Is the holy communion less without the Wine- Blood of Christ?

Do we receive less if we only receive the Body of Christ in the holy communion ( without the Blood) I am now at my 40’s and since was young, I only have had very few times eating the bread dipped into the wine - Body and Blood of Christ.

No. Both species contain the body and blood. And for most of church history only the species was consumed by the laity


Communion under the species appearing as bread contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

1 Like

Each of the bread and the wine are complete and entire. This means that we do not receive less by taking only the bread or the wine. (There is a woman in our church who takes only the wine because of an allergy to bread.)

BTW it is not lawful to dip the bread into the wine when taking Holy Communion.

1 Like

The host by itself is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

The chalice by itself is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

You lose nothing by receiving only one or the other.

1 Like

Catechism of the Catholic Church, para.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.

1 Like

It is lawful if the priest intincts the Host by dipping it into the cup and placing it on your tongue. I see this done all the time.
It is NOT lawful if the person receives in the hand and dips the Host himself.


This is a tricky topic to write about, but I think it’s wonderful when the laity is able to receive under both species. It allows them to participate more fully in the full form (?) of the sacrament.

However, communion under one species does allow the laity to fully receive Christ in the sacrament. Christ (or part of him) is not being withheld from them. They still fully participate in the sacrament itself.

There has to be an appropriate way to walk this line in speaking about it. To speak of the fullness of Christ under one species while acknowledging that communion under both species is not just superfluous.

I was serving the Precious Blood a few weeks ago when someone (a visitor to the parish) did this. I had no idea what they were doing (nor did the Head Altar Server, as I immediately looked to him and he looked as bewildered as I did. None of the other EMHCs had encountered it either.

I believe in the USA, “self-intinction” is expressly forbidden, though it’s been some months since we had a discussion about it with the references. If somebody tries to do that then you should stop them if you can.


I will ask my pastor about it, but as a practice, EMHCs in our parish do not take the initiative to stop or correct people in the Communion line unless specifically instructed to do so. We serve and report any concerns to the priest or Head Server (who watches everything closely anyway). The explanation was that if we were to draw attention to anything in the Communion line, it creates condition for disruption and scandal at the time of Communion.

1 Like

I understand. The priest should definitely have a word with this person if they come back.

I understand that Anglicans are the ones who self-intinct, so I would wonder if this visiting person is even a Catholic.

I think the confusion for people comes from the fact that the bread and wine are consecrated separately. This is the separation of body from blood that occurred at Christ’s death… the sacrificial part. Christ died for us, the Eucharist is the same sacrificial death but in an unbloody manner on the altar. This is why both species must be consecrated for Mass to be.

After the consecration, Christ is whole and entire in either species; body, blood, soul and divinity. This is life. To receive Christ is to receive Christ.

1 Like

Yeah, I’ve heard of that happening, too. My advice has been, “well, if you see someone walking up to you with a host in their hands, don’t offer the chalice until you say, ‘Please consume the host before receiving from the chalice! Thank you!’”

(Chances are, it’s a ‘germ thing.’ They’ll likely turn and walk away.)

1 Like

It’ll make for an interesting discussion, for sure!

I’ve always heard it expressed as “don’t challenge whether a person is allowed to receive”, but not “let anyone do whatever they want.”

I don’t think it’s “let anyone do what they want” but rather to be mindful of whether your actions will cause a bigger commotion or fuss than whatever you are trying to challenge.

Fair enough. When I distribute communion, I guess my thought is that there’s greater negative effect to allowing something non-normative to go on, than there is to politely asking the person to do it the right way.

As I’ve said, the concern is that no matter how polite you might be, you cannot control the other person’s response. Even if all they choose to do is politely debate with you, it still holds up Communion and draws the congregation’s attention away from their prayer.

1 Like

Consecrated hosts=Jesus’ Body Blood Soul Divinity=even one crumb, COMPLETELY 100% JESUS

Precious Blood=Jesus’ Body Blood Soul Divinity=even one drop, COMPLETELY 100% JESUS

Whether we receive the Consecrated hosts or the Precious Blood—either one----we are receiving ALL OF JESUS!

1 Like

As a practical matter, most of the time when I receive the Precious Blood, the cup has only a little bit in the bottom, so somebody trying to self-intinct would have to stick most of his whole hand down in the cup. Would not work well.

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