Taking the Bread but not the Wine?

[MillTownCath]

Hey everyone.

So especially during the winter/flu/cold season, a lot of people don’t take the Wine when they go up to communion. This makes total sense, but I’m wondering if there is anything that specifically allows this, and if somehow the Body is considered slightly more important than the Blood?

Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church teaches that both species (bread and wine) contain the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Taking both is considered to be a fuller sign, but one does not get more of Jesus, or more Grace by taken one or the other. In fact, Communion with one species only (bread) was the norm for hundreds of years specifically to dispel the notion that both were needed. One may receive only the bread with or without a reason. Likewise, if one is highly allergic to wheat, they may also receive the Precious Blood alone. There is no sacramental difference.

Check out this link:
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/category/Eucharist/page2

It should never be construed, therefore, that Communion under the form of bread alone or Communion under the form of wine alone is somehow an incomplete act or that Christ is not fully present to the communicant. …

…Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. (15)

 

[WoundedIcon]

Although the body is actually fully the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord could not receiving under both species, for some individuals, be a fuller sign more greatly disposing them to receive the graces of the Eucharist?

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Hey everyone.

So especially during the winter/flu/cold season, a lot of people don’t take the Wine when they go up to communion. This makes total sense, but I’m wondering if there is anything that specifically allows this, and if somehow the Body is considered slightly more important than the Blood?

Thanks.

[QOUTE]
When actually receiving the Body of Christ, you are also receiv ing the Blood of CHrist even though the wine is not physically present. Remember when you receive the Body of CHrist you are also receiving the blood of Christ

 

[pnewton]

Although the body is actually fully the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord could not receiving under both species, for some individuals, be a fuller sign more greatly disposing them to receive the graces of the Eucharist?

I believe that is the idea of offering it under both species. As with many other things, this will vary between individuals.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

There is actually a good biblical precedent for recieving only the bread. In John 6, our Lord only mulitplies bread, along with fish, to feed the crowds and then goes on to say He is the bread of life. In Luke 24:35, two disciples of Christ know Him in the “breaking of the bread”. It is also in Acts 2:42 where the early church gathers for the “breaking of the bread”. These are just a few examples of the early Eucharistic ritual which alludes to only the bread. Now, I am not saying that people should not recieve the wine, as it is sacred as the bread plus as a Maronite I receive both everytime.(The bread is dipped into the wine.)

 

[benedictgal]

Hey everyone.

So especially during the winter/flu/cold season, a lot of people don’t take the Wine when they go up to communion. This makes total sense, but I’m wondering if there is anything that specifically allows this, and if somehow the Body is considered slightly more important than the Blood?

Thanks.

During Communion, communicants do not “take”, they “receive”. The only ones who “take” are the clergy. There seems to be a misunderstanding. To “take” means to snatch and grab at something, much like Adam and Eve did when they “took” the forbidden fruit. They were, in essence, snatching at divinity.

When we go up for Holy Communion, we go to “receive” Jesus.

We do not refer to the sacred species as wine because although it looks like it and tastes like it, it has now become the Precious Blood.

Regarding your question, some parishes have employed the method of intinction where the Sacred Host is dipped into the Precious Blood by the priest. However, only a priest/bishop can do this.

 

[carlos19]

thanks everyone, I understand the reasons given as to why. For me partaking of the Lord’s blood (through wine) seems like a more complete Eucharistic experience, since it is exactly the same as to when Jesus said, this is my body… this is my blood… But again, I understand why the EF liturgy provides the Eucharist in the manner that it does.

I also have the say that I am fascinated by the Eastern rite’s way of celebrating the Eucharist. I like it a lot the way you describes it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Although the body is actually fully the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord could not receiving under both species, for some individuals, be a fuller sign more greatly disposing them to receive the graces of the Eucharist?

---

The danger with that–is people may actually end up thinking–that without receiving both species–they will not be disposed to receive the full benefit of the graces in Holy Communion.

 

[PJM]

=MillTownCath;8156488]Hey everyone.

So especially during the winter/flu/cold season, a lot of people don’t take the Wine when they go up to communion. This makes total sense, but I’m wondering if there is anything that specifically allows this, and if somehow the Body is considered slightly more important than the Blood?

Thanks.

THANKS FOR ASKING,

From the very beginning the Church has taught that THE ENTIRE JESUS IS PRESENT IN THE BREAD ALONE AND ANY PARTICLE OF THE BREAD ALONE. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE WINE: IT IS THE COMPLETE JESUS.

Tradition for MANY hundreds of years permitted only the Consecrated Host to be given and received except for the clergy and Vatican II added a small list of other events where BOTH were permitted.

BREAD ALONE CONTINUES TO BE THE INTERNATIONAL NORM. IF one watches the Mass on EWTN, they ONLY distribute the sacred Host. And Correctly so.

The propaganda that says something to the effect that “receiveing BOTH is more meaningful” is theologically a lie. The REAL reason for the mystery of this happening DESPITE being REJECTED by a specific vote during Vatiacan II, by the Church fathers, has to do with the desire to get laity [most especially female gender] into the sactuary in a role that EQUALS the POWERS of the Priesthood.

There is no legitment need for Both species except tp propagate laity involvement.

Once one receives the COMPLETE CHRIST; there is a redundancy that is not necessary.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[carlos19]

---

The danger with that–is people may actually end up thinking–that without receiving both species–they will not be disposed to receive the full benefit of the graces in Holy Communion.

I see your point.

 

[MillTownCath]

Does anyone ever feel physical/spiritual effects after eating communion?

Idk if it’s my mind, but I seem to be effected. I get a cleansed/spiritual strengthening kind of feeling.

 

[Love_Divine]

Does anyone ever feel physical/spiritual effects after eating communion?

Idk if it’s my mind, but I seem to be effected. I get a cleansed/spiritual strengthening kind of feeling.

Yes, especially once when I received it three days in a row. Assuming we are all in the state of grace and not committing a sacrilege reception, we receive graces from the reception of Holy Communion. That’s why we’re encouraged to have frequent reception of it. You’re not really “eating communion”; you’re consuming Jesus.

 

[BVM_1221]

Hey everyone.

So especially during the winter/flu/cold season, a lot of people don’t take the Wine when they go up to communion. This makes total sense, but I’m wondering if there is anything that specifically allows this, and if somehow the Body is considered slightly more important than the Blood?

Thanks.

No, receiving communion under either or both is FULL cumunnion. Some do not take the bread due to gluten allergies, or other reasons. Some have reasons not to take the wine. In my case, I am a recovered alcoholic, 27 years sober. And some take both.

 

[Vico]

thanks everyone, I understand the reasons given as to why. For me partaking of the Lord’s blood (through wine) seems like a more complete Eucharistic experience, since it is exactly the same as to when Jesus said, this is my body… this is my blood… But again, I understand why the EF liturgy provides the Eucharist in the manner that it does.

I also have the say that I am fascinated by the Eastern rite’s way of celebrating the Eucharist. I like it a lot the way you describes it.

DEACON: Approach with fear of God and with faith.
RESPONSE: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. The Lord is God and has revealed himself to us.
The celebrant takes the chalice back from the deacon. The faithful come forward to receive communion from the priest. The deacon may also give communion to the faithful if need be. The priest or deacon, giving communion to each, says:
The servant of God, (Name), partakes of the precious, most holy, and most pure body and blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of (his-her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
Or:
The servant of God, (Name), partakes of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

The danger with that–is people may actually end up thinking–that without receiving both species–they will not be disposed to receive the full benefit of the graces in Holy Communion.

THE REPLY

I see your point.

And this is because of POOR catechsis. Proper religious formation [at times willfully withheld] could and SHOULD address this concern.

So now an excuse becomes a reason

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Elizium23]

The propaganda that says something to the effect that “receiveing BOTH is more meaningful” is theologically a lie. The REAL reason for the mystery of this happening DESPITE being REJECTED by a specific vote during Vatiacan II, by the Church fathers, has to do with the desire to get laity [most especially female gender] into the sactuary in a role that EQUALS the POWERS of the Priesthood.

There is no legitment need for Both species except tp propagate laity involvement.

Once one receives the COMPLETE CHRIST; there is a redundancy that is not necessary.

I beg to differ. The Church is very clear that receiving under both species is encouraged and laudable, as a “fuller sign” of the reality of the sacrament.

As an example I offer the following document, binding in the United States only, but reflecting teaching of the Universal Church.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
on June 14, 2001

Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. 1383/01/L

…
16. At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.

…
20. …
Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.

…

1. 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.”

 

[PJM]

=MillTownCath;8162100]Does anyone ever feel physical/spiritual effects after eating communion?

Idk if it’s my mind, but I seem to be effected. I get a cleansed/spiritual strengthening kind of feeling.

SURE; it a special grace’ a GIFT from God. be sure to THANK HIM!

 

[Brendan]

I beg to differ. The Church is very clear that receiving under both species is encouraged and laudable, as a “fuller sign” of the reality of the sacrament.

.

Elizium,

You also have to look at what the Church considers a sign to be

A Sign is a indicator towards a greater reality than itself - Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden, SJ

We can see what the Church means when we consider a street sign. A sign that says “Main St.” tells us where we can find Main Street or that we have arrived at Main St.

A Sign, therefore, has value only when one is searching for the greater reality (Main St) or is unsure if one has arrived\achieved that reality ( if one is, or is not on Main St)

Likewise the Sign value of recieving both species indicates (points towards) the greater reality of the Eucharist, that Christ is Present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

But if one has found that greater realtity of the Eucharist ( of which there can be NO greater reality) and if one is sure of that reality, then the sign has little meaning.

That doesn’t not mean that the sign value is of value to other, but our GOAL is to move past the need for sign and to focus on the reality.

When one is sure of the reality ( that we are driving along Main St) we don’t need to look for the signs telling us that.

That is why I have no particular need to recieve in more than one species. I recognize that I am recieving the full, complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the Creator and Savior of the Universe. I do not need a sign telling me that His Blood is also present, and that it is living, flowing Blood. I know I have just recieved the Creator of Main Street and He is my ALL.

 

[JimG]

It is not required that parishes offer communion under both species. Many do not. My parish normally offers communion under one species only. The parish is too large to routinely offer communion under both species. It would require a multiplication in the number of EMHC’s and there are already too many.