The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-06-07

Why is not Holy Communion given
to the people under the form of wine
as we'll as under the form of bread?
There are many reasons why Holy
Communion is given under the form
of bread alone There is no necessity
for giving both, because Jesus is liv-
ing and present-body, blood, soul
and divinity-under the form of each.
1t would be very inconvenient to adj
minister the Precious Blood to the
faithful, on account of the difficulty
of procuring a sufficient amount of
sacramento wine, of preserving it for
distribution outside of Mass, espe-
cially in places where the climate is
extremely hot or cold, of administer
ing it with safety from splitting, irrev-
erence or improper care of the sacred
vessels. This question is answered
as follows in the Question Box:
The Catholic Church teaches that
the reception of Communion under
the form of wine is not absolutely
necessary, for she has ever believed
that as much is contained under
either species as under both; for
Christ, whole and entire, exists under
the species of bread, and under each
(divided) particle of that species; and
whole under the species of wine, and
under it's (separated) parts" (Trent,
Sess. xiii, C. 81. The Eucharist is the
living Christ; and as living body
is not without it's blood, or living
blood without body, so Christ is re.
ceived whole and entire under either
form of bread and wine.
1t is natural enough that Protest
ants who deny the Real Presence OF
Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and be-
lieve that the sacrament consists
merely in the eating of bread and
drinking of wine in memory of the
Saviour partaking by faith-should
insist on receiving both bread and
wine. But Catholics having Christ
body, blood, soul and divinity-be.
meath the appearances of bread and
wine, regard it as a matter of disci.
pine which of them is to be received
in Holy Communion.
The Scriptures show us the Saviour
promising the same reward to Com
munion under one kind as under both
To quote the Council of Trent: "He
who said: Except you eat the flesh OF
the Son of Man and drink His Blood
you shall not have life in you John
vi, 54), has likewise said: If any man
eat of it he may not die wi, 50). And
He Who has said: He that eateth My
flesh and drinketh My Blood hath ev
erlasting life wi, 55), has also said
The bread that l will give is My flesh
for the life of the world wi. 52). And
lastly, He who has said: He that eat
eth My flesh and drinketh My blood
abideth in Me and l in him wi. 59)
has nevertheless said: He who eateth
this bread shall live for ever wi. 59),
(Sess. xxi. CHI. ID
Frequently, too, the receiving Of
Communion under the form of bread
is mentioned in the Scriptures: "They
were persevering in the doctrine OF
the Apostles, and in the communica
ton of the breaking of bread, and in
prayers" (Acts ii. 42): "Whosoeve1
shall eat this bread or drink the chal
ice of the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord" q. Cor. XII. q; Acts Xxx. z; Luke
xiv. 80, 81.
In this passage in the King James
Protestant version the word land" is
substituted for "or" without any war
rant save the need of controversy, al
though the late revised version cor
reefs the text in accordance with the
original Greek and the Catholic Eng
lish version.
The words drink We all of it
Matt. XVI. 20, were addressed, moi
to the faithful in general, but to the
Apostles who alone were present
And they (the Apostles) all dranl
of it, mark xiv. 23). The Eucharis
is not only sacrament but sacrifice
edo this for commemoration O.
Me-" Luke xxi. 49,, and the sacrifice
requires that the Victim, Jesus Christ
be at least mystically inundated, anC
His precious Blood shed in a mystica
way. This is the reason why the
Body and Blood of the Saviour, al
though inseparably united, are pro
duced at Mass by two-fold conse
cration-"This is My Body ''This is
My Blood" under both forms
1t was also required to complete the
sacrifice that the Apostles and theil
successors, the priests of the New
Law, should partake of the sacrifice
under both forms. When, however
priests do not celebrate Mass, as
when receiving the Viaticum in i'll
ness, they receive just as the laity
under the form of bread alone
Moreover, any one versed in
Church history knows that the prac
tice of the Church has varied at diff
ferent periods, according to circum
stances. The Fathers of the Church
tell us that the anchorites of the des
ert, travellers going on long journeys
people in their homes before their
morning meal, and others in danger
of death, as we'll as the martyrs in
the prisons, received under the form
of bread alone, whilst infants received
under the form of wine alone.
In the fifth century Pope Gelasius
CA. D. 1922 commanded the laity to
receive under both forms, to deter
from Communion the Manicheans,
who heretically considered wine evil
in itself. The law commanding the
Iaity to receive under the form OF
bread dates from the Council of Con.