Communion wine clergy

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

Once again, you should not be referring to the consecrated Eucharist as “the bread and wine”.

After it’s consecrated, it’s “the Body and the Precious Blood”.

Congrats on becoming a Catholic, we are happy to have you! But it’s really important to use the right terms for the consecrated Eucharist.

 

[Alex5]

Sorry of course your correct.

Old habits from being an Anglican

 

[TheMortenBay]

please pay full attention to the Eucharist during Mass. It is the whole point…

It is the main point, I’d say. No Mass without the Eucharist, of course. You can luckily have Mass without communion of the laity.

 

[TheMortenBay]

I would suggest that you pay more attention during Consecration and distribution of Eucharist at Mass

I agree wholly with this sentiment, of course. I recommend you go in the communion line and receive a blessing. This is common in many churches and I find it a good devotion to get in line even if you don’t receive. It also shows others that you can choose not to receive the Eucharist if you are indisposed.

 

[InThePew]

Receiving under both kinds is, as the Catechism notes, a fuller sign of communion although it is not essential. When we receive the host what we receive is living flesh (body, blood, soul and divinity) which, in order to be living, requires a blood supply. Likewise, the blood must logically contain something of the body since it can’t really exist apart from it.

While a (con)celebrating priest has to receive under both kinds there is mo strict obligation for the laity to do so (noting what I mentioned from the Catechism above). At the same time though, while the presence of the laity isn’t essential for mas, it’s not for nothing that a priest isn’t permitted to celebrate mass alone simply for his convenience.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

Yes, the Host and the Precious Blood, every Mass, every Day. In my church, that is.

 

[CRV]

it’s not for nothing that a priest isn’t permitted to celebrate mass alone simply for his convenience.

Not so. In his letter to all priests on Holy Thursday back in 1999 Pope St. JPII said “6. In the Eucharist the priest personally draws near to the inexhaustible mystery of Christ and of his prayer to the Father. He can immerse himself daily in this mystery of redemption and grace by celebrating Holy Mass, which retains its meaning and value even when, for a just reason, it is offered without the participation of the faithful, yet always for the faithful and for the whole world.” EWTN Letter to Priests for Holy Thursday 1999

Edited to add
Also under Canon Law #276 #276 §2 point 2 "they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

Also is mentioned in Canon #904 #904 “Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic sacrifice the work of redemption is exercised continually, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed, daily celebration is recommended earnestly since, even if the faithful cannot be present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests fulfill their principal function.”

 

[InThePew]

All well and good but per Canon 906 -“Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least
some member of the faithful.” Mere convenience does not amount to a just and reasonable cause. that doesn’t of course mean that a priest shouldn’t celebrate the Eucharist daily but rather that he shouldn’t do it alone just because it’s convenient for him to do so.

 

[CRV]

Mere convenience does not amount to a just and reasonable cause.

Quite true. Apologies, but I was focusing on the part of not being permitted to offer the Mass daily, instead of addressing the whole of your statement as I should have.

he shouldn’t do it alone just because it’s convenient for him to do so

Agreed. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Cecilia2017]

I was going to say main point but thought somebody might correct me the other way lol!

 

[Elf01]

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).

The OP may not be in the US. Where I am the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the accidents of wine is rarely offered to the laity.

 

[twf]

Reception of only the Host is still the norm in many places around the world. In my archdiocese, the Chalice is rarely distributed.

 

[JanetF]

There’s a popular saying attributed I think to Archbishop Fulton Sheen that goes something like: "Anti-Catholics don’t hate what the Catholic Church stands for, they hate what they THINK the catholic church stands for. I have found this to be quite accurate.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is important, when anyone comes to you with a claim or a question or an accusation, every official teaching of the Church is available to any person with an internet connection. There are no “hidden doctrines”. The Vatican website is free for anyone.

 

[DeniseNY]

Not sure if this has been said as I haven’t read all the posts, but Eastern Catholics receive both species via spoon.

 

[Episcopalian]

You only need one form, but when I was Catholic, the wine was never available to the public. The chalice remained on the altar while the bread was distributed.

Only on certain holidays or the feast day of my churchs namesake saints.

For the longest time, I thought that’s how it went until in college (a different parish) when the wine was distributed every week.

Your friend may not know, rather than being snarky/anti-Catholic

 

[HopkinsReb]

Depending on the church, they may offer the Eucharist under both species or just under one. Christ is not divisible; if He is present, He is fully present. Therefore, even if receiving only what was bread, you are receiving the entirety of Christ.

For quite a while, it was the practice of the Latin Church to only offer Communion to the laity under one species. In recent years, it is allowed to offer in both forms. You’re not losing anything by only receiving what was bread, though I’d argue that receiving both is a better way to do it.

 

[Horton]

In many parishes in the US, the laity are able to receive both. There are some exceptions such as flu season but the reality is most of the laity may receive both.

As far as a response, I would ask them to prove their claim, ask for their source. Then I would tell them to come back when they are actually willing to learn something about the Catholic Church. I’ve dealt with anti-Catholic family members for years.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Not sure if this has been said as I haven’t read all the posts, but Eastern Catholics receive both species via spoon.

Some of you don’t receive via spoon, right? Aren’t there some Eastern rites who distribute via intinction?

 

[Genesis315]

The Church teaches that the Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody, that is, Christ is not killed again: “in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1367).

While Christ is truly present and His one sacrifice offered, He is not killed again–His body and blood are not separated (the separate consecration of the bread and wine is only symbolic of His death, just as the mingling of the two signifies His resurrection).

As such, Christ is whole and complete in each species. For various practical reasons only one species has been offered the laity during different times and places, but nothing was being deprived of them. The Church, from the very beginning, saw nothing missing when this needed to be done.

I don’t get why an anti-Catholic even cares–they think it’s just bread and wine so there’s no real benefit in receiving both or just one or none at all. What’s funny too is the same kinds of anti-Catholics will accuse us of belieiving we kill Christ over and over again in the Mass, and yet they complain about this doctrine, which proves we don’t.