Catholics Who Do Not Partake Of The Wine During Holy Communion

Why are there Catholics who do not partake of the wine during Holy Communion if the wine is available for the laity to partake of? If they like wine then they should not pass up the opportunity to take a sip of wine during Holy Communion. The Catholic parish I attend has both the bread and the wine available for the laity to partake of during Holy Communion. I partake of the wine also.

I don’t drink from the cup that holds the wine but place the host in it --I don’t drink from the cup a/c when I get a cold I really get sick and don’t want to take any chances.


You dip the Host?

You’re not supposed to do that…

I typically do not if I am holding a child (or trying to keep a watchful eye on a walking child). I would rather not risk spilling.

I also don’t if I am sick, suspect I may be getting sick, or have recently recovered from illness.

You get the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under both species of the Eucharist, so there is technically no additional gain by receiving both. It’s nice to do both, but we are not obligated to, and many people don’t due to concerns about germs and the like.

I usually attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, at which the Precious Blood is not offered (it is NOT “wine” at the point we are receiving the Sacrament).

When I am at a mass where both species are offered, I usually don’t receive the Precious Blood. This isn’t because I dislike doing so, per se.

I find that it is usually just simpler and less distracting to me to receive Christ once. It is not as if I’m missing out on some special, particular grace, because both species are Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in equal measure.

That’s forbidden.

This is absolutely forbidden by the Church. The danger of spillage, of even a tiny drop of the Precious Blood, which is truly Our Lord, is too great.
The priest may dip the Host in the Precious Blood and place the Host on one’s tongue. That is the only licit way in which to receive in this manner.

I don’t receive from the Chalice. It is mostly habit I suppose. In my archdiocese (Vancouver, BC) the Chalice is rarely distributed.:shrug:

I receive the Precious Blood if I’m well. If I have chapped lips, a cold, or anything else I don’t out of respect for those who would be receiving after me.

I do not for two reasons. One is I am usually holding and/or directing a child so they don’t bump into someone or some thing. They have a tendency to watch people receiving instead of watching where they are going. I don’t want to risk spilling. The other reason is i really cannot stand the taste of wine, any wine. I tried and I was thinking about how bad it taste instead of about Jesus.

There is no wine.

One already receives the whole of Christ under one species. Only the priest needs to receive both to complete the Sacrifice.

And if this kind of mentality becomes more widespread, perhaps the Church would be wise to withhold the cup from the laity again to underscore the truth that only one species is ever required for the congregation.

The laity are not to perform Intinction.

I lke receiving under both, however the parish I attend withholds the cup during “flu” season as a health precaution. I miss both species but think the practice is beneficial.


If I’m at my own parish (Byzantine) we receive under both kinds, but mixed together so there is no option other than to receive both. If I’m at Mass at a Latin-rite parish, I will generally only receive the host. My reasons are similar to others’ already stated reasons: I find it simpler, I don’t care for the taste of wine, I’m usually wrangling children, and I’m not used to taking the chalice into my own hands and makes me a bit nervous.

Why should they partake simply because they like wine! That would be sooooo missing the point…

Correct. Intinction must be done by the Priest/Celebrant or designated extraordinary minister. We receive the Sacrament rather than taking it.

INTINCTION. The liturgical practice of dipping the consecrated Host into the consecrated wine in giving Holy Communion. Its use was already established by the time of Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264). In time it became a regular method both in the East and the West. In the East, the intinction was (and is) done by means of the communion spoon (labis). An alternate form of intinction is described in the Ordines Romani (sixth century) and since discontinued. The consecrated Host would be dipped into unconsecrated wine. Intinction had long disappeared in the West, and has been revived since the Second Vatican Council (1969).

What mentality? You are assuming something that NO ONE has suggested on this thread…

Others on this thread have already observed that this called Intinction and it is only allowed to be done by a priest.

However, when you receive the Precious Blood, you may often notice that there is a small piece of the Host in the chalice already.

In any event, the laity are forbidden to practice this. We are to either receive the Host on the tongue (which I believe is more reverent) or in the hand at the moment the priest offers it. We are not permitted, under any circumstance, to walk away with it in our hand and then dunk it in the Precious Blood.

I don’t take the chalice when I’m sick or others in church are coughing all over.

As I pass the chalice, I bow to it…but I see others who just ignore it or look with at it with disgust . :eek: That bothers me.

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