Host only?



I have two parishes close to me. One ofthem şs Armenian Rite. Priest over there distribute Eucharist in both forms by dipping the host in wine.

The Church where I go all the time and baptised is giving host only (Roman Rite).

My problem is Armenian Catholics are like 3-4 times more crowded then us and get to receive in both forms and we receive only hosy with 10-20 people…

It makes me sad because they did not offered me wine even in my First Communion.

I know in CCC it says we recieve full grace from host or blood only but it also says it is more complete when received on both forms.

Why they do not dip host in wine in my church? It is only 10-20 people. Maybe priests are a bit lazy? Should I ask them if they can do it?


That is very disrespectful to make a comment like that about your priests.
It is not required that you receive under both species. If your parish Church only distributes the Host then that is it. You may not question this.


Where does the Catechism say that?


What you are talking about is intinction. It usually takes two priests to distribute Communion in that way and most priests are not very familiar with this method. Laziness has absolutely nothing to do with it.


I have received by intinction many times. Only one priest is required.


Intinction. We used to have it at my old parish, but then the Bishop disallowed it.
We were sorry to see it go, since that is what we were accustomed to, but the Bishop knows best for his flock. our pastor accepted his decision obediently, and we were told to accept his ruling.
It’s fine. you don’t HAVE to receive under both species.


CCC 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.

That answers the first part of the question.


In the Roman Rite, communion may be given under both forms. That is the Priecious Body and a separate cup for the Priecious Blood. You could ask your priest if it would be possible to do so. What you are referring to by the host being “dipped” is Instinction. Also, please never refer to a priest as being lazy in questioning why something is not done.
This is very disrespectful and not neccessary to say.


I am sorry if I sound disrespectful that was not my intention. I really like my priests and see them as my relatives.

Yes correct term is Instinction since English is not my mother tounge and we do not have Christian terminology in my mother tounge sorry is that also sounded disrespectful somehow.

But I just do not know why it is not done while on other parish only one priest was able to do it. I understand since their Turkish is not perfect they usually skip homilies but can not understand this.

CCC says:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Why not do it “more complete” I came back Home to Mother Church to experience God in his fullness afterall.

It is just a question please do not think I lookover or judge my priests they ar my fathers after all… I just can not understand why not give Precious Blood to so few people…


Why don’t you just ask him?
As long as the validity of the Mass is not in question, I don’t see why it matters.
One Eucharist is not “better” or more “complete” than another.


You experience God ‘in His fullness’ with EITHER species. You need not have both.

I can give you at least one reason why that parish may offer the Precious Body (host) alone – that there have been problems in the parish with some of the people being alcoholics. Rather than have say one person consistently not ‘receive’ (and people would pretty soon be asking why and then guessing the person as having an alcohol problem, which would be unfair to that person), the priest and/or bishop may have decided it was best to have the people receive one species only.

Another reason–perhaps the priest and/or some of the people have physical issues (balance, tremors) and there were problems with lots of SPILLS with the Precious Blood. Rather than risk that, the priest/bishop may have made a determination to have the Precious Body only.

Have you also thought that with ‘so few’ receiving, that there would by necessity be quite a LOT of the Precious Blood ‘left over?’ And that the priest would have to receive it? Maybe this protects him as well, if he might have a problem with alcohol.


I had seen Host drops to floor two times in Christmas Eve Mass and Priest took it feom geound and eat it. But that was more than 100 people.

Maybe I will ask it to our priest.

Again sorry for sounding disrespectful.

Just trying to understand.


After praying the rosary my mind is enlightened a bit…

I now understand why calling them “lazy” is so bad…

They always check themselves for sins to be a good shepherd for their flock (they do confessions too) . And it is not possible for them to continue being “lazy”(the sin sloth) if it ever happened.

And even thinkibg them this way is not nice…

As I said I did not meant to be disrespectful.

I asked my priest by mail the reasons and if it is possible for us to recieve both Body and Blood. I will share the answer.

Sorry again.

God bless you all.


Not sure that it does…or at least I couldn’t find it after a brief search

However, after going on to say that the Christian faithful should be instructed
“that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation (no. 282)

the GIRM says
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.” (no. 281)

and then cites in a footnote Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on Eucharistic Worship-no. 32) which reads
Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. **For under this form **(leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

and also Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See) vol 59 but my Latin is not good enough to pick it out.

all emphasis above added by me


Your sources are good but maybe the better question would be, and perhaps some theologian can explain, why is the SIGN of communion the focus here (in the IGMR/GRIM and the CCC) and not the communion itself. We know we start with the bread and wine as separate species but it seems Body and Blood aren’t inseparable. So while the sign of one species alone may be not complete, nevertheless the full graces are there. Full, as in maximum, provided we are properly disposed.

but my Latin is not good enough to pick it out.

The Latin seems to check out, as a completed sign, that is.


If I may point out, I deliberately “cherry-picked” just a couple of sentences with this very narrow focus out of a rather extensive and much much lengthier treatment of the Eucharist in both the CCC and the Instruction. I did this in order to make two points: 1) from my reading of the documents they do not say that communion (the Eucharist) is “more complete” when received under both species but rather 2) they do say that the sign is more complete , i.e “fuller” or “more perfect” when receiving under both species. My concern was that previous posts here did not make that distinction and that the discussion could go awry.


Was it self intinction? As in when the faithful doing it themselves? THAT is universally prohibited.

Or was it done by the priest?

When it is done by the priest, that is universally allowed in the Roman Church.

  1. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite

Cardinal Arinze to the US Bishops
Prot. n. 468/05/L Rome, 12 October 2006


That’s what I thought and that you did. There is indeed a distinction. Actually the sacrifice is complete (and most pleasing to God) when the priest physically consumes both accidents (and normally a large amount of it leaving no doubt as to the validity). Not trying to downplay anything here but whether we physically consume the accident(s) or not doesn’t make the sacrifice any more complete AFAIK. We’ve already done our part.


It was done by the priest (actually, a Monsignor). The Bishop disallowed it. The Bishop in question is deceased now, but it has not been reintroduced. I liked it. It made all the arguments about germs a non-issue.



Also worth mentioning, the graces are complete as well. Receiving under both species does not convey more grace or a more complete grace. It is primarily a sensory difference, that is important for some people but not at all essential.

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