Body AND Blood?

[paradoxy]

I don’t think this applies to Orthodox Christians but from Trent:

I was asking about Catholic practice. But I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with any of this. However, it doesn’t really explain the practice of receiving “just” the host. I’d like an official reason for this, if possible. To be honest, I have heard the practice attacked and would like to have a counter-argument in stock.

In the ancient Church, everyone received under both species separately, but the bread being received in the hand led to some people reserving it for other purposes, such as magic etc. This is why in Orthodoxy we receive a mixture straight in the mouth. Does anyone have an official explanation of this sort?

Thank you.

 

[BobP123]

I was asking about Catholic practice. But I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with any of this. However, it doesn’t really explain the practice of receiving “just” the host. I’d like an official reason for this, if possible. To be honest, I have heard the practice attacked and would like to have a counter-argument in stock.

If your question is, is it wrong to take both the consecrated bread and wine, no, it isn’t.

But then it shouldn’t be wrong to consume 10 Hosts and five ounces of Blood either, should it?

All’s I’m saying is that the Church finds it sufficient that you receive however small a Host a priest gives you **or ** however miniscule a drop of Blood he gives you to obtain the FULL sacrament. If you feel you need more, then I can’t help you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, I do realize and agree Christ is fully present in both the bread and the wine, but English is not my native language and the word “species” kept eluding me. And if I had written just “bread” and “wine” it would have sounded as if I didn’t believe in the Real Presence. Sigh.

And I do agree it is enough to receive one. My baby girl (we are Orthodox) receives just a drop of wine.

I’m just curious about the “when” (whether it’s a new development) and “why” (what the practical reason was). I guess there is no historically verifiable answer, just conjectures?

---

It is my understanding the Chalice was withdrawn from the laity in order to suppress a heresy (Ultraquist?). This heresy followed that both species were needed in order to receive the full Christ. This occurred sometime in the 1400’s —I think.

 

[paradoxy]

---

It is my understanding the Chalice was withdrawn from the laity in order to suppress a heresy (Ultraquist?). This heresy followed that both species were needed in order to receive the full Christ. This occurred sometime in the 1400’s —I think.

Thanks, I’ll google it!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Whenever one receives Communion under one or both species, he or she receives Jesus in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. So your answer is yes.
Deacon Ed B

 

[bpbasilphx]

Does anyone receive both the Body and Blood of Christ in any of the Traditional Catholic churches, i.e. the consecrated wine as well as the host?

Yes, It happens in Eastern Catholic Churches all the time, which are traditional, too, and we’ve always done it that way.

 

[Belfarmer]

We have the option to receive via intinction once per month at a NO mass. We are also asked to kneel if we exercise this option. Also, our reader, cantor and acolyte receive via intinction every Sunday.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Yes to the first question and no to the second…let me explain, first off, as a Catholic, we believe that the Precious Blood is found in both the Consecrated Host and the Consecrated Wine…therefore, ALL Catholics receive both the Precious Body and Blood of Christ at every Mass…it is not necessary to drink the Precious blood to receive both…Each species contains both.

To answer your last question…this was started to defend the fact that the Consecrated Host is fully the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…because at some point in History some yahoos tried to argue that it wasn’t.

Does anyone receive both the Body and Blood of Christ in any of the Traditional Catholic churches, i.e. the consecrated wine as well as the host?

When did this stop being a common practice in Catholicism and why?

Thank you.

Danica (EO, curious)

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

If your question is, is it wrong to take both the consecrated bread and wine, no, it isn’t.

But then it shouldn’t be wrong to consume 10 Hosts and five ounces of Blood either, should it?

All’s I’m saying is that the Church finds it sufficient that you receive however small a Host a priest gives you **or ** however miniscule a drop of Blood he gives you to obtain the FULL sacrament. If you feel you need more, then I can’t help you.

WOW ! The “Full Sacrement” statement really makes it clear.

FWIW, back in the 70s’ our Church in Alabama used these plate looking gizmos, that had a small cup in the middle. the Priest would dip the host in wine before giving it. I guess the new rule about using your hands to recieve pooched up that arrangement.

 

[pauliztarza]

Yes, definitely yes. And no.

Confused? It’s because the Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) of Christ is fully present under each species. That is, the Host contains (is) the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Christ.

But no, the people do not receive from the chalice. My understanding is that this practice was ended at least in some part exactly because of the confusion your question suggests (even if you yourself do understand about Christ being fully present). The equation of Host=Body and Chalice=Blood is a dangerous one. For one thing, where’s Christ’s Soul and Divinity? It tends to make one think that Christ comes to us in pieces which must be assembled in our stomachs.

Do you remember being the firstborn or you had brothers and sisters ?

 

[pauliztarza]

Yes, exactly. He is present in every fragment and every drop! This is quite simply the main argument against Communion in the hand. How can anyone bear to think of Our Lord, in the fragments which most certainly drop onto the floor at Communion time, being trod upon? It’s so very sad.

Did the lamb or pasha save Jews’ firstborn from being massacred in Egypt ?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You are leaving out the most important element. i.e., FAITH. Do not try to understand a mystery, You can’t. You accept it on FAITH or you do not accept it at all. Its like the finite mind trying to understand the infinite. It cannot be done.
Deacon Ed B

 

[pauliztarza]

You are leaving out the most important element. i.e., FAITH. Do not try to understand a mystery, You can’t. You accept it on FAITH or you do not accept it at all. Its like the finite mind trying to understand the infinite. It cannot be done.
Deacon Ed B

What mistery is there in event God skipping doors with the lamb blood ?

No mistery, it is simple fact.

And if you don’t believe it, you can’t believe Jesus is not present in bread and wine.

 

[Yerusalyim]

It’s my understanding that in the Orthodox Churches communion under both species is given at baptism, even to babies. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

To pauliztarza - I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. The mystery? We proclaim it after the elevation where the consecrated species is elevated for worship. We say, “Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.” The mystery is the miracle of transubstantiation wherein the bread and wine becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of our lord Jesus Christ. This we accept on faith. If you can give a rational explanation, you need to talk to or instruct all the church theologians, or perhaps be helped because of delusion.
Deacon Ed B

 

[laudamus_te]

To pauliztarza - I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. **The mystery? We proclaim it after the elevation where the consecrated species is elevated for worship. We say, “Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.” ** The mystery is the miracle of transubstantiation wherein the bread and wine becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of our lord Jesus Christ. This we accept on faith. If you can give a rational explanation, you need to talk to or instruct all the church theologians, or perhaps be helped because of delusion.
Deacon Ed B

This is one of my main complaints about the new mass. “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” That is NOT the Mystery of Faith. As you said , the mystery is the transubstantiation which has just occured on the altar. These “mysteries” which are recited in the new mass are not mysteries! The first two are facts, the third is part of our belief as revealed to us by Christ Himself. No mysteries there! My feelings can only be that this was one of the “protestantizations” which take the attention away from the true Mystery of Faith, the transubstantiation.

 

[Hesychios]

It’s my understanding that in the Orthodox Churches communion under both species is given at baptism, even to babies. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This is correct.

The Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord is good for them!

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/April/181/Detail/DSC_0053.jpg

They are communed throughout childhood, in many parishes they (and the parent who may be holding their hand or carrying them) line up first, before all the rest of the congregation.

Michael

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The mystery is also that Christ rose, OF HIS OWN POWER.
Deacon Ed B

 

[laudamus_te]

The mystery is also that Christ rose, OF HIS OWN POWER.
Deacon Ed B

True, but it is also a fact. I’m not trying to be contentious, but that is not “the Mystery of Faith” which the Mass is about. Don’t you agree?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No I do not. The death and resurrection are a mystery. The mass is a mystery at the consecration when transubstantiation takes place.
Deacon Ed B