Is wine at church optional?

Is it? I attend one of a few churches and only one offers wine at communion. The strange thing is the others are very traditional, but I haven’t ever seen them have wine. Isn’t the blood of Christ just as important as His body? Or is it a parish choice? :confused:

The Precious Blood must be present at the Mass, and the priest (and any concelebrating priests) must consume both the Host and the Precious Blood.

The Precious Blood may be withheld from the congregation if the pastor so chooses. It may also be diocesan policy (for example, all parishes in my diocese were once instructed by the bishop to withhold the cup during a particularly bad, and potentially dangerous, flu season).

There may be a pragmatic reason for withholding the cup from the congregation as well, such as a lack of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

Of course, a person who receives Communion under one species (the Host or the Precious Blood) has received Jesus in his totality.

Pay close attention to what the priest is doing during the ‘Lamb of God’. You’ll notice that the priest breaks the Eucharistic wafer into three pieces, 2 large pieces and 1 small piece. He then drops the small piece into the wine. This is called co-mingling. Every piece of the Eucharist, whether cup or bread contains both the Body and Blood of Christ.

-Prophecy

Yes, this is part of the usual rite, but we should be clear that the comingling is only symbolic. It is not a required element in the form of the Mass, and it does not have any effect on the transubstantiation of the bread/wine or the doctrine of concomitance.

The Church could discontinue the practice of comingling tomorrow, and it would not affect the fact that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is fully present in both the Host and the Precious Blood.

The comingling is a good symbol, and (like all good symbols) it points to the underlying truth, but the act itself doesn’t “do” anything.

Wine is not offered at communion.

Even though the Eucharistic species of bread is called “the Body of Christ,” it is actually the whole and entire risen Christ, both His Body and His Blood, as well as His Soul and His Divinity. Likewise, even though the Eucharistic species of wine is called “the Blood of Christ,” it is actually the whole and entire risen Christ, both His Body and His Blood, as well as His Soul and His Divinity. Consequently, whether you recieve just one Eucharistic species or both, you are receiving the same whole and entire risen Christ.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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.

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.

wine must present at Mass always and be consecrated into the Precious Blood of Christ

however, it is not required that the Precious Blood be offered to the rest of the congregation. only the celebrant and concelebrants are required to receive both species of the Eucharist. everyone else may receive the Precious Body only, the Precious Blood only, or both

each species of the Holy Eucharist containes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. God is not divisible, therefore Jesus is fully present in both species.

I would talk to your Priest. Why do they not offer both? Money? Then tell the Congregation if it is important to them, they will find a way to support the Parish. I won’t attend a Mass that only offers Eucharist. At the last supper Jesus did not keep the Chalice to himself.

too bad that you are grossly misinformed

What a silly attitude!
I really hope you do not think that Communion under both species is required as that would be heresy.

“Eucharist” is not a term only for the Host (nor only for the Chalice). The Eucharist is the Blessed Sacrament. Offering the Eucharist to the people (i.e. “Holy Communion”) under a single species is perfectly legitimate.

That’s asinine.

it is never “optional” for the priest to omit consecrating wine and drinking the precious Blood. It is the option of the priest whether or not the precious Blood is offered to the congregation. Chances are in a “traditional” parish this will not be the practice, since it became common only since Vatican II. Prior to that laity were offered the chalice only on special occasions, and then also at the option of the priest: nuptial Mass, first communion etc. Certainly in the EF the chalice is not offered to the laity.

the first two sentences are too stupid to regard. The third sentence displays total ignorance of the nature of the sacrament of Eucharist. Please refer to the excellent teaching tracts on the subject on the CA homepage. the fourth sentence at least is true, because the Last Supper also begins the ordination of the apostles as priests.

the first two sentences are too stupid to regard. The third sentence displays total ignorance of the nature of the sacrament of Eucharist. Please refer to the excellent teaching tracts on the subject on the CA homepage. the fourth sentence at least is true, because the Last Supper also begins the ordination of the apostles as priests.

You are not required to have both species. Jesus is wholly, fully and compeletely present under each species. In fact, the Preciuos Blood can be withheld according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

Thus, the very Congregation to which you would appeal may probably refer you to the above passage. Only the priest is required to consume both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood.

To the OP, I would add that once the wine has been consecrated, it is no longer merely wine, but the Precious Blood.

This is precisely the kind of attitude the prompted the Latin church to withhold the cup from the faithful in the first place, so as to drill into everyone’s heads that the whole Christ is present in the sacred Host, such that Communion under both species is NOT required for the laity.

Perhaps it’s time again for such forceful catechesis.

There is wine at my Church you can either drink out of the cup or have the priest dip the host in the wine.

Dear “Freethinking Catholic” –

Scripture may help clarify the answer to your question: “Therefore whoever eats the bread – OR – drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body – AND – blood of the Lord” 1 Cor 11:27 NAB.

[edited]

Peace be with you.

Jim Dandy, Industrial Strength Catholic
Tiber Swim Team, Senior Division

Easy Jerry,

It’s not like radical catholicism. I don’t think its a matter of [money]:shrug:

The Eucharist is the blood, body and divinity of Jesus. I guess what you are referring to is a mass that doesn’t offer both species.

In the Agnus Dei, the priest does co-mingle the species. At any rate, I’ve yet to attend a mass where only one species is offered - I wouldn’t loose my mind if it happened but yes, I do prefer both species.

It would be better not to refer to the Precious Blood as wine once the species has been consecrated. If you wish, you might want to say, we receive the Precious Blood under the species of wine either from the chalice or by way of intinction.

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.