Wine & The Eucharist


Some churches I have been to don’t seem to have any wine present. The bread is not dipped in wine, there is no chalice of wine to be sipped, etc. Is that appropriate?


Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine.

Now on to your question, the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity are fully present in either species. The Priest is required to consume both species but both species are not required to be offered to the laity.


The catechism of the catholic Church is clear on this at no 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." (my emphasis) This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

I hope this helps - discuss it with the liturgy committee in your parish


You said " Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine." but the CCC 1390 refers to the species of bread


The OP just refers to bread and wine. I wanted to be clear that they are not merely bread and wine.


I think we know what he meant, and the CCC itself calls it bread


If you are Catholic we believe it is the Consecrated hosts (OUR LORD) and His Precious Blood.

Jesus is fully & completely present in even one crumb of the Consecrated Host and in the Precious Blood so we are fine receiving only the Consecrated hosts (His Body Blood Soul Divinity).

Intinction (Dipping of Our Lord’s Body into His Precious Blood) is hardly ever done anymore. If done in a Catholic Church it can ONLY be done by the Priest.


Is wine being consecrates but not distributed? Or does the priest not even consecrate the wine and drink from the cup?

The cup doesn’t need to be distributed to the laity, that is up to the bishop, but to my knowledge the priest should still be consecrating and partaking of both species.


The priest always consecrates both the bread, and the wine


If there is literally no wine present to become the Precious Blood and for the priest to receive, the Mass is at least gravely irregular. (I’m not sure if it’s possible to consecrate just bread — maybe in an emergency? — but it’s certainly not normal.

If you mean that the chalice is present on the altar and is consecrated, but is not offered to the laity, that is a well-established practice, though not one I have actually seen. It was the norm for several centuries but seems less so now. That is entirely permissible and does not lessen what the communicant receives, though as Uriel notes the sign value of the sacrament is enhanced when both species are offered.


The Priest is the ONLY ONE WHO MUST receive under both species of Consecrated hosts and the Precious Blood. The laity need only receive under the species of the Consecrated hosts because in doing so they are receiving the complete fullness of Our Lord Body Blood Soul and Divinity.


Both species must be consecrated.


The priest always consecrates both the bread, and the wine, and at CCC [1333] it reads, At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood . Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.


From what I recall wine is being consecrated. Whether required or not I don’t see why it should be withheld from the parishoners. Its consecrated and then we don’t consume it ??


As long as the Priest receives under both species everything is fine. Today many Churches don’t have the means to distribute the Precious Blood to the laity. That’s why only the Consecrated hosts are distributed. Be at peace when you receive the Consecrated hosts you receive COMPLETELY & FULLY JESUS Body Blood Soul Divinity. You don’t NEED to also receive the Precious Blood.


Not a big fan of using grape juice instead of wine. I have seen this in the past, but it is typically driven by an unscriptural hang up against alcohol, or concerns for those who choose not to drink alcohol due to health or substance abuse concerns.


This is off topic, plus grape juice has never and will never be used in a Catholic mass.


My mistake, I was thinking she was talking about using grape juice instead of wine. I guess she meant receiving communion in one kind. I would say this is pretty much as unfaithful as using grape juice.


Hmm, do you mean The Precious Blood of our saviour?

If so, it may be instructive to know the Council of Trent taught the whole body, blood and divinity if Christ is contained within the sacred host. It’s perfectly licit, if not better, as there is less risk of contamination. :thinking::thinking:


When I was really young - elementary school - my family lived in a really small town. The priest administered communion alone. He did consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood at the altar, but only distributed the transfigured Bread, for logistical reasons. Also to this day, I rarely take the Blood, probably because it wasn’t available during the time when I developed the habit of taking communion.

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