Wine optional-

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3Lov
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3Lov

Guest
Hello!
I’m cradle Catholic and never questioned anything the Church teaches. I love the Church, but recently I was struck with a question that I’ve not been able to get an answer to that satisfies my heart.
My fiancé’ started taking RCIA and asked, “Why do Catholics have the option of drinking the wine when Jesus said the words to us?” For the first time I was unable to give him an answer that I believed in. If Jesus asked us to drink his wine, why would we do anything different? I understand that He is present body, blood, soul and divinity in BOTH, but he still asks this of us in every mass! I can’t get out of my mind that we have changed something so very important and essential to our faith.
Please clarify this for me. Thank you in advance. 🙂
 
40.png
3Lov:
If Jesus asked us to drink his wine, why would we do anything different?
Click to expand...
I’m no theologian or church historian but in my opinion …

We tend to be minimalists. Early baptism was done in rivers (living water) because of the greater sign value, i.e., reception of that living water who is the Holy Spirit. However, pouring water on the head is just as valid and easier so pouring water became the norm for baptism. Early Eucharist was received under both species (bread and wine) because of the greater sign value, i.e., because bread is solid food like flesh and wine is a fluid like blood. However, since the whole glorified Lord Jesus (body, blood, soul and divinity) is present under either species, reception of only one species (bread) is just as valid and easier so receiving only the consecrated bread became the norm for Holy Communion.
 
The separation of the two things at mass that you see is only visual. It is not like there is a different part of Christ in the cup than in the host. So if you receive under both species or under one, you have just as much received Christ. So just by receiving the host alone, you have fulfilled John 6:53… Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

However, the priest must consecrate both. They both are to be there. This is to show the sacrifice so we remember Calvary. So there is the cup and the host, separated like a sacrifice. Furthermore, the priest is supposed to receive both. This fulfills the command to the apostles.

Perhaps it is that for the sacrifice nature of the mass, there must be both there, but for communion, you need only consume one. Historically, it was okay to just consume one species. For example, a baby would only be given a drop of the consecrated wine. A sick person at home would only be given the consecrated host because it could be transported.

Just my two cents.
 
In the words of St. Paul, 'Is Christ divided?". Just as each individual host does not contain a different piece of Christ, neither does the wine. Though we say “The Body of Christ” for the bread and “The Blood of Christ” for the wine, it would be just as accurate for a minister of the Eucharist to offer a host saying “The Blood of Christ”. The Church teaches that Christ is fully present “body, blood, soul and divinity” in all aspects of the Eucharist. Therefore, when we receive only the bread (or wine), we still receive both the Body and Blood of Christ. Remember the mystery of transubstantiation: just because it doesn’t look like blood doesn’t mean it’s not.
 
It is not wine. It is the Precious Blood of Christ. See other threads on this.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe many years ago the wine wasn’t offered for fear the lay poeple might spill it. I wish I could remember where I read that.I know since Christ is present in both the body is sufficient.
 
Michael C:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe many years ago the wine wasn’t offered for fear the lay poeple might spill it. I wish I could remember where I read that.I know since Christ is present in both the body is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if that was a motivating factor, although it is definitely a legitimate concern. Initially, communicants were restricted to the bread in response to the Hussite heresy, which claimed that Christ was not fully received unless both species were consumed. Since there aren’t too many Hussites around now, Vatican II brought about the change that allowed lay person to receive under both species again.
 
I know of many parishes which do offer communion under both species. And nearly all parishes do on at least special occasions.

At the risk of causing further confusion, I believe that Aquinas and perhaps others made a subtle distinction in speaking of the consecration. The bread is truly transformed into Christ’s body, the wine into His blood. But since where Christ’s body is, his blood is present as well, Christs blood is present ‘by concomitance’ in the host; and the same reasoning applies for the precious blood. A minor distinction, but it means that the separate consecrations are not really superfluous.

And the end result is that in receiving under *either * species, we do receive Jesus Christ whole and entire.
 
A friend went to a Mass in another state, where the priest only consecrated the wine. There were no hosts consecrated. She asked me to see if this was illicit and whether the Mass was valid. I have searched high and low and have been unable to find any reference to a Mass where only the wine is consecrated. Does anyone know if this is something that is approved or was this priest taking creative license? I suspect that it is not approved, as I have not ever heard of such a thing. Does anyone have a direction, where I can find something written to send to my friend?
 
I don’t know where to find it but I know without a doubt that the mass was invalid, both the bread and the wine must be present and consumed by the priest for the consecration to take place. Try looking in the GRIM I am sure that someone here can point you to that.
 
40.png
missionary_mom:
A friend went to a Mass in another state, where the priest only consecrated the wine.
Click to expand...
I never heard of such a thing. Were there some unusual circumstances? Or was this other than the Roman Rite? Why would a Mass even be said in such a manner? I don’t know if it was invalid, but surely it was illicit.
 
A priest must consecrate both the bread and wine for the Eucharist to be valid. Are you certain there was not a single host on the altar, perhaps simply one the priest consumed himself?
 
I get that Christ is present in both, but my question is why and when was it ever changed? Who changed something so fundamental to the Mass?
 
40.png
3Lov:
I get that Christ is present in both, but my question is why and when was it ever changed? Who changed something so fundamental to the Mass?
Click to expand...
Well, the point is that it’s not so fundamental to the Mass. Because Christ is fully present in both, we consume both His Body *and *Blood regardless of the species we receive. Christ commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, not that we eat the bread and drink the wine. By receiving the host or the wine separately, we eat and drink as we are commanded. What it looks like is not fundamental. What it is is what’s important.
 
40.png
missionary_mom:
A friend went to a Mass in another state, where the priest only consecrated the wine. There were no hosts consecrated. She asked me to see if this was illicit and whether the Mass was valid. I have searched high and low and have been unable to find any reference to a Mass where only the wine is consecrated. Does anyone know if this is something that is approved or was this priest taking creative license? I suspect that it is not approved, as I have not ever heard of such a thing. Does anyone have a direction, where I can find something written to send to my friend?
Click to expand...
The Code of Canon Law says:

“Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.”

Hope that helps.
 
This is exactly what I needed, thank you. I will forward the information, so she may send it on to the priest.

Blessings!
 
3Lov: Great question. Withholding the wine from the laity is a liturgical corruption. It is also interesting to me that John 6:53, a passage commonly used by Catholics (rightly) for the necessity of the Lord’s Supper, says in part: " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Note the reuirement of “drinking” (wine) as well as eating (bread).

It was the practice of the early church for the laity to communicate through both wine and bread. Here is an excerpt from Justin Martyr’s First Apology, which describes second century worship and mentions the wine:
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge/noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Click to expand...
Note that wine is given to all present, as is the bread. This is the norm Protestant, and Anglican churches. I am pretty sure it is also the practice of Eastern Orthodox churches, but am not certain. Returning the cup to the laity was one reform of the Protestant Reformation, which sought to restore biblical and patristic practices.

T. More
 
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man **and **drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

So, why do we only do both?
 
So, it seems we still have not answered the original question to which I believe she is searching for some form of doctrine as to why as Catholics we have the option, and not carry forward with what seems to be Christ’s literal request to commune under both species. She is not questioning the presence in both species. Perhaps someone can recommend a website or an accessible theologian that can assist her. I feel her pain… she is trying to assist in the conversion of her fiancee…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top