A Question from my husband in RCIA


He wants to know why the blood of Christ is not distributed at Communion? I told him that the blood of Christ is present in the host, that the host contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. But my husband said that is not what Jesus said at the Last Supper. He said Jesus said drink this in memory of me, not the bread will contain my blood so don’t worry about this step.

So I tried to explain to my husband that it would not be practical. He is used to those little plastic cups that juice is put in Protestant services. I explained though that there is residue left in each one of those cups after the person swallows and that if the priest consecrated 200 little cups at each Mass then how would the cups containing the leftover drops be disposed of? My husband does not understand my logic. I told him too that maybe only the apostles were to drink the blood as some sign of their authority? and that the priests drink because they have the apostles’ authority?

My husband will ask the RCIA leader about it next week. I was hoping to get your thoughts.


Some parishes, like mine, do both. :shrug:


At our parish, we do both.


I’ve seen parishes where only the priest consumed the Precious Blood.

The proposition advanced by your husband risks falling into the error of Utraquism, which is not surprising given that he is coming from a Protestant background where this is common. But this utraquism would contradict Corinthians 11:27.



Both wine and bread are consecrated, even if the blood is not distributed.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body which is broken** for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.**


It is very simple. The Apostles were the only ones with Jesus at the last supper. That was when He made them priests and bishops. It is only the priest who needs to consume both the Body and the Blood. The instruction was only for them.

We, the laity, has no obligation to consume under both species. When we receive under one species we receive Jesus entirely - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.


Your husband needn’t worry. When the legitimate authority of the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted says it is okay to receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the Bread alone, then it is okay.

At the least, the priest must receive under both species, and he does.

When we receive the Host we receive the Risen Lord, and need to be as prayerfully open and loving as we can so that He can work in us.


Since many parishes, like mine, have communion under both species – maybe the question to your parish priest is — why not? :shrug:


U.S. Churches have dispensation from the Holy See to distribute both species, if they desire. Other countries without this Vatican approval distributed only the corpus. And as stated by a previous poster, both species contain the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.


We receive under both at my parish but it is never in the little cups. There is a chalice at both sides of the church and you follow one another to receive.

ETA: I have never heard of a Catholic Church using little cups instead of a chalice.


Did they cover the concept of Transubstantiaion at all? That is the key to understanding how Christ’s command is fulfilled.

As all should know, and as you mentioned, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. We know this to be the case, as Christ is alive, there for his blood courses through his veins, his soul is present to animate the Body and, of course, Christ is always God, so His Divinity is present.

We receive the WHOLE of Christ, Christ did not say “This is a part of my body”

Therefore it is impossible to receive either species without receiving the Blood of Christ.

So that brings is to drinking. Drinking, by definition, is the consumption of a fluid.

Since we receive the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, we are, by definition, drinking living, flowing blood.

Our senses do not perceive that, in much the same way our eyes do not perceive Christ Risen, nor our hand feel the weight of a fully grown adult Body. But that is exactly what is present.

What you husband seems to be asking for is the parital sensory experience of drinking blood in addition to the reality of drinking blood. That is no more required that us reciving a 180lbs Host so we can partial experience of the weight of the body of Christ.

In Holy Communion, we do not seek out the sensory experience, but rather, the Reality of what we are consuming. And that would be the living, flowing blood of Christ under the appearance (sesory) of bread and\or wine.

In a Protestant Church, the reality and the sensory are identical. The reality IS bread and wine\juice and so the sensory corresponds. In the Catholic Church, the doctrine of Transubstantiaion tells us that the sensory (Accidents) and the Reality ( Christ Substantially present), by necessity do not correspond and we should not seek them to do so.


You might suggest that he research Eucharistic Miracles, most notably the miracle at Lanciano, Italy in the 8th century. This one was scientifically tested and proved the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist.


Well, here is a good analogy: We partake of Jesus’s Body and Blood. There are blood vessels in the body. Even if you take a piece of skin off, there are blood vessels in it. The Body and Blood cannot be separated.


Thank you for that clear explanation.


No, it has not been covered. Classes started in mid September. I really wish the USCCB would produce some type of national RCIA manual but that topic is for another thread. We read everyones responses and talked more about it while having coffee this morning. He is still hung up on the fact that Jesus said eat and drink and we only eat. But not that long ago he didn’t agree with infant baptism and has come round to understand that. :thumbsup:


As I mentioned above, the key to understanding how Christ’s command to eat and drink is fulfilled is based on Transubstantiation, so I really hope they cover it.

If they cover that the Eucharist really IS Christ, then by definition, when we consume the Eucharist in either species, we both eat and drink. It could be no other way if we are actually receiving Christ AND Christ is alive and not dead.


I agree with you Brendan. Thank you for taking the time to write such thoughtful responses. It helps us knowing that there are other Catholics out there who care about the faith and want to help others understand. I believe a lot of things with a childlike faith - if the Church says it I believe it. I have always trusted the Church, but my husband has a different personality though and likes to know the why of things. I’ve been a Catholic since birth and he comes up with questions that I’ve never thought about much less know how to answer. That’s why this forum has been so helpful to us.


No problem. When my wife and I were married, she was an anti-Catholic agnostic. Now she is a daily Mass attending, homeschooling mother of six :slight_smile:

In my case, my wife is a physicist, so once things were explained logically, it made sense to her. (Which is not to claim that that Holy Spirit was not majorly involved :slight_smile: )

closed #19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.