The Bread but not the Wine....why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Commedy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Commedy

Guest
I note in a thread in this section a discussion about the laity receiving both the Bread and the Wine at Communion

‘why-bread-only-and-not-wine/40088’

I find no ‘instruction’ in any of the Gospel writings that Jesus instructs the laity to NOT be offered the Chalice

If we ignore for a mo the catechism and refer to the Gospel teaching, why is it so difficult to let the laitry be given the Chalice ; if it is to do with the volume of Communicants and the practicality of offering the Chalice…the Church can learn a lot from how the Anglican Church accommodates this by appointing a suitable number of Eucharistic ministers suitably trained to perform the Duty

Jesus tells us’’;drink this ALL OF YOU…’…so why are the laity prevented from so doing ??
 
Last edited:
Erm… we are not receiving bread and wine. We are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ under either form. Therefore it doesn’t matter if we receive the Body alone or not.
 
Did you read the New Advent article in that thread?

http://newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
“Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, “Drink ye all of this” (Matthew 26:27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ’s action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatoryfor all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.”
Click to expand...
“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 58 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 58, interpreted in the same rigid way. From which we may infer that whatever special significance attached to the form of expression employed in verse 54, Christ did not have recourse to that form for the purpose of promulgating a law of Communion sub utraque. The twofold expression is employed by Christ in order to heighten the realism of the promise — to emphasize more vividly the reality of the Eucharistic presence, and to convey the idea that His Body and Blood were to be the perfect spiritual aliment, the food and drink, of the faithful. In the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist this meaning is fully verified.”
Click to expand...
There’s more in there that’s pretty good and backs why the Church did that and allows for it to still be done today.
 
Last edited:
.
A person’s body includes his blood.
This is one Catholic explanation about this I have heard given.
 
Last edited:
But Jesus’ command is for both to be given is it not ? Where does it say in any Gospel that we are to have not both offered?

Who has decreed that what Jesus has told us in HIs Gospel we are to disregard? I find ti very puzzling that we seem to be disobeying the command of Christ to drink this ALL of you !!
 
Commedy said:
But Jesus’ command is for both to be given is it not ? Where does it say in any Gospel that we are to have not both offered?

Who has decreed that what Jesus has told us in HIs Gospel we are to disregard? I find ti very puzzling that we seem to be disobeying the command of Christ to drink this ALL of you !!
Click to expand...
Did you read my post that specifically addresses the verse you’re using?
 
Commedy said:
Jesus tells us’’;drink this ALL OF YOU…’…so why are the laity prevented from so doing ??
Click to expand...
They aren’t. Pure and simple.

Every Catholic receives the chalice at least once at their first communion. So too do Catholics receive the chalice at their weddings, confirmations, and while on retreats or spiritual gatherings. These times require the priest to offer the chalice to the laity as laid down in the Roman Missal and the various supporting ritual books. Everywhere else, it is up to the local bishop and priest to determine the reception of the chalice outside of these required times. Many times, it is simply because they do not want to risk spillage as the chalice is handed back and forth. While I don’t know where you attend church where the chalice is reserved from the laity, here in the United States, the reception of the chalice by the laity is generally the norm in my experience.
 
Commedy said:
But Jesus’ command is for both to be given is it not ?
Click to expand...
If it were just a reenactment maybe both would be done for accuracy sake. But since it’s actually a re- presentation of His sacrifice not just a reenactment of the Last Supper, having the Host which is Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity is just fine.
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
While I don’t know where you attend church where the chalice is reserved from the laity, here in the United States, the reception of the chalice by the laity is generally the norm in my experience.
Click to expand...
It is in fact quite rare in my part of Canada (Québec).
 
First, every parish I’ve been to in the USA offers the chalice to the laity.

Second, Jesus’ command was to his apostles, and this is why the wine must be consecrated at every mass and communicated by the priest, at the least. Notably, early references refer to Christians gathering for the “breaking of the bread.”

Christ is made fully present in both species.
 
Slightly off topic, but I really do like intinction, in which both the Body and Blood are received the same time. It is similar to the Eastern practice of receiving both at once, and I find it to be very practical. I experienced this in Italy, but I’ve found it to be quite rare here in the US.
 
The issue of not receiving from the Chalice dates back to the Council of Trent, which was responding to the heresy that one had to receive both the Cup and the Chalice to receive the Eucharist. Reception of the Chalice had fallen off over time; and to quell the matter, the laity were not to receive from the Cup.

500 years later, we are far enough removed from the issue that the Church has made it possible for the laity to receive from either or both.
 
Regrading appointing a suitable number of ministers to man the chalices at large Masses, yes, the Anglicans should certainly come to the big Masses at Ford Field or Camden Yards stadium and show us poor benighted Catholics how it’s done without spilling anything. And also making sure the quantity of wine is just right for the many thousand attendees without having so much Precious Blood left over that it is a problem for the celebrants to consume after Communion.

:roll_eyes:

Of course, it’s really not necessary as the Body of Christ contains his Blood. See the many “bleeding host miracles”.
 
Last edited:
I recently started my journey into a religious community, Part of the ceremony during the Mass was to receive the Precious blood. This was not offered to the Congregation, only myself and my mentors and formators.
 
twf said:
Yeah, the chalice is rarely distributed in Vancouver as well.
Click to expand...
When I became an oblate in 2003, the chalice was offered at the abbey quite regularly. Then gradually, only on Holy Thursday. Now, never except to the non-ordained monks.

I suspect the reason is this: when I joined in 2003, there were 40 or so monks in choir. Now it’s hard to muster 25, and an increasing number are elderly and frail. Normally the abbey is busy on Sundays and important days such as Holy Thursday, and there are 4 to 5 points where communion is distributed. That would tie up more than half of the able-bodied monks who are priests!

So… please pray for vocations!
 
Last edited:
Yes, to distribute the chalice in many parishes, you would need an army of EMHCs. I suppose that’s what many US parishes do. And logistically you need to buy and manage a great quantity of wine.
 
Last edited:
Commedy said:
so why are the laity prevented from so doing
Click to expand...
At some parishes, people do receive the Precious Blood.

As for the why many don’t, some potential reasons:
  • Historically, there was a time where only the host was presented to emphasize that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the host, and it isn’t a requirement to have the chalice to get the full Christ. Some just haven’t changed since.
  • Some parishes may try to avoid spending a lot on wine when the host is good enough.
  • It may be impractical at some parishes. My parish already has enough trouble with room for those receiving the host. Adding a couple lines for the chalice would make things much worse.
 
twf said:
Yes, to distribute the chalice in many parishes, you would need an army of EMHCs. I suppose that’s what many US parishes do. And logistically you need to buy and manage a great quantity of wine.
Click to expand...
They frequently run out of Precious Blood before everyone gets a chance to receive, and that’s even though some people choose to receive only the Body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top