Wine at Communion

[Luke77]

At Communion my parish and most others in the area does not give wine to the parish just the bread. Just the priest and servers on the altar recive it. Since Communion is both the body and blood why can they do this. The parish will recive both sometimes at Christmas and Easter but not most Sundays. Is this normal at most Catholic Churches?

 

[puzzleannie]

at no Catholic parish do communicants receive wine, they receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present fully under the forms of both bread and wine. There is no requirement that the cup be offered to the congregation, although the priests celebrating must both eat the Body and drink the Precious Blood.

the customs vary at times and places depending on the direction of the bishop, preference of the priest and his judgement on what is pastorally best for his parish.

 

[mercygate]

At Communion my parish and most others in the area does not give wine to the parish just the bread. Just the priest and servers on the altar recive it. Since Communion is both the body and blood why can they do this. The parish will recive both sometimes at Christmas and Easter but not most Sundays. Is this normal at most Catholic Churches?

This is not irregular. BTW, if one is Catholic, one refers to the consecrated elementes as the Body and Blood of Christ – not “bread” and “wine.”

Since either species contains the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, one is not somehow shortchanged by receiving in only one kind. Receiving only the Body of Christ is normative. Receiving in both kinds is permitted but by no means required.

 

[tee_eff_em]

at no Catholic parish do communicants receive wine, they receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present fully under the forms of both bread and wine.

BTW, if one is Catholic, one refers to the consecrated elementes as the Body and Blood of Christ – not “bread” and “wine.”

While at times precision is necessary, the Church, in her scripture, liturgy, and catechism doesn’t have a problem with the words *bread *and *wine *-- We should not either.

In other respects, quite correct: There is no obligation to receive under both species, save for celebrating priest(s).

:twocents:
tee

 

[John_Lilburne]

The altar servers receiving Communion under both kinds while other lay people do not is envisaged in the Roman Missal.

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for
a. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
b. The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
c. Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups.”

Church teaching on the issue is also in the GIRM:

“282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation. [Footnote 106: Cf. Council of Trent, session 21, Doctrina de communione sub utraque specie et parvulorum, 16 July 1562, chapters 1-3: Denz-Schön, 1725-1729. ]”

 

[palmas85]

At Communion my parish and most others in the area does not give wine to the parish just the bread. Just the priest and servers on the altar recive it. Since Communion is both the body and blood why can they do this. The parish will recive both sometimes at Christmas and Easter but not most Sundays. Is this normal at most Catholic Churches?

Once again, the lack of proper catechisis rears its ugly head. How many other well meaning people throughout the world are laboring under the same false assumption as our poster?

Is it now clear just what a pandoras box was opened when the Chalice was re-offered to the laity without providing the proper training as envisioned and even I’m not mistaken specified? How many others actually feel that something they are entitled to is being witheld and that they are missing out as a result on the full sacramental benefits of holy Communion?

 

[decn2b]

Is it now clear just what a pandoras box was opened when the Chalice was re-offered to the laity without providing the proper training as envisioned and even I’m not mistaken specified? How many others actually feel that something they are entitled to is being witheld and that they are missing out as a result on the full sacramental benefits of holy Communion?

I could have not said it better. Wine? they don’t pass wine out at my parish!!! Weird though there is a few cases of it in the sacristy but it seems to just disappear!

 

[Brendan]

What appears to be bread and what appears to be wine are the exact same thing, they differ ONLY in how they appear to our human eyes.

They are the full, BODY, BLOOD, Soul an Divinity of Christ.

When you recieve a host you ARE recieving the full Jesus Christ. It lacks for nothing.

You are recieving both the Body AND the Blood because Christ is alive and Ressurected. His Body and Blood can no longer be seperated.

What you are describing, the belief that Communion is somehow incomplete without both species is a condemmed heresy known as the Ultraquist heresy.

It was in combat of that very heresy that the Church really began limiting the faithful to one species alone. It was to reinforce the doctrine that Christ is completely and fully Present in each species.

And, this really is not intented to give offence, but if your understanding of the Eucharist is common in your parish, the priest might be doing the right thing and using the example of Pope Martin V. It sounds like more instruction on the Eucharist is certainly appropriate.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

While at times precision is necessary, the Church, in her scripture, liturgy, and catechism doesn’t have a problem with the words *bread *and *wine *-- We should not either.
tee

This is incorrect. Can you point to specifics in Scripture, the liturgy, or any official catechism in which the Eucharist is referred to as “bread” and “wine”? I’ll grant that sometimes “bread” is used to refer to the Eucharist, but not in the same sense that the OP meant. It is meant in the context of the Bread of Life. And in no part of the liturgy-- not even in the Novus Ordo-- is the Precious Blood referred to as “wine.” Sometimes it is simply referred to as the “cup” or the Cup of Eternal Salvation, but never “wine.”

It doesn’t surprise me, however, that many good Catholics refer to the Eucharist as bread and wine. The Novus Ordo Mass strips away nearly all reverence for the Holy Eucharist, not to mention the rampant abuses in the vast majority of Novus Ordo Masses such as armies of lay “Eucharistic ministers”, communion songs with heretical lyrics that refer to the Eucharist as bread and wine, etc.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Using indentation to indicate quoting sources, to avoid too many quote boxes]

This is incorrect. Can you point to specifics in Scripture,

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:26-29)

the liturgy,

The mystery of faith, form C, which echoes the scripture above.

or any official catechism

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) - the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum…

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.
[NB: Not: “…drink the Blood of Christ which was formerly wine…”; But: “…drink the **new wine that has become…”]
1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.​

[NB: Again, not: “the body and blood which used to be bread and wine”; nor: “the **bread and wine, which will become”; but: “the bread and wine, which have become”]

in which the Eucharist is referred to as “bread” and “wine”? I’ll grant that sometimes “bread” is used to refer to the Eucharist, but not in the same sense that the OP meant.

And now it is my turn to disagree – I see nothing in the OP to indicate a denial of the Real Presence. Can you be more specific why you infer a mundane sense of the words there? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

tee

 

[Luke77]

In my post I assumned that I knew that Communion is the full, BODY, BLOOD, Soul an Divinity of Christ. I only used the words bread and wine because my question was why could the be given apart (not to focus on the part of Transubstation) in some parishes and not others. The sugesstion that reciving one or the other does not dimish the Sacrement is a very good point. Thank you for anserwing my question on the above mentioned parish question and way beyond.

 

[CRW]

In my post I assumned that I knew that Communion is the full, BODY, BLOOD, Soul an Divinity of Christ. I only used the words bread and wine because my question was why could the be given apart (not to focus on the part of Transubstation) in some parishes and not others. The sugesstion that reciving one or the other does not dimish the Sacrement is a very good point. Thank you for anserwing my question on the above mentioned parish question and way beyond.

The decision is left to your Bishop: The diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop is also given the facility to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult of the large number of participants or some other reason. GIRM 283.

This decision could be to reduced the number of EMHC, the cost of the wine, timeframe, etc.

 

[jamannor]

[Using indentation to indicate quoting sources, to avoid too many quote boxes]

And now it is my turn to disagree – I see nothing in the OP to indicate a denial of the Real Presence. Can you be more specific why you infer a mundane sense of the words there? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

tee

tee_eff_em, I wanted to say thank you for your post. The person who started it wasn’t trying to lessen the host in any way by calling it bread or wine. I think it’s important to point it out the difference between the two if their was confusion, but the posts above seemed to critical on the person, and as a new person to the forums like myself, personal criticisms might frighten newbies to posting questions.

Personally, the diocese of Detroit and Marquette, both of which I’ve been a part of, the bread and wine were both given at all the parishes I’ve ever attended. I’m a new Catholic, almost two years now, and I find both very filling… When one is missing I feel like something is missing but I am thankful at the thought of having them both.

As Ignatius of Antioch said “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.”

 

[wjp984]

Once again, the lack of proper catechisis rears its ugly head. How many other well meaning people throughout the world are laboring under the same false assumption as our poster?

Is it now clear just what a pandoras box was opened when the Chalice was re-offered to the laity without providing the proper training as envisioned and even I’m not mistaken specified? How many others actually feel that something they are entitled to is being witheld and that they are missing out as a result on the full sacramental benefits of holy Communion?

well, I never knew that it was the same for both until last year when I first saw this topic come up. Then I finally went on to ask someone and they also told me. I used to think I was missing out on something when I never went to receive the cup. However, since few people went to receive the cup I jsut thought I wouldn’t either more times than not. I started to receive the cup a little more often for a while but now after finding out the truth that it is not neceesary then what is the point? There are germs and stuff so why risk it.

 

[Melchior]

Once again, the lack of proper catechisis rears its ugly head. How many other well meaning people throughout the world are laboring under the same false assumption as our poster?

Is it now clear just what a pandoras box was opened when the Chalice was re-offered to the laity without providing the proper training as envisioned and even I’m not mistaken specified? How many others actually feel that something they are entitled to is being witheld and that they are missing out as a result on the full sacramental benefits of holy Communion?

Hmmm. Seems Christ established the Eucharist with His Body and Blood. Receiving in both kinds is superior, if only for it’s fuller symbolic meaning whihc is still very important. Receiving in only one kind was unheard of for centuries and there is no good reason for it now other than to prove a point about only one being sufficient, true enough, but also juvenile and not how Jesus himself established it.

 

[CatholicNick]

Hmmm. Seems Christ established the Eucharist with His Body and Blood. Receiving in both kinds is superior, if only for it’s fuller symbolic meaning whihc is still very important. Receiving in only one kind was unheard of for centuries and there is no good reason for it now other than to prove a point about only one being sufficient, true enough, but also juvenile and not how Jesus himself established it.

Im glad you have the authority to determine one of Holy Mother Church’s traditions in juvenile.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hmmm. Seems Christ established the Eucharist with His Body and Blood. Receiving in both kinds is superior, if only for it’s fuller symbolic meaning whihc is still very important. Receiving in only one kind was unheard of for centuries and there is no good reason for it now other than to prove a point about only one being sufficient, true enough, but also juvenile and not how Jesus himself established it.

This is getting into semantics, but it isn’t at all superior. It is permitted, it is even encouraged in some places, but it isn’t superior. It IS a “fuller sign,” (as per the Catechism), it IS the way our Lord instituted it, it was the discipline of the Church for well over a thousand years, and absent extremely large numbers or other prudential reasons, there’s no reason for the Chalice to be witheld from the faithful, under the bishop’s authority. But “superior” becomes difficult. The Church’s teaching is as has been expressed: the Fullness of the Divine Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is as fully, really present in One of the Sacred Species as It is in the Other (They both are completely Him). And what about people who cannot receive, for one reason or another, One of the Sacred Species, due to allergies (either to gluten or to alcohol) or alcoholism (the accidents and their potential effects remain)? They can be comforted in the Church’s true and wise teaching.

To call it “superior” to receive Both Sacred Species presents a problem not only in Truth (the Church cannot mislead Her people), but in balance. Of course, this balance can be disturbed by the opposite extreme, ie., an attitude that the laity should not receive the cup at all, only the priest should, etc., because this could have the effect of elevating One of the Sacred Species over the Other. Likewise, I think one can become so careful in one’s reverence of the Most Precious Blood so as to almost deny, on a practical level, that the Savior did indeed institute both. Some people are so worried about spillage (admittedly out of a sense of reverence) that they don’t want it offered to the laity. That seems to me to be equally imbalanced: the Sacred Species were intended for us (“Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man”), to be consumed by us. Sacred things can be rendered so sacred that they are not used for the purpose they were intended. I think that’s out of whack. Just my:twocents:.

 

[Melchior]

Im glad you have the authority to determine one of Holy Mother Church’s traditions in juvenile.

I was referring to the more time honored and older tradition and to the very Lord of the Sacrament himself. Don’t get upset. It is true. It is a newer tradition that came much later. Do you think Christ’s command is less important than a non- de fide tradition that had it’s origins in practicality rather than theology?

 

[Melchior]

This is getting into semantics, but it isn’t at all superior. It is permitted, it is even encouraged in some places, but it isn’t superior. It IS a “fuller sign,” (as per the Catechism), it IS the way our Lord instituted it, it was the discipline of the Church for well over a thousand years, and absent extremely large numbers or other prudential reasons, there’s no reason for the Chalice to be witheld from the faithful, under the bishop’s authority. But “superior” becomes difficult. The Church’s teaching is as has been expressed: the Fullness of the Divine Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is as fully, really present in One of the Sacred Species as It is in the Other (They both are completely Him). And what about people who cannot receive, for one reason or another, One of the Sacred Species, due to allergies (either to gluten or to alcohol) or alcoholism (the accidents and their potential effects remain)? They can be comforted in the Church’s true and wise teaching.

To call it “superior” to receive Both Sacred Species presents a problem not only in Truth (the Church cannot mislead Her people), but in balance. Of course, this balance can be disturbed by the opposite extreme, ie., an attitude that the laity should not receive the cup at all, only the priest should, etc., because this could have the effect of elevating One of the Sacred Species over the Other. Likewise, I think one can become so careful in one’s reverence of the Most Precious Blood so as to almost deny, on a practical level, that the Savior did indeed institute both. Some people are so worried about spillage (admittedly out of a sense of reverence) that they don’t want it offered to the laity. That seems to me to be equally imbalanced: the Sacred Species were intended for us (“Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man”), to be consumed by us. Sacred things can be rendered so sacred that they are not used for the purpose they were intended. I think that’s out of whack. Just my:twocents:.

I was using “superior” in the same maneer the catechism uses “fuller” in this sense they are synonyms. A fuller symbol is always a superior symbol by definition. I mostly agree otherwise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Do you think Christ’s command is less important than a non- de fide tradition that had it’s origins in practicality rather than theology?

No, not less important, certainly, but Christ left His Church authority to govern His Sacraments. And while there may have been practical considerations in the minds of the authorities, it really was the Ultraquist heresy that led to the Chalice being witheld.