Is it permissible - and if so, under what circumstances - to take the wine at Holy Communion, but not the bread?
Yes, it’s permissible. You get the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in either the Host or the Precious Blood. Some people can simply not tolerate the gluten that is present in the Host so they receive only the Precious Blood.
Well, it’s not bread and wine. It’s the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
But yes, you can partake of the chalice only, if you wish. You don’t need a justifiable reason. You could just want to switch things up and partake of the Chalice only and not a Host.
We do not take wine or bread as Phemie pointed out. You receive the Eucharist whole and entire whether you receive one or both. The thing is that the chalice is not offered universally, as it is a post-Vatican II development and up to the discretion of pastors and bishops how it is regulated. Redemptionis Sacramentum and other documents lay out guidelines on how it should be handled. Some concerns are the number of EMHCs required as well as the risk of profanation. If pastors determine it is not logistically possible then the chalice will not be offered. Obviously, those with gluten intolerance or celiac disease can make special arrangements to receive under the species of wine.
Oh, but it is bread…“I am the bread of life…”’ And it is also the body of Christ…as it is the Word, as he is the Logos, as part of his divinity…Christ, through the mysteries of faith comes in more forms than just the form of human flesh…
This is supposed to be done, to my understanding, when the Priest has been informed that the person receiving Communion has a physical inability to receive the Host. Some people who have had strokes, or suffer from other neurological disorders may have trouble swallowing the Host and are therefore allowed to take the Wine only.
So the Eucharistic species is both bread and Jesus’ body, or both wine and Jesus’ Blood?
There is absolutely no reason a person cannot receive either or both Sacred Species if both are available. Now if only the Sacred Body is offered and you cannot receive the Body because of allergies, then go talk with your pastor and he can be an exception made for you to insure that you can receive
Remember, Church law does make it mandatory to make the Eucharist available to those who wish to receive.
No, what you speak of is heresy. That dumb song they sing at Mass is theologically incorrect. When you receive either species you are receiving 100% Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.
If you do not believe in transubstantiation, then you should not receive communion.
No it doesn’t. Many people wish to receive communion who are in mortal sin. The Church does not make it mandatory to give it to those people.
Given the context of the OP I doubt the person responding about receiving communion in either species was thinking about those who are in mortal sin. I didn’t get that impression.
I see nothing theologically incorrect about “that song”. Bread of Life is a perfectly scriptural, sound and orthodox way to describe the Eucharist. Do you also have a problem with “Panis Angelicus”?
Jesus also described Himself as “the bread that came down from Heaven”. It is fitting that he be compared to the manna of the Old Testament which was so sacred it was stored in the Ark of the Covenant and commemorated on each Passover with matzah bread.
What is incorrect is when we begin to think of receiving Holy Communion as “taking (mere) bread” or “taking wine” because we know, as Catholics, that the bread ceases to be bread when it is consecrated. It is no longer mere bread, it is now Bread of Life, i.e. Jesus. It is not transformed; it still looks, tastes, and feels like true bread, but the priest through the power of God has transubstantiated it into the Bread of Life.
The Body of Christ appears to be bread.
The Blood of Christ appears to be wine.
Either species, or each part, is the whole and entire Christ.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
Lapey and the rest of us understand the Eucharist perfectly well, except for Neofight, who said “it is … also bread” because the Eucharist ceases to be bread and wine upon transubstantiation. I think Lapey was just fishing for a clarification before we came out with the heretic torches.
Guess I thought that was a given… Guess not, I’ll spell everything out for you next time.
Let me be a little more direct and clear; this is heresy if it is your belief that the Sacred Species is both bread and the Body of Christ. That would be along the lines of “consubstantiation”. The Catholic Church describes the Eucharist as the Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine containing the accidents or characteristics of the hosts. The Eucharist is not both bread and Body, nor is it both wine and Blood.
Transubstantiation - the matter has changed and still holds the accidents
Consubstantiation - is both at the same time
Big difference, Catholic verses Lutheran (if I remember correctly)
Thanks 23! You hit a homerun with your post!
I challenge you to find anything in Catholic doctrine or dogma that states the sacred species is BOTH bread and the Body of Christ. These quotes you use here are stating the opposite.
Please try to know what a poster is saying before you attempt to correct him/her. He/she may know more than you think.:(