Yes, this is part of the usual rite, but we should be clear that the comingling is only symbolic. It is not a required element in the form of the Mass, and it does not have any effect on the transubstantiation of the bread/wine or the doctrine of concomitance.
Wine is not offered at communion.Is it? I attend one of a few churches and only one offers wine at communion. The strange thing is the others are very traditional, but I haven’t ever seen them have wine. Isn’t the blood of Christ just as important as His body? Or is it a parish choice?
Even though the Eucharistic species of bread is called “the Body of Christ,” it is actually the whole and entire risen Christ, both His Body and His Blood, as well as His Soul and His Divinity. Likewise, even though the Eucharistic species of wine is called “the Blood of Christ,” it is actually the whole and entire risen Christ, both His Body and His Blood, as well as His Soul and His Divinity. Consequently, whether you recieve just one Eucharistic species or both, you are receiving the same whole and entire risen Christ.
too bad that you are grossly misinformed
What a silly attitude!
“Eucharist” is not a term only for the Host (nor only for the Chalice). The Eucharist is the Blessed Sacrament. Offering the Eucharist to the people (i.e. “Holy Communion”) under a single species is perfectly legitimate.
That’s asinine.
it is never “optional” for the priest to omit consecrating wine and drinking the precious Blood. It is the option of the priest whether or not the precious Blood is offered to the congregation. Chances are in a “traditional” parish this will not be the practice, since it became common only since Vatican II. Prior to that laity were offered the chalice only on special occasions, and then also at the option of the priest: nuptial Mass, first communion etc. Certainly in the EF the chalice is not offered to the laity.Is it? I attend one of a few churches and only one offers wine at communion. The strange thing is the others are very traditional, but I haven’t ever seen them have wine. Isn’t the blood of Christ just as important as His body? Or is it a parish choice?
the first two sentences are too stupid to regard. The third sentence displays total ignorance of the nature of the sacrament of Eucharist. Please refer to the excellent teaching tracts on the subject on the CA homepage. the fourth sentence at least is true, because the Last Supper also begins the ordination of the apostles as priests.
the first two sentences are too stupid to regard. The third sentence displays total ignorance of the nature of the sacrament of Eucharist. Please refer to the excellent teaching tracts on the subject on the CA homepage. the fourth sentence at least is true, because the Last Supper also begins the ordination of the apostles as priests.
You are not required to have both species. Jesus is wholly, fully and compeletely present under each species. In fact, the Preciuos Blood can be withheld according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
Thus, the very Congregation to which you would appeal may probably refer you to the above passage. Only the priest is required to consume both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood.
This is precisely the kind of attitude the prompted the Latin church to withhold the cup from the faithful in the first place, so as to drill into everyone’s heads that the whole Christ is present in the sacred Host, such that Communion under both species is NOT required for the laity.
Easy Jerry,
It would be better not to refer to the Precious Blood as wine once the species has been consecrated. If you wish, you might want to say, we receive the Precious Blood under the species of wine either from the chalice or by way of intinction.