Why do we not drink consecrated wine at mass?


#1

Hello!

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 we read:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

Christians in the early years of the church eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine so why do we not do both now during at mass during communion?

Thank you!


#2

[quote="kingsan, post:1, topic:338673"]
Hello!

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 we read:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

Christians in the early years of the church eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine so why do we not do both now during at mass during communion?

Thank you!

[/quote]

Typically both species are offered nowadays, although they don't have to be--we receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in fullness whenever we receive either bread or wine.

-ACEGC


#3

When we receive the host, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in its entirity. When we receive from the chalice, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in its entirity.

So, when we receive either, or both, we receive Jesus fully in the Eucharist.

That said, reception under one or both species varies from place to place. So you would have to ask locally as to why the bishop or pastor may have made that decision in your location.


#4

Please note that we do not refer to the Precious Blood as wine.

There is a historical discussion of Communion practices here in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm


#5

For 800 years, the faithful of Holy Church have received the Eucharist under the species of bread alone.

St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, **or **drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body **and **of the blood of the Lord.”

Our Lord says: “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever” From this passage it is evident that whoever partakes of the form of bread partakes of the living flesh of Jesus Christ, which is inseparable from His blood, and which, being now in a glorious state, cannot be divided. To the Eucharistic bread, Christ ascribes all the efficacy which is attached to Communion under both kinds.

Catholic Encyclopedia points out a few important aspects:

(a)In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted.

(b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI).

© By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI)

(d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration

Public Communion was, indeed, usually administered in the first ages under both forms. The faithful, however, had the privilege of dispensing with the cup and of partaking only of the bread.

This until the time of Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, when this general, but hitherto optional, practice of receiving under both kinds was enforced as a law for the following reason: the Manichean heretic sect abstained from the cup on the erroneous assumption that the use of wine was sinful. Pope Gelasius, in order to detect and condemn the error of those sectaries, left it no longer optional with the faithful to receive under one or both forms, but ordained that all should communicate under both kinds.

This law continued in force for several ages, but towards the thirteenth century, for various causes, among which is the heresy of the Calixtines, who taught that the consecrated wine was necessary for a valid communion, it grew into disuse and the Council of Constance (1414) established a law requiring the faithful to communicate under the form of bread only. This decree was renewed by the Council of Basel (1431-1449).

Furthermore, the Council of Trent was adamant:

If anyone says that the Holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just cause and reasons to give Communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema. (Sessio XXI, Canon 2).

Now, in the Second Vatican Council, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium specified:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

This did not call for widespread reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. Quite the contrary, it was a very gradual and restricted allowance.

In 2011 the Diocese of Phoenix issued this interesting notice:

In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity,” the diocese noted. “From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.

These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world. In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.

The ritual books state that Holy Communion may be offered at the Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally, it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers and seminarians at any Mass, as well as community members at a conventual Mass or those on a retreat or at a spiritual gathering. In addition, a priest may select other important solemnities in which it may be offered, e.g., parish patronal feast days or the celebration of the dedication of the church building, provided the conditions are met.

In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion,” the diocese added; “when both forms of Communion are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.


#6

While it is allowable to receive under both species it is not required. We have to be careful to not insist on receiving both as necessary for salvation. That insistence is what is called the Utraquist heresy that contributed to the 13th century Hussite war.

Christ is fully present in the smallest drop of His Precious Blood just as He is fully present in the tiniest crumb of His Precious Body.

Now as to why the Church stopped providing the Eucharist under both species I would direct you to this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia (Communion under Both Kinds)


#7

I would offer a small, but important, qualification to the bolded statement, to wit: Christ is present so long as the appearance of bread and wine still remain. At a certain point, a crumb of bread is not perceptible as such, and also a drop of wine.

-ACEGC


#8

Both species are allowed, some parishes may not for various reasons.

By the way we receive the body and blood of Christ.


#9

In the history of the Catholic Church has their ever been a mass celebrated where the laity were offered ONLY the cup?

Would such a thing be possible?

I know that some people can not eat bread and choose to only receive from the cup.

I have often wondered what would happen at a Mass if ONLY the cup was offered? How many people who usually don't choose to receive from the cup would break down and receive from the cup and how many would CHOOSE not to receive communion at all?


#10

Interestingly enough, the conditions the S.C. outlined had already existed as options prior to Vatican II…

My parents grew up in Ireland and they have memories of receiving the Eucharist Indicted at First Holy Communions and at Feasts associated with the Eucharist, such as Christmas, Easter, Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi,

This would have been in Ireland in the 1930 and 40’s


#11

In the history of the Catholic Church has their ever been a mass celebrated where the laity were offered ONLY the cup?

Would such a thing be possible?

I know that some people can not eat bread and choose to only receive from the cup.

I have often wondered what would happen at a Mass if ONLY the cup was offered? How many people who usually don't choose to receive from the cup would break down and receive from the cup and how many would CHOOSE not to receive communion at all?


#12

All the Catholics on the planet would flock to CAF to complain about liturgical abuse and the lapse of faith due to the crisis in the liturgy. Brother Jay would attempt to explain things but only Brendan, JRHK and Phemie would read his post. Everyone else would produce so many simultaneous citations of the Council of Trent, the GIRM and canon law that the CAF servers would crash leaving the entire Catholic Church with nothing to do except read the abridged version of St. Augustin’s City of God by Penguin Classics and pray the rosary. The Sedevanticists over at the other website would say, “See, we told you so!” and the SSPX would do something that no one understands like change their name or vote to oust their leader or send a letter to some dead guy. All the monks in the monasteries would not hear about the change until after Vatican III but would keep on receiving under both species until the Rule of St. Benedict is amended. Etc.

That’s what would happen.

-Tim-


#13

Although rare, there have been times when the sacristan miscalculated the number of host for a mass and they ran short, plenty of Precious blood was available and communion was finished. I can see the possibility on a busy Christmas weekend were not enough host were procured and having to offer only the precious blood. The sacrament would be just as complete and valid.


#14

[quote="TimothyH, post:12, topic:338673"]
All the Catholics on the planet would flock to CAF to complain about liturgical abuse and the lapse of faith due to the crisis in the liturgy. Brother Jay would attempt to explain things but only Brendan, JRHK and Phemie would read his post. Everyone else would produce so many simultaneous citations of the Council of Trent, the GIRM and canon law that the CAF servers would crash leaving the entire Catholic Church with nothing to do except read the abridged version of St. Augustin's City of God by Penguin Classics and pray the rosary. The Sedevanticists over at the other website would say, "See, we told you so!" and the SSPX would do something that no one understands like change their name or vote to oust their leader or send a letter to some dead guy. All the monks in the monasteries would not hear about the change until after Vatican III but would keep on receiving under both species until the Rule of St. Benedict is amended. Etc.

That's what would happen.

-Tim-

[/quote]

I was at mass at an FSSP parish a couple weeks ago when one of the priest (they split distribution down the center aisle) ran out of consecrated hosts so he returned to the altar and picked up the chalice and offered it to the 12 or so remaining communicants. Not one of them fainted, passed out or complained to the pastor about it.

BTW it was the Council of Constance some 130 years before Trent that restricted communion under both species (it had been a growing custom before then). As I understand it it was in response to the teachings of John Wyclif. Figured I'd interject some history into the hyperbole.


#15

[quote="TimothyH, post:12, topic:338673"]
All the Catholics on the planet would flock to CAF to complain about liturgical abuse and the lapse of faith due to the crisis in the liturgy. Brother Jay would attempt to explain things but only Brendan, JRHK and Phemie would read his post. Everyone else would produce so many simultaneous citations of the Council of Trent, the GIRM and canon law that the CAF servers would crash leaving the entire Catholic Church with nothing to do except read the abridged version of St. Augustin's City of God by Penguin Classics and pray the rosary. The Sedevanticists over at the other website would say, "See, we told you so!" and the SSPX would do something that no one understands like change their name or vote to oust their leader or send a letter to some dead guy. All the monks in the monasteries would not hear about the change until after Vatican III but would keep on receiving under both species until the Rule of St. Benedict is amended. Etc.

That's what would happen.

-Tim-

[/quote]

:rotfl: :clapping:


#16

I do. Every parish that I have been to offers both.


#17

[quote="kingsan, post:1, topic:338673"]
Hello!

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 we read:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

Christians in the early years of the church eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine so why do we not do both now during at mass during communion?

Thank you!

[/quote]

It depends on the country and [arch]diocese you are in. From what I've heard, it mostly due to the costs of wine. In the United States, you're more likely to have communion under both species than in Nigeria, for example.


#18

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.