Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading in the Youcat that

Communion only under the species of bread is also a full communion with Christ

I was always under the impression that both the bread and the wine when consecrated were both the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, therefore it was valid and acceptable to receive Our Lord one way or the other or both.

My gluten intolerant mother-in-law told me this so I'm not entirely sure if it's just true or not. I for sure that Christ is fully present in both, but I don't know if it is valid or acceptable to only receive Him in the wine.

The passage in the Youcat may have been in reference to bringing Communion to the sick, so in that case, it's not normal for an Extraordinary Minister to carry around a chalice to bring to shut-ins.

share|improve this question
    
I assume you're asking for a Catholic perspective (or at least a perspective that believes in transubstantiation)? –  Flimzy Sep 30 '11 at 18:08
    
@flimzy yeah, I tagged it Catholicism. I really would hope for a specifically Catholic answer since pragmatic suggestions don't exactly help clarify liturgical norms. –  Peter Turner Sep 30 '11 at 18:16
    
Generally, the consecrated wine is completely consumed at Mass, unless special arrangements are made to reserve some to bring to someone unable to consume the consecrated host. –  tomjedrz Oct 1 '11 at 22:31

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes, but receiving the species of consecrated wine alone is not common.

During Mass, the celebrant(s) separately consecrates the Bread to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ, and the Wine to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ. Each is equally divine, and each is the Eucharist. The priest signifies this by taking a piece of the host and placing it into the chalice.

It is recommended that, when available, the communicant receive both forms, but it not required. It is recommended that, whenever feasible, that communion be offered in both forms. But it is not required.

Note: when presenting the consecrated host the minister says "The Body of Christ" to the communicant, and when presenting the chalice the minister says "The Blood of Christ". This describes the physical form only and references back to the Last Supper. Each form of communion is the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ.

Reference: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Chapter 1

share|improve this answer

(wider Christianity perspective, not Catholicism specific...)

This will vary from denomination to denomination, and much hangs on what the "this" is referring to in Jesus' instruction "do this in remembrance of me".

One view is that he was referring to eating together. He happened to have bread and wine handy but these days it could as easily be chips and Coke (although I haven't come across a church where bread and wine aren't preferred).

Other churches will be much stricter and won't recognise Communion as Communion unless it involves both bread and wine and a set ritual that never changes, along with words of consecration, with only certain people allowed to preside over the ceremony.

As you can probably tell by the way I've worded this answer, my own leanings are towards the former position. But the most freeform of churches will still have at least some kind of regular routine, and even the most strict will allow a degree of flexibility, so i'm sure any church will find a way to accommodate those who are gluten intolerant or have other dietary requirements, health issues or special needs.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.