People not partaking in wine during the Communion

[Anna_Claire]

The Church teaches ““Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer 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 connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father” (GIRM, 281).”…

Our approach to receiving Communion, and our approach to all liturgical ritual, ought to be governed by our faith and by our traditional principles of good liturgical celebration. Among those principles is the goal that we do whatever is possible within our tradition to participate in the sacramental rites fully and actively. Our reception of Holy Communion is fullest when we participate in the fullness of the symbol - doing what Jesus invited his disciples to do at the Last Supper - eating the bread and drinking from the cup.

In answer to your second question …"“When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.” …GIRM 160

It only makes sense that even if we choose not to receive from the Cup, we don’t just pas by the Blood of Christ without giving some reverence.

 

[Corki]

I was hoping to get a definitive answer for this in the “Ask an Apologist” sub-forum, but I guess they get so many other questions that they missed mine. I know that when we receive the Blessed Host we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and not just His Body alone. But here is my question in two parts:

1. When Holy Communion is offered in both forms (the Host and from the chalice) is it better or proper to receive it in both forms since it’s being offered as such?

It is neither better nor more proper to receive two species rather than one (or the other way around). When both are offered, it is entirely your option.

1. If one chooses to receive only in the form of the host, after receiving, should one bow or genuflect before the Chalice containing the Blood of Christ when passing by? What about if the chalice is being offered only a few feet from where the Host is being offered?

You have Jesus already in your mouth, it is unnecessary to bow or genuflect. That sign of reverence is called for as a gesture **before **receiving each species of Communion. If you aren’t receiving, no gesture is called for. In most parishes, to stop and genuflect if you aren’t receiving might create confusion on the part of the Eucharistic Minister or EMHC who has the cup so I wouldn’t recommend it for logistical reasons. If you want, a simple bow of the head is fine.

 

[hudson]

Why would you need to reverence the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the chalice when you have the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in your mouth? I see no point in receiving under both species since I get everything I need in receiving the host only. Of course I do a profound bow before receiving the host and would prefer to kneel, but that seems to be an issue with some people for some reason.

 

[Anna_Claire]

Why would you need to reverence the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the chalice when you have the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in your mouth? I see no point in receiving under both species since I get everything I need in receiving the host only. Of course I do a profound bow before receiving the host and would prefer to kneel, but that seems to be an issue with some people for some reason.

Um…because you are still passing by a Real Presence. Do you not believe or perhaps choose to ignore that fact…walk on by as if it meant nothing?

 

[felsguy]

Um…because you are still passing by a Real Presence. Do you not believe or perhaps choose to ignore that fact…walk on by as if it meant nothing?

Um…so as you walk back to your pew, do you also stop and bow to each of those already in their pews who have just received Him… and then once in your pew, do you also bow to each of those who have just recieved Him as they walk past on the way back to their pews?

Just wondering?

.

 

[Anna_Claire]

Um…so as you walk back to your pew, do you also stop and bow to each of those already in their pews who have just received Him… and then once in your pew, do you also bow to each of those who have just recieved Him as they walk past on the way back to their pews?

Just wondering?

.

We acknowledge Christ’s presence in each other not by bows but by how we treat one another. Reverence requires that we believe He is present in one another and respond properly. Reverence in and to the Blessed Sacrament in each species should be acknowledged, not ignored by walking by when we don’t want to participate in the fuller sign.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

We acknowledge Christ’s presence in each other not by bows but by how we treat one another. Reverence requires that we believe He is present in one another and respond properly. Reverence in and to the Blessed Sacrament in each species should be acknowledged, not ignored by walking by when we don’t want to participate in the fuller sign.

The point is that at that particular moment, Christ IS present in the Species in each person who has just received and whom you pass by – so, using your own logic, why do you not bow to each of them, as the Blessed Sacrament is physically present in each of that at that time?

 

[TrueLight]

I have only received the body since I became Catholic and that is what I’m used to, so that’s one reason why I probably would not receive the blood if I were at an OF mass.

The second reason that a person might not receive the blood, is that some people only receive from priests.

So if there are two lines and the priest has the body and the EMHC has the blood, then some people will only go on the priest’s line.

 

[Anna_Claire]

The point is that at that particular moment, Christ IS present in the Species in each person who has just received and whom you pass by – so, using your own logic, why do you not bow to each of them, as the Blessed Sacrament is physically present in each of that at that time?

I already explained the reason…we don’t bow to each other…we show respect in how we treat each other. Bowing is how we respectfully reverence the consecrated elements.

 

[Anna_Claire]

I have only received the body since I became Catholic and that is what I’m used to, so that’s one reason why I probably would not receive the blood if I were at an OF mass.

The second reason that a person might not receive the blood, is that some people only receive from priests.

So if there are two lines and the priest has the body and the EMHC has the blood, then some people will only go on the priest’s line.

If you prefer the Tridentine Mass(which is your right) with it’s restrictions and you cannot understand the beauty of the Vatican II reforms, then perhaps you should not comment in this discussion. Just sayin’…

 

[Corki]

I already explained the reason…we don’t bow to each other…we show respect in how we treat each other. Bowing is how we respectfully reverence the consecrated elements.

According to the GIRM, bowing is how we are to reverence each element before receiving. There is no prescribed gesture or sign of reverence at any other time while in procession for Communion. If you feel more reverent by bowing as you pass each EMHC, that’s fine. For others, the most reverent thing to do would be to simply return prayerfully to thier seats.

We don’t genuflect when passing the tabernacle during Mass, either - even if we do so on the way to or from Communion. Jesus is no more present in the cup than He is in the tabernacle.

 

[TrueLight]

If you prefer the Tridentine Mass(which is your right) with it’s restrictions and you cannot understand the beauty of the Vatican II reforms, then perhaps you should not comment in this discussion. Just sayin’…

That was needlessly rude and uncalled for. I will refrain from responding in kind. It is Lent after all.

I answered the question about why someone might not partake of the blood. If you don’t like the answer, then .

 

[Corki]

How did you get THIS

If you prefer the Tridentine Mass(which is your right) with it’s restrictions and you cannot understand the beauty of the Vatican II reforms, then perhaps you should not comment in this discussion. Just sayin’…

From THIS???

I have only received the body since I became Catholic and that is what I’m used to, so that’s one reason why I probably would not receive the blood if I were at an OF mass.

The second reason that a person might not receive the blood, is that some people only receive from priests.

So if there are two lines and the priest has the body and the EMHC has the blood, then some people will only go on the priest’s line.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I wouldn’t.

• First, one receives the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus with just the Host.
• Two, receiving from the chalice is yet another chance for accidents (spilling).
• Third, I’ve noticed that this practice actually has some people believing that they don’t receive the “whole Jesus” by just receiving the Host.
• Fourth, as True Light said, many people (including me) won’t receive from an EMHC.
• Fifth, it’s a great way to pass germs. That cloth can’t wipe the germs, you know! I’ve heard people complain about germs from receiving on the tongue, and then they go right to the chalice! Well, hello, but you’re getting a whole lot more saliva from that chalice than you’ll ever get from the priest accidentally touching a few tongues.
• Sixth, it makes an excuse to use that which is supposed to be “extraordinary” - namely EMHC. These are only supposed to be used when NECESSARY.
• Seventh, it gets annoying to have people stumble over me in the pew because they were waiting in line for the chalice and I get to the pew first. Sure enough, they come and climb over you while you’re trying to say your prayers!

 

[Anna_Claire]

What if you saw a priest spill the consecrated wine…would you not feel as bad as if it were a consecrated host that were stepped on? Why not show reverence to both? It leads me to believe that your problem may be that you just don’t believe that both species should be offered to the laity or that you do not believe in Christ’s presence in the consecrated wine…that IS YOUR PROBLEM…the Church does not agree. Too bad, You are missing out on so much!

 

[YoungCatholic86]

Um…so as you walk back to your pew, do you also stop and bow to each of those already in their pews who have just received Him… and then once in your pew, do you also bow to each of those who have just recieved Him as they walk past on the way back to their pews?

Just wondering?

.

No you do not have to bow to everyone. Good question though

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

What if you saw a priest spill the consecrated wine…would you not feel as bad as if it were a consecrated host that were stepped on? Why not show reverence to both? It leads me to believe that your problem may be that you just don’t believe that both species should be offered to the laity or that you do not believe in Christ’s presence in the consecrated wine…that IS YOUR PROBLEM…the Church does not agree. Too bad, You are missing out on so much!

1. Yes, it would be bad if the priest (who would be at the altar) spilled the Precious Blood (Body, Soul, and Divinity as well!). However, it would not be down where everyone is walking. Secondly, the priest should know how to handle those situations. Thirdly, as I said before, the chances of one person accidentally spilling the Precious Blood is significantly less than multiple people doing so, especially when they are passing it back and forth.
2. You’re adding motives to what other people do (or don’t do) or reading into what they type. I mean, I could say that by your emotional reaction that perhaps you don’t believe that you receive the “whole Jesus” with just the Host, but I’m not going to make that accusation. Likewise, you shouldn’t be making accusations about others’ beliefs (or lack thereof). Honestly, you’ve just now made not one, but two rude comments in this section!
3. The only way anyone would be missing out on anything would be if they actually didn’t receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity from the Host alone. But since they do, if they choose not to receive from the chalice, they are missing out on nothing.

 

[Anna_Claire]

I don’t have time, unfortunately, but i will talk more later about the " fuller sign " that you sadly don’t seem to understand.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

If you prefer the Tridentine Mass(which is your right) with it’s restrictions and you cannot understand the beauty of the Vatican II reforms, then perhaps you should not comment in this discussion. Just sayin’…

FYI: EMHC’s are only permitted in extraordinary circumstances. The way it is now, with EMHC schedules for every Sunday, etc. is NOT permitted by the Vatican.

Furthermore, I grew up in the Vatican II world, as I was born in the 80s. The only time I was permitted to receive under both species was at my First Communion. Receiving under both species for the congregation was pretty much unheard of when I was a kid.

This reminds me of that Vatican II video. “Vatican II says we get to drink the wine. You’re not Vatican II.”

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I don’t have time, unfortunately, but i will talk more later about the " fuller sign " that you sadly don’t seem to understand.

Please, don’t bother. I’ve heard that argument before and it doesn’t cut water. All it means is that certain people really don’t feel satisfied in receiving Our Lord under one species. This is something derived from personal feelings rather than doctrine.

I should mention here that I have no problems with those with celiac disease receiving from the chalice. There are practical reasons for people to receive that way, but they are not the norm and there is certainly no fuller meaning to receiving both, otherwise celiacs would be missing out on something.