RCC require both bread and wine in Communion

Since the Bible says "eat my flesh and drink my blood", nor "or", it might be argued that OTL is the "odd" one.
Disclaimer: I am a Catholic, and I take both the host and wine every chance I get.
 
I recall reading something that during the early middle ages most people only took communion on a few major holidays, but then all at once.
The church seem to have feared that, when offering wine at these turbulent mass-comunions the wine would get spilled.
But I think it was also a way to improve the prestige of the priest.
 

MrP

Banned
Well, it sounds more expensive than OTL. It'd be a bit more tricky for alcoholics, for people who don't want animals to suffer (given the various methods of fining wine),* and probably for some other groups I'm forgetting.

I thought that was what the communion wafer was for :confused:

The communion wafer stands for the flesh. As tom says, the wine represents the blood.

EDIT: * This also suggests there's likely to be a bigger clash between Catholicism and the animal rights movement. IOTL it's pretty dreadful in certain places. I've heard of German clerics lying to children both that Hitler was a vegetarian (and that vegetarianism is thus evil) and that the Bible tells us we must eat animals (based - of all things! - on the passage in Genesis in which man is given stewardship of same by God).
 
Last edited:

Sachyriel

Banned
Oh my God the Catholic Church is going to invent pre-sliced bread hundreds of years early! We'll all be saying "This is the best thing since the Catholic Church!" :eek:
 
Since the Bible says "eat my flesh and drink my blood", nor "or", it might be argued that OTL is the "odd" one.
Disclaimer: I am a Catholic, and I take both the host and wine every chance I get.
Can you explain this for a non Catholic, isn't it always both?
 

Philip

Donor
Not sure of the long term effects. It would definitely remove one of the main objections raised against the RCC prior to the Reformation.

Can you explain this for a non Catholic, isn't it always both?
Since at least the late 4th Century, receiving the consecrated bread was considered sufficient even though both kinds were normally received.

Starting around the 12 Century, it was common practice that only the priests would receive the consecrated wine in the Catholic Church. The reason given most often was the danger of spilling the wine.


The communion wafer stands for the flesh. As tom says, the wine represents the blood.
Since the OP references the RCC, it seems odd to say 'stands for' and 'represents'. In Catholic theology, the wafer is the flesh, and the wine is the blood.
 
Last edited:
Not sure of the long term effects. It would definitely remove one of the main objections raised against the RCC prior to the Reformation.

Since at least the late 4th Century, receiving the consecrated bread was considered sufficient even though both kinds were normally received.

Starting around the 12 Century, it was common practice that only the priests would receive the consecrated wine in the Catholic Church. The reason given most often was the danger of spilling the wine.

Since the OP references the RCC, it seems odd to say 'stands for' and 'represents'. In Catholic theology, the wafer is the flesh, and the wine is the blood.
Yeah, MrP's formulation seems protestant since we generally believe they're just symbols and the Lutherans (and I think a few others) just say "something happens" but aren't specific on what. It seemed odd to me that if you have one, you'd not have the other but I if you believe it really is the blood of Christ you wouldn't want to spill it. Thanks to your explanation I can see the reasoning behind the old practice, so thank you.
 
Well, it sounds more expensive than OTL. It'd be a bit more tricky for alcoholics, for people who don't want animals to suffer (given the various methods of fining wine),* and probably for some other groups I'm forgetting.



The communion wafer stands for the flesh. As tom says, the wine represents the blood.

EDIT: * This also suggests there's likely to be a bigger clash between Catholicism and the animal rights movement. IOTL it's pretty dreadful in certain places. I've heard of German clerics lying to children both that Hitler was a vegetarian (and that vegetarianism is thus evil) and that the Bible tells us we must eat animals (based - of all things! - on the passage in Genesis in which man is given stewardship of same by God).

Excuse me, but what is exactly the problem with wine with regard of animal suffering? I know many vegetarians and some people strongly against animal suffering, and they all drink wine with no problem at all.
 

MrP

Banned
Excuse me, but what is exactly the problem with wine with regard of animal suffering? I know many vegetarians and some people strongly against animal suffering, and they all drink wine with no problem at all.

It depends on the wine. As you no doubt know, wine itself is pretty much just grapes. So I agree that one doesn't expect animal products to be in it. However, alcoholic (and other) beverages are typically purified or fined by the addition of another substance. Crushed eggshells, for instance, can be used to gather impurities from wine. Such a wine might be vegetarian (although vegetarians differ on their acceptance of eggs from battery hens), but would not be vegan. Charred bones can also be used as a fining agent. That wouldn't even be vegetarian. This sort of knowledge isn't something one discovers at once, but in bits and pieces through the years. I only recently learned that milk can be added to wine to remove damage inflicted to its taste caused by fires (apparently this was quite common after the Californian fires).

The fining process can be accomplished by wholly vegan methods. The typical reasoning for not using vegan methods is either an appeal to tradition or a reference to the cost of changing to another process. I have a nice bottle of white downstairs that I bought earlier, and which I intend to use (in part) to make a risotto. It's vegan. I have two bottles of red, bought for me by well-meaning acquaintances, which I regard as undrinkable, because I've checked them out, and learned that they aren't vegan.

EDIT:
Since the OP references the RCC, it seems odd to say 'stands for' and 'represents'. In Catholic theology, the wafer is the flesh, and the wine is the blood.

When this topic came up a while ago, my position was that I'd wait until I was dead, then ask God for some clarification on the issue. I'm still of that mind.
 
Last edited:
Top