Not taking wine at communion

[RosalieM]

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.

To reiterate, I was not referring to leavened bread. You’re right about the leavened bread, even though it’s not what I was talking about, obviously.
My first post stated that I was taught not to chew. I am free to “do such practice”. I certainly don’t need your permission. There is no need for you to be so heavy-handed and antagonistic.
As this is obviously not a friendly discussion, Feel free to argue with someone else.
I’m off this thread.

 

[MarkThompson]

To reiterate, I was not referring to leavened bread. You’re right about the leavened bread, even though it’s not what I was talking about, obviously.
My first post stated that I was taught not to chew. I am free to “do such practice”. I certainly don’t need your permission. There is no need for you to be so heavy-handed and antagonistic.
As this is obviously not a friendly discussion, Feel free to argue with someone else.
I’m off this thread.

It was you who said:
“Acceptable”? It’s preferable not to chew the Body of Christ.
It sounds now like you’ve come around to the view that that’s not an objective preference of the Church. Right? There was nothing “heavy-handed” in Constantine’s statement; quite to the contrary, he was trying to affirm that chewing or not-chewing is a question on which the Church teaches no preference, and that there’s no need for scolding people with “It’s preferable not to.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

To reiterate, I was not referring to leavened bread. You’re right about the leavened bread, even though it’s not what I was talking about, obviously.
My first post stated that I was taught not to chew. I am free to “do such practice”. I certainly don’t need your permission. There is no need for you to be so heavy-handed and antagonistic.
As this is obviously not a friendly discussion, Feel free to argue with someone else.
I’m off this thread.

I’m not trying to change what you want to do. To be honest I also don’t chew most of the time when I go to Mass in an RC parish, which is like 90% of my life up to today. As long as we consume the Eucharist, then its fine. Its just that you’re making it sound like not chewing is something thats better than chewing, that is not true, and I want that clarified for the benefit of others who may not know any better and would read these discussions.

I did say in my previous post that you are free to do this if you want to. But suggesting it as a better way does not have any basis in Church teaching, lets just be clear on that.

 

[Baltazar]

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.

My main point is that either the Body or the Blood of Christ is sufficient enough to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Both the holy Cathecism of the Church and the Council of Ephesus has upheld this teaching.

YOU are trying to split hairs by inserting the validity of your tradition/rite as to who can dispense it. The Eucharist may be dispensed by ANY of the Apostolic Schools that Christ established on Earth, beginning with the Primacy of Saint Peter who happens to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. I really don’t see what you feel you need to clarify or correct, inasmuch that you’re quite adamant about stressing the validity of those Orthodox priests. Wait, are they in communion with the Vicar of Christ on Earth? If they are, then that makes them valid. If not then, dispensation of both the Body and Blood is not for them to administer. The Supremacy of Roman Church as head maintains.

Furthermore, the Council of Ephesus communed and said, as ALSO it is presently stated in the Cathecism of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH that either the body or blood of Christ (not necessarily both, but could be) valid in the reception of holy communion. If one likes it both ways, then its just as fine as having it one-way. Are you gonna keep bringing up Orthodox Priests here for us? I thought this was the Roman Catholic forum?

 

[MissRose73]

The only time I do not take wine at Communion is if I have a cold. I take the host only. Otherwise, I receive both.

My mother, for her health reasons, does not take the wine at Communion. No one says anything to her.

I am sure many have their reasons why they do not take the wine. But I do not judge them on the reasons, as its between them and God.

 

[Baltazar]

The only time I do not take wine at Communion is if I have a cold. I take the host only. Otherwise, I receive both.

My mother, for her health reasons, does not take the wine at Communion. No one says anything to her.

I am sure many have their reasons why they do not take the wine. But I do not judge them on the reasons, as its between them and God.

Good for you Miss Rose! Our Lord Jesus wants us to take both species of his body and blood as he commanded, but the teachings of our Holy Mother the Church has given us the wisdom to choose if we choose to either take both, either, or none at all. That allows us to discern in our own conscience if we are deserving to eat Jesus in holy communion or decline to receive him due to the gravity of our present sin! I also receive the good Lord in the form of a wine from my parish----but do not maliciously judge those who only receive His body for health and cultural purposes. Mary, queen of all sinners save us all evil priests and abusive laymembers!

 

[ConstantineTG]

My main point is that either the Body or the Blood of Christ is sufficient enough to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Both the holy Cathecism of the Church and the Council of Ephesus has upheld this teaching.

YOU are trying to split hairs by inserting the validity of your tradition/rite as to who can dispense it. The Eucharist may be dispensed by ANY of the Apostolic Schools that Christ established on Earth, beginning with the Primacy of Saint Peter who happens to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. I really don’t see what you feel you need to clarify or correct, inasmuch that you’re quite adamant about stressing the validity of those Orthodox priests. Wait, are they in communion with the Vicar of Christ on Earth? If they are, then that makes them valid. If not then, dispensation of both the Body and Blood is not for them to administer. The Supremacy of Roman Church as head maintains.

Furthermore, the Council of Ephesus communed and said, as ALSO it is presently stated in the Cathecism of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH that either the body or blood of Christ (not necessarily both, but could be) valid in the reception of holy communion. If one likes it both ways, then its just as fine as having it one-way. Are you gonna keep bringing up Orthodox Priests here for us? I thought this was the Roman Catholic forum?

First, there is no such thing as the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. If you do not want to believe me, look here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

Even the Vatican calls it the CCC or Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, even though admittedly the CCC teaches from a very Western point-of-view. Mind you that the Catholic Church does a wonderful job of making several notations on the CCC regarding Eastern practices, such as mandatory celibacy of priests and the retention of minor orders.

Secondly, in my own little way I wish to educate people that the Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church only. The Eastern Catholic Church are in communion with the Pope and are as Catholic as any Roman Catholic. You still seem to think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church and every Eastern Church is Orthodox. I hope I’m reading you wrong, but again there are 23 Churches in the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is only 1/23 of the entire Catholic Church. And this does not include the Orthodox, although most Orthodox would have an “equivalent” within the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, communion with the Supreme Pontiff is not needed for validity or even licity of the Eucharist. Even the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox has 7 valid Sacraments including the Eucharist. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Lastly I never contested that reception of one of the sacred species is not enough. You seem to think that I did as you keep mentioning it over and over. Can you quote me where I said it?

 

[MarkThompson]

Thirdly, communion with the Supreme Pontiff is not needed for validity or even licity of the Eucharist.

This strikes me as true from a theoretical standpoint, but do you know of any example in practice where the Eucharist is licitly celebrated outside of communion with the Pope? Just curious.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This strikes me as true from a theoretical standpoint, but do you know of any example in practice where the Eucharist is licitly celebrated outside of communion with the Pope? Just curious.

Should have been a little more specific. What is licit is subjective. For example, its licit to use unleavened bread in the Roman Church but not in the Byzantine Church.

The Orthodox Eucharist is licit for the Orthodox. The Catholic Eucharist is not licit for them, in fact some would even question its validity. But that is a different discussion. The intention of my statement is just to say that what is licit is subjective.

 

[MarkThompson]

Should have been a little more specific. What is licit is subjective. For example, its licit to use unleavened bread in the Roman Church but not in the Byzantine Church.

The Orthodox Eucharist is licit for the Orthodox. The Catholic Eucharist is not licit for them, in fact some would even question its validity. But that is a different discussion. The intention of my statement is just to say that what is licit is subjective.

Oh. I had assumed since you also referenced validity that you were speaking from the Catholic viewpoint, i.e., that the Eucharist can be celebrated in a way that we would deem valid and licit, even outside of communion with the Pope. If you just mean that other churches celebrate the Eucharist apart from the Pope in a way that they themselves deem valid and licit, then that’s obviously true, but doesn’t say much.

Put differently, when the subject is a Eucharist that we Catholics would deem valid, then liceity is not in fact “subjective,” it is to be determined by the Catholic Church; and as far as I know there is no situation where a (truly-) valid Eucharist is celebrated licitly outside of communion with the Pope. Have I got it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh. I had assumed since you also referenced validity that you were speaking from the Catholic viewpoint, i.e., that the Eucharist can be celebrated in a way that we would deem valid and licit, even outside of communion with the Pope. If you just mean that other churches celebrate the Eucharist apart from the Pope in a way that they themselves deem valid and licit, then that’s obviously true, but doesn’t say much.

Put differently, when the subject is a Eucharist that we Catholics would deem valid, then liceity is not in fact “subjective,” it is to be determined by the Catholic Church; and as far as I know there is no situation where a (truly-) valid Eucharist is celebrated licitly outside of communion with the Pope. Have I got it?

The Eucharist celebrated in the proper Liturgy will always be licit. But we Catholics cannot under normal circumstances receive the Eucharist from the Orthodox. Licitly consecrating is different from licitly receiving. Thats how I see it. The Orthodox Eucharist is licit and valid, it is just not licit for us to receive it.

 

[Aramis]

This strikes me as true from a theoretical standpoint, but do you know of any example in practice where the Eucharist is licitly celebrated outside of communion with the Pope? Just curious.

Any Canonical Eastern Orthodox Parish.
Any Oriental Orthodox Parish in communion with the Pope of Alexandria.
Any Assyrian Church of the East parish.
Any Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Parish.
Any Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) parish.

If you have no recourse to a Catholic parish, but recourse to one of these, then you may licitly ask them for permission to be admitted to confession and/or communion. They don’t have to say yes… with some special exceptions.*

I’ve had occasion to do so. I’ve been denied a few times, and I’ve been permitted a few times as “orthodox enough” for the pastor in question. I’ve even been invited to confession and communion by the pastor even tho’ I hadn’t asked at one OCA parish! (That last was about 3 years ago. He also invited the Ukrainian Orthodox Couple as well, despite their being Kyiv Patriarchate UOC.)

*The Assyrians and Chaldeans officially have intercommunion of the faithful. The Syrian Orthodox and the Syrian Catholics also officially have intercommunion of the Faithful.
The Armenians essentially don’t recognize the Armenian Catholics as having broken communion with them by entering communion with Rome.

 

[carmelitenovice]

I just wanted to repeat what other posters have said:

We do NOT “take” Communion as Catholics, we “receive” it.

and

We do NOT drink “wine” at Communion, we receive Jesus’ Precious Blood, or receive from the Cup etc. (Hearing or seeing the consecrated liquid referred to as wine is one of my biggest liturgical pet peeves. IMHO there are a fair amount of Catholics who have gotten sloppy in their references to this, which either reflects and/or has led to a decreased belief in the Real Presence.)

 

[PerfectTiming]

I just wanted to repeat what other posters have said:

We do NOT “take” Communion as Catholics, we “receive” it.

and

We do NOT drink “wine” at Communion, we receive Jesus’ Precious Blood, or receive from the Cup etc. (Hearing or seeing the consecrated liquid referred to as wine is one of my biggest liturgical pet peeves. IMHO there are a fair amount of Catholics who have gotten sloppy in their references to this, which either reflects and/or has led to a decreased belief in the Real Presence.)

The reason I used the word ‘wine’ in the OP rather than referring to it as the Blood of Christ is simply because I was trying to ask a question in relation to taking the sacrament and alcoholism and it was easier to phrase in that way and avoid confusion.