Hi all, and Blessed Sunday to you all:

I know this question has already been asked and answered before on the forum but my computer is not cooperating with me this morning.

Why do some people eat the bread but refuse the wine? (I never noticed that before this morning)

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 09, 2002

Answers

I can only speak for myself... I never received the wine because from the time that I received my first Holy Communion up until about 10 years ago, the wine wasn't offered during mass. When it started being offered, I just didn't feel the need.

I have heard from others who do not receive the wine, that they do not for sanitary reasons.

-- Tom Perconti (tcperconti@prodigy.net), June 09, 2002.

It is necessary to receive the Precious Blood (not wine at this point) because the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained in the Host.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.

I meant to say in the above "it is NOT necessary..."

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.

But as Jesus shared the Lord's Supper it was with bread AND wine, so wouldn't that be considered to be the precedent?

Was wine NOT offered in the past, and if so why and when was it offered?

Thanks

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 09, 2002.

Gail

The bread you received at each Mass is not bread alone, but the real presence of Christ in the form of bread. It is this bread that transform our being to be nourished by GOD in his word alone. He is the bread of heaven.

The wine is the new blood of the covenant which is the blood of Christ that cleanses us of our bodily sin. The cup of our salvation.

Read the CCC section 1377. It clearly states that "Christ is present whole and entire in each of their species and whole and entire in each of their parts in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

Therefore to recieve only the bread alone is still the complete reception of Christ. If one is unable to recieve the body (bread) due to health reasons, allergy to the wheat as some people are, then the Blood alone will suffice as it is still the complete Christ in itself.

I hope this clears this up. BTW some people who were in the pre- Vatican II era still do not take of the Blood only out of habit alone.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Catholic brothers and sisters --- Please, please, please -----

Do NOT, dear ones, refer to the Sacred Species as "bread" and "wine" without at least capitalizing those words to show that you do not mean them literally. In these days of a crisis in Eucharistic faith, please use capital letters (Bread and Wine) as a bare minimum. Much better is to refer to "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine." Or we can speak of the "Bread of Life" or, best of all, the Host (from the Latin word for "Victim" [Jesus]) and Precious Blood.

If someone thinks that the Sacred Species are mere "bread" and "wine" -- or if someone thinks that They are still bread and wine, but now combined with Jesus -- then he/she should please, please not receive Them. We cannot bring a non-Catholic belief up to the altar.

The Sacred Species are ONLY the Body and Blood, Soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. After the consecrations, that is what They are -- nothing more, nothing less. There is no more "bread" and "wine." Only the appearances of those former elements are there, deceiving the senses of those who lack Catholic faith.

We may receive the Host and we may drink from the Chalice, if the celebrant chooses to make it available.

As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Whoever, therefore, eats the Bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord."
Note the word "OR." He who eats OR drinks. Thus, from the time of the Apostles, the Church of Jesus taught and practiced the truth that Jesus is 100% present under either Species. It is not necessary to receive under both Species, because Jesus, risen from the dead, can never have His Body and Blood separated from each other again. Although, when Communion is distributed, the words "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ" are spoken, every morsel and every drop of the Species contains the WHOLE Christ.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 09, 2002.

MY MY are we being picky yet whoever you are you refuse to identify yourself. A person who has no shame would not be afraid to identify oneself. Just because I used siple language is not the issue it is the issue of reception only.

I used the direct quote from the CCC as an example. And the CCC DOES NOT USE upper case bread and wine init either. I suppose you are now telling the persons who wrote the CCC that they are wrong too. I suggest that you read it and find out for yourself and learn too. I gave it its proper respect in that I di give Christ his full due respect in his divinity by naming him as the person in the bread and the wine. Please remember I am not here for semantics, I am here to speak the truth of Christ in my most humblest manner. Is that enough or do we need to be pickier than Christ and hide in a closet too?

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

"I gave it its proper respect in that I di give Christ his full due respect"

Note: "di" should be did

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Hi All and thanks a bunch. When I do have the privilege of my First Communion I will take Both!

Loads of Love to Everyone!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 09, 2002.

Gail

You definitely do have the enthusiasium now. I will be Praying for you to get there. You have a lot going for you kid.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Fred, you said, "MY MY are we being picky."

No, not picky, but accurate -- and for the good reason I explained. Failure to use the right terminology leads to two major problems -- misleading people about what we actually believe and out-and-out heresy. Are you the only Catholic who has not heard about the surveys that reveal that only about 1/3 of U.S. Catholics believe in the Blessed Sacrament precisely as the Church teaches it? Perhaps another 1/3 believe that both Jesus and the bread and wine are present (joining Lutherans and Anglicans in one form of heresy), and perhaps the remaining 1/3 believe that Jesus is not present at all or is only symbolically or spiritually present. That's why any intelligent Catholic insists on the use of precise terminology. You see, beliefs have gotten messed up in this way in great part because of the widespread use of imprecise terminology -- "bread" and "wine" -- particularly in sermons and hymns.

"Whoever you are you refuse to identify yourself. A person who has no shame would not be afraid to identify oneself."

I have identified myself as "CaCaCh." That is all that is required here. Pay attention to the message I write, not to irrelevant matters such as my full name. Don't use personal attacks to try to deflect attention away from the facts we are discussing about the Blessed Sacrament.

"Just because I used siple language is not the issue it is the issue of reception only."

There's nothing wrong with "simple language," as long as it is accurate. When it gets inaccurate, visitors can easily misunderstand and begin to think that Catholics believe that we eat bread and wine and ONLY bread and wine (or that we eat bread and wine PLUS Jesus). THAT'S why it is so important to be accurate! Another reason is that the mind works in mysterious ways. The more a Catholic keeps wrongly saying "bread and wine," "bread and wine," the more his own faith is undermined. Catholics wisely use reverential and accurate terms to build up, not break down, their faith.

"I used the direct quote from the CCC as an example. And the CCC DOES NOT USE upper case bread and wine in it either. I suppose you are now telling the persons who wrote the CCC that they are wrong too. I suggest that you read it and find out for yourself and learn too."

What irony! You're telling me to read the CCC? Haven't you noticed that my "name" (CaCaCh) comes from CAtechism of the CAtholic CHurch? I think that YOU ought to read it, for you will see just how extremely careful the Church is in its terminology for speaking about the Holy Eucharist. The wording in the CCC is very clear, even without the use of upper case (though it would have been still better with upper case).

What you, Fred, quoted from the CCC contained the phrase, "breaking of the bread." This is one of those special biblical phrases (like "I am the Bread of Life") that Catholics do not take literally by mistake, so it does not need to be in upper case. What I objected to were people's simple references to "bread" and "wine," outside of the context of well-known biblical phrases. For example, these words of yours to Gail are wrong: "The bread you received at each Mass is not bread alone." Those words of yours imply that what Gail received was both Jesus AND bread -- and such an idea is heretical. What Gail received was ONLY Jesus. You should have told her, "What you received at Mass was no longer bread."

"I gave it its proper respect in that I did give Christ his full due respect in his divinity by naming him as the person in the bread and the wine."

And here, Fred, you have just repeated the heretical wording. Christ is not the Person IN the bread and wine. There IS NO MORE bread and wine for him to be in. Christ is not "inserted" or "blended" into the bread and wine. Instead, when He becomes present, the substance (inner reality) of bread and wine CEASES to be present. {This is something they must have taught you before you were permitted to distribute the Sacrament, but you must have forgotten it.}

"Please remember I am not here for semantics, I am here to speak the truth of Christ in my most humblest manner."

Fred, this is a crucial matter! I say it again: In order to "speak the truth" (as you wish to do), you must speak accurately. Simple references to "bread" and "wine" after the consecration may be your "humblest manner" of speaking, but they are not truthful and can be dangerous. I will have to call you on this every time you do it in the future. It does not take much effort to use proper terminology. Please give that little bit of extra effort for Jesus. Thank you.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 09, 2002.

Semantics -- purely semantics. If you read the post without your blinders, you will see that Fred did mention distinctly that the bread is the body of Christ. And again he mentioned that the Blood is the blood of Christ.

You mention that only 1/3 of today's US Catholics believe in the sacrament as the Church teaches it. What does this tell you about the current teachings of the priests? Is there some laxity in teaching directly from the CCC or are they afraid that preaching what the CCC teaches will alienate their parisioners? YOU TELL ME. You coughed up the statistics, now back them up with the reasons WHY only 1/3 believe as they should.

-- ThisIsNuts (1234@jkl.com), June 09, 2002.

Thank you, "ThisIsNuts" (Carolyn or Fred, and I don't mind that you posted anonymously).

"Semantics -- purely semantics."

For some reason you are unaware of the fact that "semantics" is not a dirty word. When discussing a key dogma of the faith, it is absolutely vital to use proper terminology, lest there be a misunderstanding and lest heresies arise. You must not have read about the troubles suffered through, for centuries, by the Church because of misunderstandings or disagreements about words.

The simple fact is that our current pope and the CCC do not misuse the simple words "bread" and "wine," as though they were synonyms for the Body and Blood of Jesus. Why not? Because that would be semantically inaccurate. It is now for us to imitate the Church in using only precise terms. We must never say, "I always receive the bread in my hand" or "the priest drank the leftover wine" or similar expressions. Someone who wants to say such things had better go down the street to the Presbyterian church meeting where they really have just bread and wine.

"If you read the post without your blinders, you will see that Fred did mention distinctly that the bread is the body of Christ. And again he mentioned that the [wine] is the blood of Christ."

No blinders here, I assure you! I never said that every expression of Fred's was wrong. Most of them were correct. But it was necessary to point out the ones that were incorrect.

I also think that he used imprecise language by accident, not because he actually believes heretical things. In my last post, I mentioned a couple of specific mistakes (e.g., where he made it seem that the Host contains both bread and Jesus together). In the "ThisIsNuts" post, Fred should have had the goodness to simply come forward and say, "I got that one wrong, CaCaCh. Thanks for the correction." He didn't do that. But at least I am happy to see that "ThisIsNuts" is not defending that erroneous expression of Fred's. That tells me that Fred acknowledges that he slipped in his wording and that he does not actually believe something heretical.

"You mention that only 1/3 of today's US Catholics believe in the sacrament as the Church teaches it. What does this tell you about the current teachings of the priests? Is there some laxity in teaching directly from the CCC or are they afraid that preaching what the CCC teaches will alienate their parisioners? YOU TELL ME. You coughed up the statistics, now back them up with the reasons WHY only 1/3 believe as they should."

I already (partially) told you why, but you overlooked it. Here is what I said last time (and note the bold part especially): "You see, beliefs have gotten messed up in this way in great part because of the widespread use of imprecise terminology -- 'bread' and 'wine' -- particularly in sermons and hymns."
So I do fault poor preaching -- and I don't know how much of it was intentional (lack of true Catholic faith on the part of priests) and how much of it was accidental (lack of precision by priests).
And I do fault hymns. I have seen several hymns -- often used in parishes -- that contain heretical (or, at best, ambiguous) language about the Eucharist. They contain references to "eating the bread" and "drinking the wine" -- references that can help to undermine the Catholic faith in transubstantiation that should be held by all the people singing those words. These hymn lyrics also mislead non-Catholic visitors who are attending Mass.
I also fault less-than-Catholic newspapers and periodicals, flyers, leaflets, etc., that people may pick up in the vestibules of their parish churches. Some of these contain the same kind of poor terminology ("bread" and "wine," instead of "Body" and "Blood").
Finally, I fault the poor RCIA instructions given in some parishes. Into the RCIA, many non-Christians have brought their former complete absence of knowledge of the Eucharist, and many Protestants have brought their former beliefs about the Eucharist (e.g., symbolism only, or bread/wine-plus-Jesus). Then, those running the RCIA have failed to teach these poor people the true Catholic belief about the Real Substantial Presence of Jesus (replacing the substance of bread and wine). {Please note that I am not saying this about all RCIA programs, but only the badly flawed ones.}

And now you have a better idea about why we have this (roughly) 1/3-1/3-1/3 split. Dear fellow Catholics, please stop fighting me about this. I am not wrong. It will not kill you to acknowledge it.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 10, 2002.

CaCaCh

It is getting to precise in here considering the way you seem to want ALL of us to be as precise as GOD is. I can only do what I know to the best of my ability and I am not perfect.

Then you explain this chant that we use in the Mass on many Sundays in the Missal as printed and sung: The Mystery of Faith: When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Jesus, until you come again in glory.

Do you notice the clear implication of the Body being referenced as bread after it has been consecrated by the priest. What choice do we have as long as we are led into this error on a continual basis. So the double standard alone is the true fault of the theologians in this country and elsewhere and the adaptation of the many Protestant songs in our liturgical celebrations.

I am fully aware of the true nature of the bread being the Body of Christ and the wine being the Blood of Christ. It is a non issue to me and as long as we hear liturgical things that causes error then it cannot be helped. All I know is when I receive these gifts of GOD, I and My wife are fully aware of what they really are. ALL CHRIST and nothing less.

If you want us to be PERFECT, then give us perfect liturgies to work with.

You have absolutely no idea how difficult it is too try to teach others as long as we have the HUGE responsibility to override the errors that occur daily in the Church by people who are currently teaching our children and adults too in the RCIA process. I have seen recently what happens in the RCIA classes and to be honest with you I was totally appalled at what I saw. No real effort was ever made to teach the CCC in any manner and my wife can see this well to theis day as she is continuing her studies to her faith in Catholism in being enrolled in CCC and Bible studies in the study programs provided by the Miraculous Medal Shrine in Missouri sponsored by the K of C. This is in my mind a much better training process than the one I have seen in RCIA. This study she is undertaking is well beyond what was done in the RCIA.

I have no doubt about your knowledge of the CCC and other things, but for heavens sake give us some breathing room as the errors we get are right from the Church itself and the laxity of the training we see on a daily basis. I have tried to get the RCIA teachers to correct their teachings in the past, only to be rebuked with a heavy hand. It is nopt worth my time to argue with these people as I have had a 58 year long struggle with this nutty humanity as it is. I have decided that being submissive to GOD is a much better way to live and enjoy my wife and our life is far richer than all of this piciune behavior. There will be things that all of the words will never be able to prove to me or anyone else for that matter. I only have my faith in Christ and his Eucharistic Body and Blood to keep me afloat in this world. Thanks be to GOD.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

CaCaCh is on very firm ground. Fred in fact did make the mistakes pointed out; and these do in fact mislead an unwary reader. Remember that perhaps a non-Catholic might see them and take Fred's words as literal.

It is even proper to use the words His Holy Body and Precious Blood, instead of merely Body and Blood. Because no image of human misunderstanding should ever attach to the Most Blessed Sacrament. And no detail or semantical variation is empty when we refer with joy to the Body and Blood of our Lord.

He is infinitely worthy not just of our scruples, but worthy of inerrant, holy worship. No aspect of Jesus Christ and the Holy Eucharist can be called excusable on semantical grounds, or casual attention. Is it any wonder in our day, that so many young Catholics never genuflect as they wander past the tabernacle? I've seen many kids inside the sacristy placing their unwashed hands on the holy altar, and every kind of impropriety.

It's all happening precisely because of our carelessness and ignorance of what is infinitely sacred. In every attitude to His Holy Body and His Precious Blood --each individual Catholic should be a MYSTIC, not just faithful. He or she ought to be filled with awe!

Let me say, I'm not judging Fred. He is innocent of a conscious error. His heart is definitely an adoring heart, I'm sure; as far as God is concerned. And Fred's learning something new every day, as he has stated himself on ocassion.

All that I've written here is strictly my personal opinion; and shouldn't be received as an approved Catholic teaching. I don't presume to have a master's degree in theology. But, I believe something similar to what I'm saying SHOULD be taught to the young, in every Catholic home.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 10, 2002.

Gene Hah Yes we are learning everyday for sure and I have stated that many times before.

On the issue of Genuflecting, you are absolutly correct on that one. I have seen many occaions of neglect on that one for a long time and the lack of respect to the presence of Christ in the Tabernacle is my greatest concern with both young and old as well. They bring up the gifts and don't genuflect, they sit in the pews during communion instead of kneeling til the Body of Christ is secured in the Tabernacle, they leave the Church right after Communion is finished, they do not bow during the Nicene Creed, They don't show proper respect by genuflecting or at least bowing just prior to recieving the Eucharist, And the list is so endless. This is all so disturbing and distracting.

Imagine a girl doing the readings wearing a VERY SHORT skirt that she fights to keep from showing her underwear when she sits in front of the congregation.

Try this one out: A priest being promoted to a teaching position who wears love beads and ragged clothes when he introduces his Bishop to the RCIA class. No Collar nothing. He is such the BUM. He infuriates me in that he is setting the newcomers the wrong message now he is going to teach Seminarians! I went to a parish further away to get away from him and to find an RCIA group where he is not involved. I have been to 2 of his Masses and he literally killed me with his messy way of presiding at the Mass. It is almost like a liberal hippy at the Mass. Down right shameful. Oh yes one more thing he had his hair frosted too in the manner that the kids do too. That iced the cake for us totally.

What frightens me is how many more of these clowns are out there. I remember the respect that priests had for their jobs now this!!!!!! I can tell you more about what I see and hear and I am sure you can too.

CaCaCh thinks I have a problem keeping things straight? What kind of examples are we seeing who are leading us are killing the whole show. And the RCIA program is also in a shambles too. It needs serious uprooting. They need to spent more time on the Bible and the CCC. I did not see much on this in my wife's class and I was very vocal about it.

Sorry for the vent but you can see why I am like I am. It is the stains in the Laity that worries me and the Media is killing us fast.

I have prayed daily that we will see something get better in this area but I have serious doubts as long as we have priests and laypeople who teach poorly.

Blessings to you my friend.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

I thank you, Eugene and Fred, for a good series of messages. I found myself agreeing with almost everything that both of you said.

Fred, although you were so right about many ways in which irreverence is being shown, you mentioned one thing that need not trouble you any more -- people's posture after receiving Holy Communion. The Vatican sent out an answer to a question about this several years ago (and I can get the quote if you need it). The gist of what they stated was that each person, according to his preference, may sit, stand, or kneel during the distribution of Communion.

I found it terribly interesting that you brought up this one of the four possible Memorial Acclamations: "When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until You come in glory." [This is in the Roman Missal as "Quotiescumque manducamus Panem hunc et Calicem bibimus, mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, donec venias."]
All right, I admit that I capitalized certain key words, which you won't find capitalized in the 1970 Mass texts. In my opinion, those words should be capitalized, to avoid confusion. In fact, I am disappointed in myself for forgetting to mention this ambiguous use of "bread" (lower-case) to you as one of the factors in a weakening of Eucharistic faith since Vatican II. In my diocese, Eucharistic faith and devotion are extremely important. We have two parishes that have perpetual adoration (including my own). In my parish, the priests and organists avoid using this acclamation, and I think that it is because of the potential misunderstanding that can arise from it.

Yet I want to stress that the problem lies only in failing to capitalize the word "Bread." The problem cannot be in the acclamation itself, since it comes indirectly from the Holy Spirit. Yes, that's right. The acclamation does not come from a modern theologian. Instead, it is based on some words of St. Paul to the Corinthians. I will quote the epistle passage now, putting the source of our Mass acclamation in bold type. I am going to put the word "bread" in upper case, which I feel sure St. Paul would do, if he were writing during this era of weak faith. (He wrote in Greek, and the ancient manuscripts did not have a mixture of upper and lower cases.) Here is what he wrote -----

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my Body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my Blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this Bread and drink the Cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
{Notice that, although St. Paul referred to "Bread" in the last sentence, the previous sentences made clear that it started out as mere "bread," but became the Body of Jesus.}

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 10, 2002.

Wht do christians remenmber when they recieve the Euchaist?

-- Yusuf Laher (YU5UF@aol.com), September 20, 2003.