May I know why Catholics don’t drink the wine at the altar alongside the bread they take for Communion? The idea that there can be no Body without Blood is true, but before Christ gave them separately, He knew that there could be no Body without Blood.The reader raises an interesting question that I have touched on before ("Reader Question: Why Do Catholics Receive Only the Host?"). In that discussion, I explained the rationale for receiving only the Host, and not the Precious Blood--that when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ is present "body and blood, soul and divinity" in both species.
But the reader is suggesting that this answer begs the question. After all, if the Catholic Church's explanation is correct, Christ could have saved us from this entire debate and instituted Holy Communion under only one species--either the bread or the wine. So isn't the predominant practice in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church--reception of only one species--a violation of Christ's will? Not at all. At every Mass, the faithful receive Holy Communion under both species.
I don't simply mean that the Body and Blood are both present in the Host, but rather that the priest receives both the Host and the Precious Blood, and he receives it on our behalf as well as his. Indeed, that reception is central to the celebration of the Mass. What isn't central to the celebration of the Mass is the reception of Holy Communion by anyone other than the priest.
In other words, a Mass is a Mass even if no one other than the priest receives Communion. It's not a Mass if the priest doesn't receive. And when the priest receives, he receives always under both kinds--and he receives Communion as a representative of the Christian people.
So the Church always respects the fact that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "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." The priest receives under both kinds, on behalf of the people.
For us in the pews, the fact that Christ is present "body and blood, soul and divinity" in both species is enough. If we are properly disposed when we receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion, we receive all of the graces of the sacrament, even if we receive only under one kind--either the Host or the Precious Blood. In fact, infants in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (following the ancient order of the Sacraments of Initiation) receive Communion from the time of their Baptism, yet they receive only the Precious Blood until they reach an age at which they can safely receive the Body of Christ.
If you have a question that you would like to have featured in our Friday "Reader Questions" series, send me an e-mail at catholicism.guide@about.com. Be sure to put "QUESTION" in the subject line, and please note whether you'd like me to address it privately or on the Catholicism blog.
Dear Scott,
Babies in the Eastern Orthodox Church do in fact receive communion in both species of bread and wine. Since the lamb (bread) is placed in the chalice (which is filled with wine),the bread becomes soft and moist therefore allowing the child to receive both bread and wine.
In my previous discussion of Communion under both kinds (linked in the body of this post), I discussed the Eastern practice (both Catholic and Orthodox) of intinction. It is true that the Body becomes soft when placed in the chalice with the Blood; however, it has been the practice in the Eastern Catholic churches that I have attended to give infants Communion only under one kind–the Blood–until they are old enough to receive solid food, at which point they will be communed with a small, soft portion of the Body mixed with the Blood.
Then, as they grow older, they will receive a full-sized cube of the Body, once they are capable of swallowing solid food without danger of choking.
I cannot (which is why I did not) speak to the question of Eastern Orthodox practice. It may be true, as the Reverend McGillicuddy says, that even the youngest of infants are communed under both kinds in all Orthodox churches.
The explanation of body and/or blood is very simple. The consecrated host becomes the body of Christ…What is contained within the body? BLOOD!! The whole of Christ’s body is present in either form.
Julie, thanks for your comment. I’d covered that explanation in the previous Reader Question (linked in the text above). This reader’s point is something different: If what we believe as Catholics is true, why didn’t Christ simply consecrate bread but no wine? My answer addresses that question.
Jesus did not drink wine at the Last Supper. This seems strange considering it was a Passover seder. The explanation is that Jesus like David and Absalom and Saint Paul and many others was a Nazarite. (Not a Nazarene–a different word root.) A Nazarite does not cut his hair and does not partake of anything made from the grape. Jesus gave his blood. He did not partake of it.
By what power does the priest receive the body and blood on our behalf? Jesus said that whoever eats his flesh AND drinks his blood will have eternal life. Is not the priest keeping us from partaking in this by taking it on our behalf, if Jesus said to do this.. I want to to do the way He said it would be done.
It is really sad that in the Church there is now a movement to try to discourage receiving communion under both species. Of course you can receive Jesus under only one species, since you can’t split Christ. However, it is not what Jesus wanted. He clearly wanted us to receive him under both kinds. There is no other way to read what is written in the scripture. What on earth could be the purpose of not offering communion to the faithful under both bread and wine? This is a powerful reality that really drives home the fact that we are making the crucifixtion truly present in our lives. The fathers of the Second Vatican Council were really present to God’s Spirit when they brought back communion under both species. It has meant so much to me personally. Now I will answer the above rhetorical question. The sole purpose of denying communion under both species is to try to bring back the terrible split between the clergy and the rest of the people. I don’t like to use the word “laity.” It is not really a true christian word and has no ancient traditional or scriptural basis. We are all God’s People and are member of Christ’s Body, with each having our different but equal roles and functions, from Pope to the little church lady who washes the altar linen. Wherever I turn, I am beginning to see the sin of clericalism rearing its head again. My goodness, Pope Benedict has taken to wearing ermine fur on his robes. This is shameful. Ermine is a symbol of royalty. I know St. Peter would never think of wearing something so contrary to the teachings of our Master whose only sign of royalty was a crown of thorns. You know until the later middle ages, communion under both species was accepted and encouraged.