Not taking wine at communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerfectTiming
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PerfectTiming

Guest
When I took first communion I was living in Saudi Arabia. Due to alcohol being illegal we were unable to have wine at mass so we were never taught how to take the wine at communion, only the bread. I later moved away and my new parish still did not use wine, due to not being able to afford buy enough for such a large parish. I’ve moved again and my new parish does use wine at mass though I never take it, purely because I don’t know how to. Does anyone know if this is okay or should I try learn? Also, would it be okay to not take the wine if I chose not to drink at all due to alcoholism running strongly in my family (this is true, though at this point I have not stopped drinking but am considering it)?
 
The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is contained in each of the Species (the consecrated bread and wine), so it is not necessary to receive both. You can opt not to receive from the chalice due to alcoholism, not being used to it, or just not liking the taste. Receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the Eucharist as Christ instituted it, but it is not theologically required.

I can’t speak for every parish, but generally what you would do to receive from the cup is (1) receive the Host as normal, it does not matter if you have chewed or swallowed it by the time you approach to receive from the cup, (2) there will usually be a couple of people standing in a smaller line to receive next from the cup, so go over there, (3) bow your head as a gesture of reverence, (4) step forward to the minister, who will say “The Blood of Christ,” (5) respond “Amen,” (6) carefully take the cup from the minister with both hands, take a small sip of the Precious Blood, and hand the cup back.
 
MarkThompson said:
The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is contained in each of the Species (the consecrated bread and wine), so it is not necessary to receive both. You can opt not to receive from the chalice due to alcoholism, not being used to it, or just not liking the taste. Receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the Eucharist as Christ instituted it, but it is not theologically required.

I can’t speak for every parish, but generally what you would do to receive from the cup is (1) receive the Host as normal, it does not matter if you have chewed or swallowed it by the time you approach to receive from the cup, (2) there will usually be a couple of people standing in a smaller line to receive next from the cup, so go over there, (3) bow your head as a gesture of reverence, (4) step forward to the minister, who will say “The Blood of Christ,” (5) respond “Amen,” (6) carefully take the cup from the minister with both hands, take a small sip of the Precious Blood, and hand the cup back.
Click to expand...
Mark is correct, but for one thing… that being “Receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the Eucharist…” Receiving either or (or both) species is equal and complete. There is no lesser or fuller. God bless.
 
The above is correct. There is no need to recieve in both kinds. Traditionally, the faithful only receive the host. For this reason I don’t take the precious blood, but bow my head when I pass by it, as a sign of respect.
 
Tietjen said:
Mark is correct, but for one thing… that being “Receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the Eucharist…” Receiving either or (or both) species is equal and complete. There is no lesser or fuller. God bless.
Click to expand...
It’s true that there is no “lesser” or “fuller” in a sacramental sense, but Mark was not referring to that. He was quoting from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 281, which reads as follows:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
 
Tietjen said:
Mark is correct, but for one thing… that being “Receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the Eucharist…” Receiving either or (or both) species is equal and complete. There is no lesser or fuller. God bless.
Click to expand...
Note that Mark said receiving both species is a fuller sign of the Eucharist. This is what the Church says.

From the GIRM:
  1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.105
 
PerfectTiming said:
When I took first communion I was living in Saudi Arabia. Due to alcohol being illegal we were unable to have wine at mass so we were never taught how to take the wine at communion, only the bread. I later moved away and my new parish still did not use wine, due to not being able to afford buy enough for such a large parish. I’ve moved again and my new parish does use wine at mass though I never take it, purely because I don’t know how to. Does anyone know if this is okay or should I try learn? Also, would it be okay to not take the wine if I chose not to drink at all due to alcoholism running strongly in my family (this is true, though at this point I have not stopped drinking but am considering it)?
Click to expand...
No Precious Blood at all? Only the preist is required to receive in any given Mass, and he has to receive under both kinds. So the priest must have wine to consecrate, then receive the Precious Blood of our Lord. The laity, its completely optional. We are fine if we receive the Host alone, or the wine alone, or both. We’re not even asked to receive at every Mass, only once a year during the Easter season. (Easter Vigil to Pentecost Sunday).
 
Don’t worry about it.

You get the body, blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ either way. By the way, after the priest says, “…this is the cup of my blood…” it is no longer wine. It is blood. It only looks like wine 😃

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.

Don’t worry about it.

-Tim-
 
Hi Everyone,

I have nothing against the partaking of the Bld of Christ from the common Chalice.

I am, however, really worried abt the “passing back & forth” of the chalice full of the Bld of Christ. Imagine what happens when someone accidentally drops the chalice. This possibility really terrifies me.

For this reason, I prefer to receive by the method of intinction.

Also, it is more hygienic to receive by intinction.

Just my 2 cts worth!..

:shamrock2:
 
ConstantineTG said:
No Precious Blood at all? Only the preist is required to receive in any given Mass, and he has to receive under both kinds. So the priest must have wine to consecrate, then receive the Precious Blood of our Lord.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Alindawyl said:
It’s true that there is no “lesser” or “fuller” in a sacramental sense, but Mark was not referring to that. He was quoting from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 281, which reads as follows:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, Mark said “Receiving” and the GIRM speaks of “distributing.” IE - the laity receives and the clergy distributes; so this is referring to the role of the clergy and offering Holy Communion under both species. It’s not referring to the laity’s role to necessarily receive under both species for the purpose of a “fuller” Eucharist. God bless.
 
fonz said:
Hi Everyone,

I have nothing against the partaking of the Bld of Christ from the common Chalice.

I am, however, really worried abt the “passing back & forth” of the chalice full of the Bld of Christ. Imagine what happens when someone accidentally drops the chalice. This possibility really terrifies me.

For this reason, I prefer to receive by the method of intinction.

Also, it is more hygienic to receive by intinction.

Just my 2 cts worth!..

:shamrock2:
Click to expand...
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.
 
I have to chime in here on this. 🙂

I receive the precious blood as well as the host.

I am an alcoholic.

Why do I think I can do this when my recovery depends on abstaining from ANY alcohol at any time?

Because I am completely convinced that I am receiving the blood!

When one is an alcoholic, even cold medicines and mouthwashes need to be avoided. I have talked this over with my sponsor, who is also Catholic, and also in recovery. I have absolutely never had the physical or mental craving while receiving the precious blood.
I have experienced it in front of a bottle of Nyquil. I avoid Nyquil. Even if I think I have a really fantastic excuse to have that “medicine”. There are alternatives. There are no alternatives for me to receive the precious blood. It’s at the Mass every time I go. 👍

Steph
 
PerfectTiming said:
When I took first communion I was living in Saudi Arabia. Due to alcohol being illegal we were unable to have wine at mass so we were never taught how to take the wine at communion, only the bread. I later moved away and my new parish still did not use wine, due to not being able to afford buy enough for such a large parish. I’ve moved again and my new parish does use wine at mass though I never take it, purely because I don’t know how to. Does anyone know if this is okay or should I try learn? Also, would it be okay to not take the wine if I chose not to drink at all due to alcoholism running strongly in my family (this is true, though at this point I have not stopped drinking but am considering it)?
Click to expand...
It is perfectly OK to not have wine at communion. In my case, as a Recovered Alcoholic, 26 years sober, I have no trouble at most Catholic Churches. I now attend an Eastern Catholic Church, and the Priest makes a special effort to give me the host without wine. I had to inform him ahead of time about this, and he was quite happy to accomodate me.:yup:
 
40.png
preacherman:
The wine and the bread is not the blood, body and soul of Jesus it is only a symbol as was stated at the last supper this do in remembrance of , it will not save your soul, only by calling on the name of Jesus directly (not through the virgin Mary) will save your soul.
Click to expand...
So ,are you in the Catholic Forums just to be a trouble-maker?🍿
 
Not wine, It is the Precious Blood of Jesus which purchased our redemption.
 
Tietjen said:
Agreed. However, Mark said “Receiving” and the GIRM speaks of “distributing.” IE - the laity receives and the clergy distributes; so this is referring to the role of the clergy and offering Holy Communion under both species. It’s not referring to the laity’s role to necessarily receive under both species for the purpose of a “fuller” Eucharist. God bless.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top