the consecrated hosts) and Precious Blood (the consecrated wine). As stpurl explained, once it’s consecrated it is not “bread” and “wine” any more so you shouldn’t call it that.

Third, those parishes which only offer the Body to the congregation while the priest consumes the Precious Blood usually are not offering the Precious Blood for some practical reason. Often it involves either not wanting to pass around a shared chalice of Precious Blood during cold and flu season, or logistical concerns with distributing the Precious Blood from a shared chalice (such concerns could involve not having enough ministers on hand, having a crowded church or a bad “traffic flow” at Communion, or having too large of a congregation to make distribution of Precious Blood practical).

Fourth, in any event it is not necessary for the Catholic to receive Communion in both species (both the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ) because receiving one species contains the other. In other words, if I receive the Body of Christ in the form of the consecrated Host, the Precious Blood is contained in that. I do not need to receive both forms separately in order to fully receive Jesus.

I would suggest that you pay more attention during Consecration and distribution of Eucharist at Mass, and also if this is not clear you get your RCIA teacher to explain this to you more fully. And quit listening to anti-Catholics. God bless.
 
Last edited:
I’m a new Catholic and have only so far been to mass in two church. In both cases the wine was optional.

At my regular church more people have just the bread that both the bread and wine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top