Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
My question concerns the Eucharist

Are the laity ever able to receive the Body and the Blood? if no is that church policy? or can the Priest make his own decision?

Thank you.

All Catholics in a state of sanctifying grace (i.e. no mortal sin on our souls) are invited to receive the Eucharist.

Historically the laity only consumed the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood was consumed by the priest only. Today in the Novus Ordo both are available to the laity, though the Church teaches that when you consume one, you're consuming both because the body and blood of our Lord are both present in each species.

Though if one attends a Latin Mass based on the 1962 missal then it would follow the same practices that the Church has always practiced historically and thus one would only receive the Body.

If one is not Catholic, or is Catholic but is not in a state of sanctifying grace (and needs to go to confession), then that person can either remain kneeling in their pew or go forward with their arms crossed over their chest to receive a blessing from the priest.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
My question concerns the Eucharist

Are the laity ever able to receive the Body and the Blood? if no is that church policy? or can the Priest make his own decision?

Thank you.
Every day in my parish.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Silverback
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,538
55,221
Woods
✟4,587,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Both are offered at my parish. Although there are times during flu season the cup is withdrawn for health reasons. But both are embodied with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. We are all getting the same graces with just the consecrated bread or just the consecrated wine or both.
My question concerns the Eucharist

Are the laity ever able to receive the Body and the Blood? if no is that church policy? or can the Priest make his own decision?

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Some pretty comprehensive answers have already been posted.

So I'll add that in Novus Ordo, the faithful are not obligated to receive both. The faithful can receive one or the other or both, whichever they wish. Thus, someone with a gluten intolerance may wish to receive only the precious blood.
 
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
Both the Trent council aswell as Vatican ii stresses the importance of offering the chalice to the faithful and both councils are daily ignored.
The protestant reformation had this as one of their main theological objections to the celebration of the catholic eucharist.

Besides its commanded in the new testament too. I cannot for the life of me understand this stupid reluctance of ours regarding lay participation in the consumption of the blood of our Lord.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Both the Trent council as well as Vatican ii stresses the importance of offering the chalice to the faithful and both councils are daily ignored.
The protestant reformation had this as one of their main theological objections to the celebration of the catholic eucharist.

Besides its commanded in the new testament too. I cannot for the life of me understand this stupid reluctance of ours regarding lay participation in the consumption of the blood of our Lord.
Actually the cup for the laity subsided during the Black Death in the Middle Ages.

Here's what the Council of Trent actually had to say about it:
"Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people.

In the next place, whereas the Holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid.

Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove hurtful to the health of the body, it has been most prudently provided by the Church that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only.

We may also further observe that in many countries wine is extremely scarce; nor can it, moreover, be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys.

Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.

There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors."
- THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Sacraments - The Eucharist

I am indeed happy that I can receive the Eucharist in both species. But the whole body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus was always considered to be present in the host or the cup. And the Council of Trent considered it quite normal not to have the Eucharist for the laity in both forms. That is why so many 'traditionalist' Catholics even today won't drink from the cup. The rest of us Catholics have gone back to an earlier practice from the Medieval period, although often in Flu season the laity are not offered the cup for good reason.

So while I am happy to partake of both species I need to correct you about the Council of Trent. It saw communion under one species as normal enough, and as a result the Church continued the practice in the Latin Rite up until just after Vatican II. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 1390, doesn't compel communion under both species either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
Actually the cup for the laity subsided during the Black Death in the Middle Ages.

Here's what the Council of Trent actually had to say about it:
"Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people.

In the next place, whereas the Holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid.

Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove hurtful to the health of the body, it has been most prudently provided by the Church that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only.

We may also further observe that in many countries wine is extremely scarce; nor can it, moreover, be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys.

Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.

There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors."
- THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Sacraments - The Eucharist

I am indeed happy that I can receive the Eucharist in both species. But the whole body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus was always considered to be present in the host or the cup. And the Council of Trent considered it quite normal not to have the Eucharist for the laity in both forms. That is why so many 'traditionalist' Catholics even today won't drink from the cup. The rest of us Catholics have gone back to an earlier practice from the Medieval period, although often in Flu season the laity are not offered the cup for good reason.

So while I am happy to partake of both species I need to correct you about the Council of Trent. It saw communion under one species as normal enough, and as a result the Church continued the practice in the Latin Rite up until just after Vatican II. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 1390, doesn't compel communion under both species either.

Thanks, but what about the NT instructions of Christ? Theres really little or no room for withholding the cup based on scripture. I fail to see what prohibit the priests from dipping the host in the wine before administering it to the laity on their tongue.

Its just utterly stupid that we continue to have this practice even after it was such a important topic during the reformation. From where I stand it comes of as stubbornness and pride, but what do I know...?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Snoder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
176
94
36
Seattle
✟10,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, but what about the NT instructions of Christ? Theres really little or no room for withholding the cup based on scripture. I fail to see what prohibit the priests from dipping the host in the wine before administering it to the laity on their tongue.

Priests can't dip the host into the wine, as the wine is only accidental properties. They are mingling a substance with itself.

Its just utterly stupid that we continue to have this practice even after it was such a important topic during the reformation. From where I stand it comes of as stubbornness and pride, but what do I know...?

There are no additional graces, sanctifying or habitual, in receiving the Eucharist in both forms. In the same way, going to Mass ten times or more a day is permitted, but one may only receive communion twice.

It's probably not a good idea to criticize the Church for stubbornness and pride and then rhetorically ask, "but what do I know...?"
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
Priests can't dip the host into the wine, as the wine is only accidental properties. They are mingling a substance with itself.

This is a aristotelian, scholastic argument. I'm currently not discussing within that box.



There are no additional graces, sanctifying or habitual, in receiving the Eucharist in both forms. In the same way, going to Mass ten times or more a day is permitted, but one may only receive communion twice.

It's probably not a good idea to criticize the Church for stubbornness and pride and then rhetorically ask, "but what do I know...?"

Please address the issue of contradicting the new testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Thanks, but what about the NT instructions of Christ? Theres really little or no room for withholding the cup based on scripture.
Lots of Catholic theologians would disagree on that. And an example of their basis for thinking this is found in of all places Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice'. Shylock is owed his 'pound of flesh' and the magistrate says he has an absolute right to it, but he cannot take one drop of blood from the victim in the process. He goes away stymied. We believe that the blood and the body are found in both the cup by itself and the host by itself. Vatican II said the imagery of it all was better with host AND cup, which is true, but it isn't like you get only half of Jesus if you only receive the host. Or those with rip-roaring celiac disease only get half of Jesus if they only receive from the cup. Or alcoholics only get half of Jesus.
I fail to see what prohibit the priests from dipping the host in the wine before administering it to the laity on their tongue.
Intinction IS ALLOWED, if what is meant by it is that the priest dips the host into the chalice and then puts it directly on your tongue. It is not allowed that the laity dips the host into the cup and then consumes it. Those are the current rules.
Its just utterly stupid that we continue to have this practice even after it was such a important topic during the reformation. From where I stand it comes of as stubbornness and pride, but what do I know...?
The stubbornness is over except among 'traditionalists' who view it as a badge of orthodoxy that they receive only the host.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anhelyna

Handmaid of God
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Nov 29, 2005
58,173
16,478
Glasgow , Scotland
✟1,288,670.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Remember also that most Eastern Catholic Churches [ as well as the Orthodox Churches ] administer the Holy Gifts [ the Eucharist ] by intinction as the Bread and Wine [ the Body and Blood ] are together in the Chalice and administered by the use of a golden spoon
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

St Sebastian

Active Member
Jul 7, 2019
196
136
FL
✟43,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Priests can't dip the host into the wine.
This is incorrect. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal no. 265 states:
"The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon."

The Instruction Redemtionis Sacramentum restates this possibility:
"The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue."

In the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, no. 49, it is consequently also accepted as a way to receive Communion.
 
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
853
61
South East
✟66,756.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
This is incorrect. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal no. 265 states:
"The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon."

The Instruction Redemtionis Sacramentum restates this possibility:
"The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue."

In the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, no. 49, it is consequently also accepted as a way to receive Communion.

I'm Lutheran, we always take both kinds, could be the Chalice, intinction, but usually small cups. I have noticed that at times it taste like grape juice and at other times straight wine. But when I watch the mass on EWTN I have never seen anyone but the clergy receive both kinds.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Snoder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
176
94
36
Seattle
✟10,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is incorrect. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal no. 265 states:
"The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon."

You changed what I wrote.

From: Priests can't dip the host into the wine, as the wine is only accidental properties."
To: "Priests can't dip the host into the wine."

Please quote an entire sentence if you are going to end it with a period. The second part of the sentence was important. I was reminding the poster of the fact that what was bread and wine are now the same things, except for a difference in accidental properties.
 
Upvote 0

Snoder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
176
94
36
Seattle
✟10,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a aristotelian, scholastic argument. I'm currently not discussing within that box.

If there is another way you'd like to describe sacramental theology let me know. It doesn't matter how one describes the sacrament. Receiving one species, one 'thing' if you like is the same as receiving the other, or both. The reason both are offered is that it resembles more of the meal aspect. Dipping it and having it dropped it in your mouth, while a respectable practice, doesn't really have the same meal aspect as receiving a piece of bread and drinking from a chalice.

I am not seeing any theological argument for why you need to receive both forms of the same thing. In what way does that benefit the faithful as a matter of theology?

Please address the issue of contradicting the new testament.

It's not contradicting the NT. Jesus took the bread and then passed the chalice, which have the same thing after consecration according to the Catholic Church. Jesus didn't dip the bread in the chalice and feed it to them. If your argument is you need to follow a precise set of instructions, intinction isn't it. Jesus said take and eat, and he also said take and drink. You aren't drinking it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anhelyna

Handmaid of God
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Nov 29, 2005
58,173
16,478
Glasgow , Scotland
✟1,288,670.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I would like to remind all posters here that this thread is in OBOB - the 'safe haven' for Catholic [ meaning Roman/Latin and Eastern Catholic ] posters.

Visitors are most welcome to post in fellowship , but they may not debate or teach against the Catholic Church's teaching.

Anhelyna Senior Ambassador Member.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0