Not taking wine at communion

[SKWill]

In the US intinction usually is not possible for the laity. In fact, I have never been to Masses where the laity were offered this option. Redemptionis Sacramentum does allow for intinction; however, the laity are never allowed to administer under this form. The Ordinary (Priest or Bishop) is the only one who can distribute under this form and the Holy Eucharist MUST be received upon the tongue. God bless.

Tietjen, Fonz said nothing about self-intinction; please don’t be so quick to assume bad practices on Fonz’s part.

I too join in Fonz’s preference for intinction. My previous parish distributes communion at the communion rail, exclusively by priests: either body and blood, by intinction and on the tongue, or body only, in the hand. But that parish has the luxury of having several Dominican friars on staff and in residence at the priory located there. If there weren’t at least two or three ordinary ministers available at every weekend Mass, distribution by intinction probably wouldn’t happen. I believe that Deacons, as ordinary ministers of communion, are authorized to distribute by intinction also (someone please correct me if I’m wrong.)

 

[Tietjen]

The General Instruction seems to disagree, from further down in the above quoted passage:

"21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” (33)

“…the faithful are again able to experience a fuller sign.” Naturally, the faithful are not required to receive both Sacred Species, but Mark was correct in his original assertion, which had to do with the outward “sign,” not the adequacy of receiving one Sacred Species alone. I seem to recall Ven. Pope John Paul II making the same statement in a catechesis session, but I cannot recall which.

So, what is being said? Does the laity receive a “fuller” Holy Communion by receiving both species? Or is the GIRM referring to the “fuller” sign of what was offered at the Last Supper? There is a difference. By having BOTH species available for the laity, it is indeed closer to what was offered by Christ at the last supper. HOWEVER, I do not see where the GIRM indicates that if a member of the laity receives under both species he/she is obtaining a fuller Holy Eucharist than if he/she only receives under one species. So again, and I do apologize if I am misunderstanding, but when I read the GIRM on this matter, I understand it to be talking about distributing or offering under both species (which falls under the responsibilities of the Clergy); not in the receiving under both species (which is left from the laity to decide). Again, I was taught that regardless whether you receive under one species or the other or under both, you leave having taken part in the FULLNESS of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no “fuller” or “lesser” as far as the laity deciding to take part in both species or only one. The “fuller” being talked about is related to the Clergy and their role in providing both species… just as Christ provided both at the last supper. If I’m wrong, please help me to understand.

 

[Tietjen]

Okay, after re-reading and then reading again, I believe that where I may be having trouble is with the word “sign.” Mark does indeed say that both species contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So, it’s not an issue of a “fuller” or lesser Holy Eucharist but rather a fuller “sign.” Now… what is the word “sign” referring to?

 

[PerfectTiming]

That’s what I was going to say, they must have at least some wine. You don’t have a valid Mass without wine (I’m not sure if a Bishop can even dispense that requirement).

The priest would have wine but there was none for the congregation. For a church with about 4000 people it was just too expensive to do.

 

[curlycool89]

The priest would have wine but there was none for the congregation. For a church with about 4000 people it was just too expensive to do.

Ah ok. I thought so.

preacherman:

It is a symbol not the blood

Look, buddy, if you want to argue, go to the Apologetics forum. That’s the proper place to argue such things. Although, if I may offer a quick quip, Scott Hahn also believed that but was so moved by the Spirit during the Mass that he changed his mind.

 

[Tietjen]

Tietjen, Fonz said nothing about self-intinction; please don’t be so quick to assume bad practices on Fonz’s part.

Did I do that? If I did then I apologize. If I simply said something to the effect that in most U.S. parishes it is not the norm then I apologize for not being clearer. If neither of these apologies reflect what I said in my reply, then I apologize for … what? … stating fact? God bless.

 

[RosalieM]

This is acceptable, but not necessary, and sometimes difficult to pull off!

“Acceptable”? It’s preferable not to chew the Body of Christ. It’s not difficult at all.
A lot of things aren’t “necessary”; like folding hands in prayer, lighting candles, etc.
I do them anyway because it’s the way I learned.

 

[barb_finnegan]

Not wine, It is the Precious Blood of Jesus which purchased our redemption.

And I may I add-we Catholics DO NOT ‘TAKE Communion’. We RECEIVE Communion.

‘Taking Communion’ is what Protestants do. We are not Protestants.

Let’s use the correct terminology here, all right?..

 

[Loboto-Me]

And I may I add-we Catholics DO NOT ‘TAKE Communion’. We RECEIVE Communion.

‘Taking Communion’ is what Protestants do. We are not Protestants.

Let’s use the correct terminology here, all right?..

As I was reading on, these two thoughts kept coming back to me. We RECEIVE the BLOOD and BODY of Christ, we do not take the wine or the bread. This surprised me so much as I thought that would have been the first thing Catholics would have mentioned from the get-go. But then, this is a place of learning, even our own religion. This is where I learned much of what my faith was… I love CAF!

 

[Alindawyl]

Okay, after re-reading and then reading again, I believe that where I may be having trouble is with the word “sign.” Mark does indeed say that both species contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So, it’s not an issue of a “fuller” or lesser Holy Eucharist but rather a fuller “sign.” Now… what is the word “sign” referring to?

A sign is an act, gesture or some other kind of physical display which represents or brings to mind an idea. A flat, octagonal red object with the word STOP on it (at least in the United States) is a sign for “Don’t move forward until it’s safe to do so”. A sports fan cheering as their team scores is a sign of their excitement for what is taking place at the game. The crucifix is a sign of how much God loves us.

The distribution and reception of Holy Communion is a sign which brings to mind the Last Supper and the words of Jesus as he celebrated Passover with his friends. If Holy Communion is offered under both species, then the sign is fuller because it more accurately represents what Jesus did.

The sacrament, however, is the same sacramentally if both species are offered, one is offered, or both are offered and we choose to receive only one. And that’s the important thing.

 

[mdrummer5]

I like to take the blood to help wash down the body. Jesus sticks to the roof of my mouth sometimes. Sometimes I have to go get a drink of water after Mass though.

LOL!!!

The Church I’ve been attending seems to have a lot of people not taking wine, being “new” and not even being able to take communion yet my only assumption is that this is to avoid drinking after the large number of other people that do.

Assuming that’s the case, is that considered acceptable?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

A sign is an act, gesture or some other kind of physical display which represents or brings to mind an idea. A flat, octagonal red object with the word STOP on it (at least in the United States) is a sign for “Don’t move forward until it’s safe to do so”. A sports fan cheering as their team scores is a sign of their excitement for what is taking place at the game. The crucifix is a sign of how much God loves us.

The distribution and reception of Holy Communion is a sign which brings to mind the Last Supper and the words of Jesus as he celebrated Passover with his friends. If Holy Communion is offered under both species, then the sign is fuller because it more accurately represents what Jesus did.

The sacrament, however, is the same sacramentally if both species are offered, one is offered, or both are offered and we choose to receive only one. And that’s the important thing.

The best explanation of this I have heard in a long time!!!

 

[maryj]

“Acceptable”? It’s preferable not to chew the Body of Christ. It’s not difficult at all.
A lot of things aren’t “necessary”; like folding hands in prayer, lighting candles, etc.
I do them anyway because it’s the way I learned.

You must mean it’s preferable to you. The translation of the words of Jesus are to “chew” or to “gnaw”. And I was taught by the nuns to not even let the Host touch my teeth. But if you have ever seen a priest consume the host you will see him chew.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So, what is being said? Does the laity receive a “fuller” Holy Communion by receiving both species? Or is the GIRM referring to the “fuller” sign of what was offered at the Last Supper? There is a difference. By having BOTH species available for the laity, it is indeed closer to what was offered by Christ at the last supper. HOWEVER, I do not see where the GIRM indicates that if a member of the laity receives under both species he/she is obtaining a fuller Holy Eucharist than if he/she only receives under one species. So again, and I do apologize if I am misunderstanding, but when I read the GIRM on this matter, I understand it to be talking about distributing or offering under both species (which falls under the responsibilities of the Clergy); not in the receiving under both species (which is left from the laity to decide). Again, I was taught that regardless whether you receive under one species or the other or under both, you leave having taken part in the FULLNESS of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no “fuller” or “lesser” as far as the laity deciding to take part in both species or only one. The “fuller” being talked about is related to the Clergy and their role in providing both species… just as Christ provided both at the last supper. If I’m wrong, please help me to understand.

I may not increase your understanding with my own, which is limited and poor, but I’ll try to explain what I perceive it to be. Also, I may only be able to respond in small sections, if you have further questions, because of time constraints.

Neither Mark (nor the Church) asserted that both of the Sacred Species must be received to obtain the fullness of effectual Grace that is conveyed in the Elements of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They only addressed the idea of the outward and visible sign being “fuller” under both species, not the effectual Grace conveyed. So, if two people approach the Blessed Sacrament to receive, and one takes Both Sacred Species and the other takes only One (and it could be Either, as some celiac sufferers can only receive the Sacrament from the Chalice), the former does not recieve “more” Grace or fuller “Grace” or “more effectual Grace” than the latter. The outward sign, however, is more complete receiving both.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Acceptable”? It’s preferable not to chew the Body of Christ. It’s not difficult at all.
A lot of things aren’t “necessary”; like folding hands in prayer, lighting candles, etc.
I do them anyway because it’s the way I learned.

There is no such thing taught officially by the Church. Christ said and as quoted in scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:56[/BIBLEDRB]

You eat and drink the Eucharist the same way you do any other food, because as Christ said, they are real food and real drink.

Also, if you go to a Byzantine parish, there is no way you’re swallowing intincted leavened bread without chewing it.

 

[MarkThompson]

“Acceptable”? It’s preferable not to chew the Body of Christ. It’s not difficult at all.
A lot of things aren’t “necessary”; like folding hands in prayer, lighting candles, etc.
I do them anyway because it’s the way I learned.

As noted by others, there is no Church teaching on this topic. Nuns in the '50s may have promoted one point of view, but “Chewing hurts Jesus” is a pious myth. It is also correct that when Jesus said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,” the Greek verb trogein (politely, “eat”) actually means “gnaw” or “chomp,” and is often used of animals gnawing at something.

And I may I add-we Catholics DO NOT ‘TAKE Communion’. We RECEIVE Communion.

‘Taking Communion’ is what Protestants do. We are not Protestants.

Let’s use the correct terminology here, all right?..

This is just an issue of semantics. A standard definition of “take” is “to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling) .” That’s the sense in which it’s generally meant to “take Communion.” “Take communion” is also a well-worn traditional usage; for a handful of Catholic examples, see [1], [2], [3].

Moreover, there is an element of “taking,” in the more active sense, to Holy Communion. Not in that we go up to the ciborium and take a host, but in that, inasmuch as the Eucharist is a gift that Jesus gives us, he does not force it down our throats. “Receiving Communion” cannot be a purely passive thing; one must make the conscious choice to accept the gift that is given.

Like I said, just semantics, really. Going up to the altar and grabbing a host is definitely not okay, but using the phrase “to take Communion” is entirely acceptable as a semantic matter.

 

[Baltazar]

I think the council of Ephesus declared that either the body or blood is sufficient for holy communion as long as it is dispensed by the priest ordained in one of the Apostolic schools that Jesus established, of course with the primacy of Saint Peter----hence the Roman Catholic church. Either way, Blood or Bread, it doesn’t matter. As long as you get one or the other.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the council of Ephesus declared that either the body or blood is sufficient for holy communion as long as it is dispensed by the priest ordained in one of the Apostolic schools that Jesus established, of course with the primacy of Saint Peter----hence the Roman Catholic church. Either way, Blood or Bread, it doesn’t matter. As long as you get one or the other.

There are several things wrong with this statement. First of all, Ordination can be confered by any valid Bishop, regardless if that Bishop is part of the Catholic Church or not. An Orthodox priest is a valid priest and can concecrate validly bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Second, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Apostolic Church following the successor of Peter. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is only 1 of 23 Catholic Churches under the Pope of Rome.

 

[RosalieM]

There is no such thing taught officially by the Church.
You eat and drink the Eucharist the same way you do any other food, because as Christ said, they are real food and real drink.

Also, if you go to a Byzantine parish, there is no way you’re swallowing intincted leavened bread without chewing it.

Who’s talking about nuns in the 50’s or going to a Byzantine parish and having intincted bread?
There are a lot of things not officially taught by the Church but that require some kind of sensitivity nonetheless. Yes, they are real food and drink, but unlike any earthly food and drink, and I do not eat them the same way as I would a grilled cheese sandwich and soda pop.
Christ said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who’s talking about nuns in the 50’s or going to a Byzantine parish and having intincted bread?
There are a lot of things not officially taught by the Church but that require some kind of sensitivity nonetheless. Yes, they are real food and drink, but unlike any earthly food and drink, and I do not eat them the same way as I would a grilled cheese sandwich and soda pop.
Christ said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”…

The leavened bread has become the Body of Christ as well. I just said leavened bread to distinguish the accident you find with an unleavened host. The leavened bread is the Body of Christ intincted in His Precious Blood. Given the accidents of leavened bread soaked in the accident of wine, its impossible to swallow without choking and probably coughing out the Eucharist on the floor.

This is just an example of why “not chewing the Body” is not taught officially or unofficially but the Church. We are expected to eat as Christ commanded us to do so.

If you wish to do such practice on your own then you are free to do so. But to suggest that the Church even implies that is the proper way to receive the Body of Christ is misrepresenting the Church.