Receiving the Blood of Christ at Communion

[Sbee0]

This might be an odd thing to say (and an odd question) as I’m not a new Catholic but I’ve never actually received the Blood of Christ before at Mass until the Easter Vigil on Saturday. It’s always been the Body of Christ.

Is there an “etiquette” for doing so? Meaning- is it proper to receive one in lieu of the other or can you (or even should you) receive both?

 

[Glennon_P]

If the Precious Blood is offered, you may receive it in lieu of receiving the Sacred Host. For example, persons with celiac disease do this as they cannot receive anything with gluten. However, anyone can receive Communion under either species.

You can receive one, you can receive both. Holy Mother Church allows for both options.

 

[TheMortenBay]

anyone can receive Communion under either species.

Not so, actually. I’m pretty certain you have to have the priest’s permission to receive only under the species of the wine.
Regardless, I think all faithful could learn a lot from this video regarding the reception under both species:

 

[Glennon_P]

Not so, actually. I’m pretty certain you have to have the priest’s permission to receive only under the species of the wine.

Source? I’ve never heard that.

 

[Elf01]

Source? I’ve never heard that.

I think it depends on where you are. In my parish Communion under both species is rarely offered to the laity.

Regardless, I think all faithful could learn a lot from this video regarding the reception under both species:

I agree that I feel intinction is the best way for Communion under both species to be offered. However there would also need to be allowances for people who can only receive under one species.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am unaware of anyone needing permission to receive only the wine and not the host.

However, it is really rare for anyone to do that unless it’s a situation of celiac disease or some other health care issue, which is normally made known to the priest prior to the person receiving. For celiac, they have to be sure the wine used is not from the cup into which the priest places part of the Host during the Mass or it will be contaminated with gluten. For other medical issues, the person would want to speak to the priest prior to Mass because the Precious Blood is not always offered to the congregation and when it is, it sometimes runs out partway through Holy Communion so not everyone who wished to receive it could do so.

Because of the rarity of people just proceeding straight to the Precious Blood, it’s likely that if a priest saw someone doing that and hadn’t spoken with them beforehand or didn’t know the situation, he might think they were not Catholic and not aware of the proper Communion procedure, or otherwise not disposed to receive (didn’t know they were supposed to normally receive the Host first, etc.) And there is also the potential for the cup, even if offered, to run out before it gets to you.

 

[TheMortenBay]

Source? I’ve never heard that.

I just assumed it seems.

 

[SMHW]

The overall answer to this question of etiquette depends on a number of things.

In general, the idea is that if both species are offered, then you may receive both. The logistics of how communion is distributed (communion rail or not, kneeling, standing, intinction…) at your parish may impact how easy it is to receive one but not the other.

Unless communion is being offered by intinction, you typically receive the Body of Christ from one minister (whether ordinary or extraordinary) of communion and the precious Blood from another.

I could go on.

While there are rules, a lot of this is going to vary from country to country, diocese to diocese, and parish to parish. You really should ask what is proper for your parish.

 

[TheMortenBay]

In general, the idea is that if both species are offered, then you may receive both.

This is right, of course. Everything else discussed here is politics, and while some of us might like things to change, if there’s any sin involved it’s on the part of the bishops or priests allowing illicit ways of communicating.

 

[maryjk]

However, it is really rare for anyone to do that unless it’s a situation of celiac disease or some other health care issue, which is normally made known to the priest prior to the person receiving. For celiac, they have to be sure the wine used is not from the cup into which the priest places part of the Host during the Mass or it will be contaminated with gluten. For other medical issues, the person would want to speak to the priest prior to Mass because the Precious Blood is not always offered to the congregation and when it is, it sometimes runs out partway through Holy Communion so not everyone who wished to receive it could do so.

Because of the rarity of people just proceeding straight to the Precious Blood, it’s likely that if a priest saw someone doing that and hadn’t spoken with them beforehand or didn’t know the situation, he might think they were not Catholic and not aware of the proper Communion procedure, or otherwise not disposed to receive (didn’t know they were supposed to normally receive the Host first, etc.) And there is also the potential for the cup, even if offered, to run out before it gets to you.

I have Celiac disease. And at my home parish, I receive a low gluten host. I only receive from the Cup if I am near the front of the church. I do this because I also have a compromised immune system.

When I travel, I sit close enough to the front to receive from the Cup. I also watch to see where the Presider’s Cup goes, so I can avoid it. I have never explained it to anyone, nor have I ever been questioned. I simply join the line for Communion and when I am the next person to receive the Host, I bow and step right or left (depending on which way I am heading to the Cup.) I then receive from the cup.

If by chance, I do not have the option of receiving from the Cup, I simply make a spiritual communion. This most often happens at weddings, as sitting near the front isn’t always an option.

It will probably happen this weekend, as I am traveling for my Godson’s First Holy Communion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s good that you are able to do this. I am aware of some celiac sufferers who can receive low gluten hosts, and others for whom any host at all is not an option and they need to receive Precious Blood from a separate cup, which they definitely need to arrange with the priest in advance. It is not always possible for them to keep track of where the presider’s cup goes.

 

[Phemie]

I agree that I feel intinction is the best way for Communion under both species to be offered. However there would also need to be allowances for people who can only receive under one species.

Back in 2011 before the introduction of the Third Typical Edition, the priests of one Canadian archdiocese received a document from the Archbishop “Pastoral Notes on the Revised GIRM”. When it comes to number 285 b. it says "This number describes the distribution of Communion by intinction. In the Archdiocese of Edmonton permission is not given for the distribution of Communion in this manner. "

In the diocese of Calgary the document they got said:

Communion from the Chalice
#245 The Blood of the Lord may be consumed either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.
DIRECTIVE In the Diocese of Calgary, the Blood of the Lord may be consumed only by drinking from the chalice.

Likewise the Diocese of Kingston’s Sacramental Policies says this:

121.Although the General Instruction refers to two manners of receiving Communion from the Chalice, by drinking from it or by intinction by the minister, in Canada,by decision of the Conference of Bishops (GIRM 160),the communicant is free to receive the Eucharistic Bread either on the tongue or in the hand. When Communion by intinction is administered,the priest or minister dips the Eucharistic Bread in the Precious Blood and places the host on the tongue of the communicant. A communion plate is held under the mouth (GIRM 287). It is not permitted for the communicant to take the consecrated Bread and dip it in the Chalice (GIRM 160 and 287). Since Communion by intinction does not allow the communicant the choice of receiving Communion in the hand, it is not a viable option in Canada (see GIRM 160-161)

 

[Thom18]

Celebrant preference, I would say. In my parish, we receive the Precious Body and Precious Blood every vigil and Sunday Mass, but only the Precious Body during the week. Time and the availability of ministers plays a part in a priest’s decision to offer (or not) the Precious Blood, I’m sure.

 

[Elf01]

Elf01:

I agree that I feel intinction is the best way for Communion under both species to be offered. However there would also need to be allowances for people who can only receive under one species.

Back in 2011 before the introduction of the Third Typical Edition, the priests of one Canadian archdiocese received a document from the Archbishop “Pastoral Notes on the Revised GIRM”. When it comes to number 285 b. it says "This number describes the distribution of Communion by intinction. In the Archdiocese of Edmonton permission is not given for the distribution of Communion in this manner. "

In the diocese of Calgary the document they got said:

Communion from the Chalice
#245 The Blood of the Lord may be consumed either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.
DIRECTIVE In the Diocese of Calgary, the Blood of the Lord may be consumed only by drinking from the chalice.

Likewise the Diocese of Kingston’s Sacramental Policies says this:

121.Although the General Instruction refers to two manners of receiving Communion from the Chalice, by drinking from it or by intinction by the minister, in Canada,by decision of the Conference of Bishops (GIRM 160),the communicant is free to receive the Eucharistic Bread either on the tongue or in the hand. When Communion by intinction is administered,the priest or minister dips the Eucharistic Bread in the Precious Blood and places the host on the tongue of the communicant. A communion plate is held under the mouth (GIRM 287). It is not permitted for the communicant to take the consecrated Bread and dip it in the Chalice (GIRM 160 and 287). Since Communion by intinction does not allow the communicant the choice of receiving Communion in the hand, it is not a viable option in Canada (see GIRM 160-161)

I know it’s not typically allowed but I think if it was that parishes could offer Holy Communion under both species without increasing the number of EMHCs needed.

Mandating a line where only one species is offered for each species would allow reception of the host in the hand as well as accomodating people who can only receive one species.

 

[Phemie]

Granted we’re not a big parish but our priest distributes the Hosts himself. On Saturdays we have one EMHC for the chalice, on Sunday we have two. It’s plenty since fewer than 50% of parishioners receive the Precious Blood.

 

[CRV]

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America paragraphs 17-24

 

[Elf01]

Granted we’re not a big parish but our priest distributes the Hosts himself. On Saturdays we have one EMHC for the chalice, on Sunday we have two. It’s plenty since fewer than 50% of parishioners receive the Precious Blood.

In my parish the chalice is typically only offered to the laity who cannot receive the host. I would like to see it offered more and think more use of intinction may allow that.

Also on the occasions when Holy Communion is offered under both species I rarely have the host fully swallowed before I reach the chalice, another issue that intinction would solve.

 

[JohnLilburne]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has:

“286. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves to the minister of the chalice and stands facing him. The minister says, The Blood of Christ , the communicant replies, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

287 . If communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says The Body and Blood of Christ . The communicant replies, Amen , receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws.”

The heading for this section is “Communion under Both Kinds”. This “both kinds” terminology indicates that is only in exceptional circumstances that one may receive Communion in the form of wine, but not of bread. It has: “55. Those who cannot receive communion in the form of bread may receive it in the form of wine.” (In the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass").

According to the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 103, intinction is always permitted:

“As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.”

The full document is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[Excerpt from the English translation of The Roman Missal , © 2010 International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. Excerpt from the English translation of Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass , © 1974 International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.]

 

[CoeurRempli]

I’ve received Communion by intinction before. If we were receiving in the hand, Father would just not dip the host in the Precious Blood. If our hands weren’t out, then he would administer Communion by intinction.

 

[maryjk]

I’ve received Communion by intinction before. If we were receiving in the hand, Father would just not dip the host in the Precious Blood. If our hands weren’t out, then he would administer Communion by intinction.

So if you weren’t receiving the Precious Blood, you had to receive in the hand? There was no way to receive on the tongue but not through intinction?