Question by : Catholics, why is the “blood” withheld from the celebrants at some masses?
At many masses where the last supper is celebrated only the Priest gets to drink the wine ["Blood"] of Christ, all are allowed to partake of the wafer that is an emblem for Christ’s body but none but the Priest get to drink?
When I read John 6:53 in any version it seems clear to me that Christ was saying that you must eat and drink to have “life in you”. I have been told by Catholics that what Christ said is not correct, you only need to eat the flesh as it is also the body.
Do I just ignore this verse and believe the ones that say this verse has no meaning?
I cannot find any biblical reference to show that only the flesh is required to comply with John 6:53. Can you please tell me where to find this verse?
I will use a few translations as I have been told I pick and choose my versions to prove my case.
New International Version (©1984)
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
New Living Translation (©2007)
So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.
English Standard Version (©2001)
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
International Standard Version (©2008)
So Jesus told them, “Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus told them, “I can guarantee this truth: If you don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don’t have the source of life in you.
King James Bible
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
American King James Version
Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
American Standard Version
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
Bible in Basic English
Then Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, If you do not take the flesh of the Son of man for food, and if you do not take his blood for drink, you have no life in you.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Darby Bible Translation
Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves.
English Revised Version
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Then Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Weymouth New Testament
“In most solemn truth I tell you,” said Jesus, “that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no Life in you.
World English Bible
Jesus therefore said to them, “Most certainly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don’t have life in yourselves.
Young’s Literal Translation
Jesus, therefore, said to them, ‘Verily, verily, I say to you, If ye may not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and may not drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves;
@Daver & @lazybones, I have seen a mass where hundreds were given both emblems and masses with about 20 where only the priest got the wine. Most Christian churches share the emblem [non-alcoholic grape juice] of “blood” in individual cups. If you must use alcoholic wine, why do you not use true unlevened bread as Christ did?
@tebone0315, I agree that is what your church teaches but it is not God’s teaching just your church.
Best answer:
Answer by Michael
And, the silence speaks volumes.
What do you think? Answer below!
I was raised Catholic and I couldn’t tell you why, Take your pick, any answer will due, how about because they said so! It doesn’t even make sense to Catholics, If you don’t believe me just wait a little while, I doubt you get anything resembling a sane answer, or even better ask a Priest, that ought to be good for a laugh! Ask two Priests and I’ll bet you will get to different answers, they just made it up!
Sheer volume, health, to protect the species (the blood)..there might be other reasons but that’s all I can think of.
Celebrating with both species- body and blood- is impractical on a large scale. Maybe this was done in the past but it is only in small gatherings that I’ve received both.
Would you like to drink from an unwashed cup that has been used a few hundred times before you? Yes, you’re receiving the Blood of Christ, but His blood doesn’t automatically cleanse the cup from the bodily fluids of those gone before you.
The Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are worthy of veneration and respect; handing a chalice of His blood increases the chances of spillage and increases the likelihood of abuse- It’s possible that alcoholics would become more religious if they could “drink from the cup”. What would be done with the consecrated wine that was left over?
Edit: If God could turn stones into sons of Abraham, why split hairs about unleavened bread? I didn’t formulate the reasons on why the blood isn’t offered to the celebrants and I’ve never questioned why…man does not live on bread alone.
You don’t believe in the real presence, do you? Has Jesus personally inspired you to start challenging Catholics about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?
EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are ignoring the fact that a person doesn’t need to receive Holy Communion in both “species” in order to receive it’s Graces.
What about people with wheat allergies who cannot receive the Bread/Body?
What about recovering alcoholics who cannot receive the Wine/Blood?
Merciful God takes this into account, whereas you do not.
Go to or speak with Catholics who attend Mass at smaller parishes. You will see the congregation being offered the wine as well as the bread.
Why? The answer is obvious. A large congregation requires logistics that just aren’t practical. Also consider the cost of all that wine!
In smaller parishes, the logistics of administering Holy Communion in both species aren’t nearly as demanding. Also, the mere quantity of wine needed is much more manageable and cost effective as well.
You would do well to learn something of God’s Mercy.
Stop treating the Bible as if it’s a mere legal document.
The Church teaches us that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus are present, whole and entire, in both the Consecrated Bread and the Consecrated Wine. The priest must consume both the Body and the Blood, but others are free to receive only the host or only from the cup.
Parishes are encouraged to offer the Eucharist as both Bread and Wine so that the symbolism of Christ’s Eucharist may be more complete, but those who choose to receive only the Bread or the Wine, or those prevented from receiving one or the other due to allergies, alcoholism, or medication, still receive the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. This teaching is the result of various heresies over the years that taught that both were required, or that either the bread alone or the wine alone were enough even for the priest.
Both bread and wine must be consecrated or the mass is invalid, and the principal celebrant at the mass must receive both Body and Blood or the mass is illicit. This completes the sacrifice.
By the way, Church law in the Latin Rite requires that the host be made only of wheat and water. No other additives are permitted. The wine must be pressed from grapes, the natural fruit of the vine with no chemical additives. Wine made from other fruits, or unfermented grape juice, are not permitted. Mustum, a special low-alcohol wine, is permitted with a dispensation for alcoholic priests, who may also receive the Body and Blood together through intinction. The principal celebrant must always receive both the Body and the Blood.
*****That is the teaching of God and the church being that the Catholic Church that Jesus established in 33AD. Please stop trying to interpret the Catholic book called the Bible
In the 15th century, the proto-Protestants John Hus, John Wyclif, and Jerome of Prague began to demand that Holy Communion be given to the laity under both species. The reintroduction of Communion under both species was an outward manifestation of the rejection of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, which taught that Christ was present, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each and every portion of the Holy Eucharist. From that time this demand became the “badge and the criterion and the shibboleth” (Hughes) of a Protestantizing attitude toward the Holy Eucharist.
Already by the 11th century, the practice in the Latin Church was to distribute Holy Communion to the laity under the form of bread alone. This practice arose partly to counteract the heretical error that Christ is not received whole and entire under either species, partly to prevent the spilling of the Most Precious Blood, partly to reflect an increasing reverence for the Most Precious Blood, and partly to distribute Holy Communion in an orderly way to the large numbers of Catholics who attended Mass in the West, even daily Mass.
The Sixteenth Ecumenical Council, of Constance (1414-1418), answered the heretical teachings of the proto-Protestants by decreeing the distribution of Holy Communion to the laity under one species as a custom of universal obligation in the Latin Church. This the Council did as a cure to the make it understood that Jesus Christ is present entire under both or either species.
This decree was renewed by the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, of Basel (1431-1449), against the Taborites and Calixtines and by the Nineteenth Ecumenical Council, of Trent (1445-1463), against the Lutherans and Calvinists. The Council of Trent further decreed (Sess. XXI, Cap. 1) that there is no divine precept binding anyone, except the celebrant of the Mass, to receive both species.
It is the doctrine of the Church that in transubstantiation all of the bread is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, that all of the wine is changed into the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ, and that reception of either species was reception of the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
This Catholic practice is indicated in Sacred Scripture and fully canonized by Tradition. The sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel speaks twice of receiving the species bread alone. Both the Eastern and Western Church from early times distributed Holy Communion variously under either one or both species. For example, in the East infants were given the Most Precious Blood only, as they were not yet able to digest bread. Even today the Eastern Churches, although most rites commonly distribute Holy Communion under both species, do not consider it a matter of necessity.
The dogmatic Council of Trent pronounced: “If anyone says that the Holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just cause and reasons to give Communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema” (Session XXI, Canon 2).
Given what has happened in the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass), with flagons of wine being unceremoniously “consecrated” and then sacrilegiously poured down the drain, let alone spilled, one can see the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in this regard. Traditional Roman Catholics can be absolutely certain that when they receive Holy Communion under one species, they are receiving their Lord whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity and that they are conforming themselves to a practice more than one thousand years old, which has been canonized by at least three dogmatic ecumenical councils.
In this, the Catholic Church follows the teaching of the Bible, whereas the Protestants do not. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:27/DRV) provides: “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” This translation of the Douay-Rheims version, “OR,” corresponds to both the original Greek (“é”) and to the Latin Vulgate (“vel”) versions. Even Luther’s original German version follows the ancient sources (“oder”). However, the King James Version and the Authorized Version mistranslates the passage to read “AND,” as if BOTH the bread AND the wine were required. This translation is not supported by ancient versions.
Actually my church distributes the cup as well. But that’s not possible everywhere.
Catholics understand that the the bread AND wine become the Body AND Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s not that the bread becomes the Body and the wine becomes the Blood. Jesus offers Himself under both kinds and is completely present in either – whoever receives the Host receives both the Body and Blood of Christ. This has always been the Catholic teaching.
Christ is risen! He dies no more so it’s not possible now to separate Christ’s Body and Blood. Wherever Christ is – there He is – whole and entire. He is wholly under the appearance of bread and wholly under the appearance of wine. There is no possibility of receiving the Body of Christ without the Blood of Christ. So the “Blood” is not withheld.
Actually, it is the Celebrant who does receive the blood, the congregation does not – in that parish.
The Body and Blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist, you are not being denied anything. Sometimes it is not possible or not practical to distribute the Host and the Chalice. This is especially true if the Priest is working alone (not having a Eucharistic Minister or other Priest to assist. An Acolyte cannot assist in the distribution.)
In my parish we have, at any Sunday service, two Eucharistic Ministers to assist. In a weekday Service, the assistants are simply not there, so only the Priest drinks the small portion of wine.
If a Priest is working alone and the congregants line up along the rail, he must distribute the Eucharist, then start over and distribute the wine. This doubles the amount of time, and there are always people who say the distribution takes too long no matter how long it takes.
If there is a single line and he is alone, it is physically impossible to give anyone any wine.
Many times it is a matter of logistics, space, size, etc. The very best way to get an answer that applies to your parish is to ask your Priest.
I have been to a few hundred masses? They are all the same!!! There is nothing to prove!!! It’s the norm! Whatever!! It’s symbolism of taking of the body and the blood.
So you are saying that Jesus is two parts now? It is preferable that the parishioners receive both species, but if not, then they still meet their Sunday obligation as they received Jesus.
We use alcoholic wine and unleavened bread just as Christ did.