Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper

[Josh]

One of the oddest things about Catholicism is the idea that the congregants don't need to drink the cup - just the priest can do it on their behalf.

It would seem if this was the order Jesus instituted, he would have kept the cup to himself and perhaps shared it with just Peter.

[Heirbyadoption]

Before the pandemic we could also choose to receive the Precious blood after the Host. Now many parishes no longer offer the shared chalice to the congregants because of contagion. I hope this makes sense.

Max, does this mean the congregants no longer receive the wine/juice any longer, or can they still receive it during the service, just on an individual basis?

Great question, Heir; unfortunately the answer is not simple. Each diocese creates its own stipulations, quite rightly I might add. One area of the world may have an epidemic but another nation or continent might not have it so it is left to the individual dioceses to decide on whether parishioners receive from the common chalice at Mass or not. Another bit: After lockdown was lifted, most of the dioceses opted to only offer the Host to the hands of parishioners and not to the tongue. When life resumed normality, the options of tongue or hand were restored. (I am tempted to say "what passes for normal these days.")

The chalice is not offered to individuals outside of the Mass itself but only during the Mass. An example: a diocese or parish may decide to only offer the Host, not the chalice during Holy Communion at Mass. Now for the loophole bit: if that happens and there is a parishioner who cannot consume gluten, that parishioner may be offered some of the Precious Blood from the priest's chalice so that the parishioner can still receive Christ.

Interesting. Maybe I'm a bit confused, but Josh's question does resonate with me a bit, on why there's not equal emphasis on an RCC communicant partaking of BOTH the bread and wine, rather than just the bread (or "host"). Is this just a result of the sacramental Transubstantiation theology, which assumes that as long as the communicant at least gets one or the other they have received grace by taking Christ into themselves by doing so, even if they didn't literally partake of both?

Or if it is simply that the taking of the cup by the priest is sufficient to impart said grace to the communicants, why is the partaking of the bread not viewed similarly?

[Neto]

Back in my Bible college days, we were 'required' to have an active ministry of some sort or another. One year I was assigned to a group that did weekly visits to a home for men. Many such homes were for the elderly, but this one was both elderly and also some who were there for other reasons. One man there told me that he knew that he was saved (and that he had subsequently stopped drinking) after he was given the sacramental wine in a Catholic mass. (I'm only reporting what he told me, I have no idea how much of it was true, or imagined.) Anyway, he said "I know wine when I taste it, and I know blood. And that was blood." So his confidence in salvation was based on having "partaken of the actual blood of Christ". (Why a priest would give wine to a wino is another question, but as long as I knew him, he didn't get drunk anymore, so there is that.)

[ken_sylvania]

Back in my Bible college days, we were 'required' to have an active ministry of some sort or another. One year I was assigned to a group that did weekly visits to a home for men. Many such homes were for the elderly, but this one was both elderly and also some who were there for other reasons. One man there told me that he knew that he was saved (and that he had subsequently stopped drinking) after he was given the sacramental wine in a Catholic mass. (I'm only reporting what he told me, I have no idea how much of it was true, or imagined.) Anyway, he said "I know wine when I taste it, and I know blood. And that was blood." So his confidence in salvation was based on having "partaken of the actual blood of Christ". (Why a priest would give wine to a wino is another question, but as long as I knew him, he didn't get drunk anymore, so there is that.)

I thought the priest is supposed to be giving out flesh and blood, not wine....

[ohio jones]

I thought the priest is supposed to be giving out flesh and blood, not wine....

Yes, but apparently once the wine has been turned into blood, er, consecrated, it can't simply be thrown out, it must be drunk. So the priests did, and were. Especially when the chalice was restricted to the priests.

[MaxPC]

Max, does this mean the congregants no longer receive the wine/juice any longer, or can they still receive it during the service, just on an individual basis?

Great question, Heir; unfortunately the answer is not simple. Each diocese creates its own stipulations, quite rightly I might add. One area of the world may have an epidemic but another nation or continent might not have it so it is left to the individual dioceses to decide on whether parishioners receive from the common chalice at Mass or not. Another bit: After lockdown was lifted, most of the dioceses opted to only offer the Host to the hands of parishioners and not to the tongue. When life resumed normality, the options of tongue or hand were restored. (I am tempted to say "what passes for normal these days.")

The chalice is not offered to individuals outside of the Mass itself but only during the Mass. An example: a diocese or parish may decide to only offer the Host, not the chalice during Holy Communion at Mass. Now for the loophole bit: if that happens and there is a parishioner who cannot consume gluten, that parishioner may be offered some of the Precious Blood from the priest's chalice so that the parishioner can still receive Christ.

why there's not equal emphasis on an RCC communicant partaking of BOTH the bread and wine, rather than just the bread (or "host"). Is this just a result of the sacramental Transubstantiation theology, which assumes that as long as the communicant at least gets one or the other they have received grace by taking Christ into themselves by doing so, even if they didn't literally partake of both?

Or if it is simply that the taking of the cup by the priest is sufficient to impart said grace to the communicants, why is the partaking of the bread not viewed similarly?

Good question, Heir: it does indeed involve the theology behind Transubstantiation which has been refined through the millenia. I think the best way to explain it is via the historical and international perspective. As the Church grew and spread to other continents, availability and adversity came into consideration as missionary activity shared the Gospel. Discernment was needed based upon the Bible and Tradition to be able to celebrate the Mass in these new territories.

Availability: For the Mass, not all of the new territories had the ingredients for wine; yet bread in some form can be found in practically every culture. The Church discerned that both the Body and Blood of Christ can be transubstantiated into the same Host as Jesus did not stipulate that both species needed to be consumed.
Adversity:Not all territories welcomed nor tolerated Christianity. Catholics and our priests would be incarcerated and tortured. Prisoners were often fed some form of cheap bread or grain that could be used for Mass within the cells. Wine would not be available.

Yes, but apparently once the wine has been turned into blood, er, consecrated, it can't simply be thrown out, it must be drunk. So the priests did, and were. Especially when the chalice was restricted to the priests.

This is correct. The consecrated Precious Blood is completely consumed by the priests or other ministers. The small amount of wine used for Transubstantiation was not enough to cause inebriation.

[Soloist]

I strongly suspect the split eucharist was condemned by the early church.

That being said, I would hazard a guess that virtually every modern communion practice would be condemned by the early church.

[Bootstrap]

1. How often do the Anabaptists groups that you know practice "Communion"? (Weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly).

In my church, monthly. Footwashing is twice a year.

2. Do different groups do different things with Communion? Like, do they do the bread first, then the wine, then they take up a collection? Or do they do something different?

We don't take collections during communion.

3. Do they call it "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"?

Either.

4. Do any of the Anabaptist groups practice foot washing? It looks like it is an instruction of Christ in John 13:14-15. I first experienced this at a Baptist church, men washing men's feet, women washing women's feet, and it was a beautiful act of humility and love that bonded all of us together.

Yes, twice a year. But not every month.

a. Why do Christians eat unleavened bread when they take communion?

Because the original Lord's Supper was at Passover, and would have been unleavened bread. I think that's more authentic, but really, this depends on who is providing the bread. We aren't legalistic about it. Sometimes it is unleavened, sometimes made with yeast.

d. And I don't understand practicing Communion every week, as Passover and Unleavened Bread were yearly memorials.

e. Is "communion" or the "Lord's Supper" really the common meal shared between Christians in the early church? 1 Cor 11:21, Jude 1:12

1 Cor 11 does seem to refer to "when you come together", not just annually.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I thought the priest is supposed to be giving out flesh and blood, not wine....

Yes, but apparently once the wine has been turned into blood, er, consecrated, it can't simply be thrown out, it must be drunk. So the priests did, and were. Especially when the chalice was restricted to the priests.

In a Catholic Church taken over by a black holiness group (my friends and I were installing a sound system with spare parts) there was a hopper, kinda like a funnel that led to the ground below the alter. One of my friends (Also an ex-catholic) was a former alter boy, and said this was for disposing of surplus wine.

[Neto]

I thought the priest is supposed to be giving out flesh and blood, not wine....

Yes, but apparently once the wine has been turned into blood, er, consecrated, it can't simply be thrown out, it must be drunk. So the priests did, and were. Especially when the chalice was restricted to the priests.

In a Catholic Church taken over by a black holiness group (my friends and I were installing a sound system with spare parts) there was a hopper, kinda like a funnel that led to the ground below the alter. One of my friends (Also an ex-catholic) was a former alter boy, and said this was for disposing of surplus wine.

The building used for the Bible college where I graduated had previously been a Jesuit Seminary, and there was one of those special sinks behind the main chapel area. The stone tables in the prayer rooms had places where you could see that something had been broken off of them. The confessionals had been converted into telephone booths.....