Is wine optional?

[peary]

First of all, please, let’s use the correct terminology. It is no longer wine at this point. It is the Precious Blood. We need to reinforce what we believe and not sound like Protestants.

As I said in a previous post, I agree with palmas in that proper catechesis goes out the window, especially when the Eucharist is concerned.

I apologise for being so reckless in my vocabulary.

 

[Evan]

I think consecrated bread and consecrated wine are more appropriate. For the bread is the body and blood. The wine is the body and blood. You cannot separate part of the Christ from the whole of the Christ. He is there entire in both consecrated species. So for a shorthand: use bread and wine.

I know a priest who cringes when hears of them refered to this way, but I still prefer this than ‘body’ or ‘blood’.

So I will continue using ‘consecrated bread’ or ‘consecrated wine’ since blood and body, soul and divinity, are all comingled in either specie. And when I decide only to receive one, rather than both, I still receive both the body and the blood.
[edit] After all, we want to sound like Catholics, not like Pharasees.*

 

[Rickwood]

I think consecrated bread and consecrated wine are more appropriate. For the bread is the body and blood. The wine is the body and blood. You cannot separate part of the Christ from the whole of the Christ. He is there entire in both consecrated species. So for a shorthand: use bread and wine.

I know a priest who cringes when hears of them refered to this way, but I still prefer this than ‘body’ or ‘blood’.

So I will continue using ‘consecrated bread’ or ‘consecrated wine’ since blood and body, soul and divinity, are all comingled in either specie. And when I decide only to receive one, rather than both, I still receive both the body and the blood.

What you seem to be missing is that the bread and wine no longer exist. We’re Catholic, not Lutheran. We believe in transubstantiation not consubstantiation.

We don’t believe that the bread and wine coexist with the Body and Blood. We believe the the bread and wine are transformed, that they truly become the Body and Blood – that they both exist under the appearances of bread and wine.

You can continue to do whatever you want – but it doesn’t make you right.

 

[benedictgal]

I think consecrated bread and consecrated wine are more appropriate. For the bread is the body and blood. The wine is the body and blood. You cannot separate part of the Christ from the whole of the Christ. He is there entire in both consecrated species. So for a shorthand: use bread and wine.

I know a priest who cringes when hears of them refered to this way, but I still prefer this than ‘body’ or ‘blood’.

So I will continue using ‘consecrated bread’ or ‘consecrated wine’ since blood and body, soul and divinity, are all comingled in either specie. And when I decide only to receive one, rather than both, I still receive both the body and the blood.
[edit] After all, we want to sound like Catholics, not like Pharasees.*

First of all, we are Catholic. We must use the terms that the Church uses, mainly that at the consecration, the bread and wine become the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. Peiod. It is not what you prefet to call it, it is what the Church mandates that we use the correct terminology. We need to express that which we believe in the terms used by the Church. To use the terms bread and wine after the consecration is to show a total disregard for the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord.

 

[Evan]

First of all, we are Catholic. We must use the terms that the Church uses, mainly that at the consecration, the bread and wine become the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. Peiod. It is not what you prefet to call it, it is what the Church mandates that we use the correct terminology. We need to express that which we believe in the terms used by the Church. To use the terms bread and wine after the consecration is to show a total disregard for the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord.

Let’s see what the Catechism and the Council of Trent use.

CCC 1413L By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread and wine **Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

 

[japhy]

Let’s see what the Catechism and the Council of Trent use.

The phrase “under the consecrated species of bread and wine” is full of context and technical terminology. The simple phrase “bread and wine” is not.

 

[Andruschak]

If a person is taking opiate-derived drugs after surgery, can the person omit the wine when taking communion?

Blessed be,
Polska

YES! And they are allowed to omit the wine for whatever reason they consider valid.

In my case, I am a Recovered Alcoholic, 24 years sober. No wine for me, thank you very much, and I’m sure Jesus approves.

 

[mdgspencer]

I became a Catholic in the mid-1960s. At that time and for hundreds of years before, the wine was not even given to laypeople. Only the priest during the mass took it. So obviously, taking the wine (or I should say, the precious blood) was not and is not necessary.
I am not sure though how this question can be asked. At the parishes I attend, the majority of people do not take the wine, and this is quite obvious. There has never been any objection to this.

 

[benedictgal]

I became a Catholic in the mid-1960s. At that time and for hundreds of years before, the wine was not even given to laypeople. Only the priest during the mass took it. So obviously, taking the wine (or I should say, the precious blood) was not and is not necessary.
I am not sure though how this question can be asked. At the parishes I attend, the majority of people do not take the wine, and this is quite obvious. There has never been any objection to this.

Guys, I know that some have corrected it, but, please, please, let’s use the correct terminology. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecratoin. Let’s refer to the proper term of the Precious Blood when discussing the reception at Holy Communion.

Furthermore, receiving the Precious Blood is optoinal. That has already been establshed repeatedly. Whether you receive the Body of Christ or the Precious Blood, you are receiving the Living God in HIs entirety because He is contained in both Sacred Species.

 

[EasterJoy]

What you seem to be missing is that the bread and wine no longer exist… We believe the the bread and wine are transformed, that they truly become the Body and Blood – that they both exist under the appearances of bread and wine.

Yes. You’re talking about an error that is such a common misconception that it is worth the effort to be strictly correct in speech.

Nevertheless, consecration does do not effect any change whatsoever in the accidents, so that consumption of the Blessed Sacrament has the same purely physical effects as bread and wine would.

The alcoholic effect of even a full teaspoon of wine is probably 1/4 that of a full teaspoon of vanilla extract, which is 40% alcohol.

IMHO, a sip that is very much smaller than that is not something that is going to have a discernible physical effect, from a pharmacological perspective, even if the recipient is a child.

In my case, I am a Recovered Alcoholic, 24 years sober. No wine for me, thank you very much, and I’m sure Jesus approves.

The psychological effect that an alcoholic might experience when encountering the same accidents as the substance that he or she is addicted to, though, that is something else again. I think that alcoholics who decide that is not worth hazarding are wise.