Body & Blood of Jesus why take both?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dizzy_dave

Guest
When we receive the Eucharist it is the Body, BLOOD, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Why then would we also drink his Blood (Wine), wouldn’t that be the same thing twice? I’ve never heard of why we consume both if the Host also contains Jesus’ blood. Do we receive more graces by doing so or are there other reasons I’m missing? I’ve also heard that we are only to receive Jesus twice in one day, if we receive both the body and blood at one Mass does that count as once or twice? Thanks. :confused:
 
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do it in remembrance of Him.
 
40.png
dizzy_dave:
When we receive the Eucharist it is the Body, BLOOD, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Why then would we also drink his Blood (Wine), wouldn’t that be the same thing twice? I’ve never heard of why we consume both if the Host also contains Jesus’ blood. Do we receive more graces by doing so or are there other reasons I’m missing? I’ve also heard that we are only to receive Jesus twice in one day, if we receive both the body and blood at one Mass does that count as once or twice? Thanks. :confused:
Click to expand...
Jesus is present in one kind, so no one is required to take both kinds, and in most of the world, communion still is host only. Some liturgists say its a fuller expression, but the council of Trents declaration still stands.
 
If taking it in both kinds was good enough for the apostles, it’s good enough for me 😉

DaveBj
 
My question to one who would ask why take both… would be…if BOTH elements of Our Lord are offered…WHY NOT?

If a parent hugs a child one night, then the following night doesnt just hug, but also gives that child a kiss…the child STILL recieved that parents TOTAL sign of love on the night he/she was only hugged…but isnt it THAT MUCH BETTER and even MORE a sign of love when on those nights the parent gives that child BOTH a hug AND a kiss? 😉
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
My question to one who would ask why take both… would be…if BOTH elements of Our Lord are offered…WHY NOT?
Click to expand...
Well, both the cup and the ciborium hold the EXACT SAME THING. The only thing that differes it how it appears to our eyes.

So there is no real theological advantage to recieving both.
There is also nothing wrong in normal circumstances.

My biggest objection is that it creates a veritable army of EMHC’s. And what should be Extraordinary now becomes the norm.

There is also the great danger of spillage of the Cup. It’s been estimated that that occurs 2-3 each year in the US. And once is one time too many.

So we end up with rules being stretched and accidental sacriledge (no pun) for zero additional Grace.
 
The bread is fully Christ; body, blood, soul, and divinity, as is the wine. One can receive just one and fully receive Christ in his humanity and divinity so why receive both? Good question.

In John 6 Jesus tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life in us. At the last supper Jesus lifted the bread and said it was his body, lifted the wine and said it was his blood. While being very real, the bread and wine also SYMBOLIZE Jesus’ body and blood. The separate bread and wine symbolizes the separation of Christ’ body and blood on the cross (ie the shedding of his blood). It’s for this reason that I receive both, because the symbolism of Christ’s blood being shed (separated from his body) is far greater than receiving the bread or wine alone.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
dizzy_dave:
When we receive the Eucharist it is the Body, BLOOD, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Why then would we also drink his Blood (Wine), wouldn’t that be the same thing twice? I’ve never heard of why we consume both if the Host also contains Jesus’ blood. Do we receive more graces by doing so or are there other reasons I’m missing? I’ve also heard that we are only to receive Jesus twice in one day, if we receive both the body and blood at one Mass does that count as once or twice? Thanks. :confused:
Click to expand...
Because this is the fullness of communion in reception and symbolism. Is it wrong to only receive one? No. Is it better to receive both? Yes. Because it was the universal practice of the church for centuries and it is the what took place at the last Supper. He instituted communion with both elements and not jsut one for a reason.

Mel
 
If I am going to be quoted… PLEASE dont “cherry pick” my posts.

I also gave a very logical analogy that followed my “why not” statement.

and the statement… it only creates an army of EMs… contradicts and seems to say the Church is creating confusion in offering both.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Because this is the fullness of communion in reception and symbolism. Is it wrong to only receive one? No. Is it better to receive both? Yes. Because it was the universal practice of the church for centuries and it is the what took place at the last Supper. He instituted communion with both elements and not jsut one for a reason.

Mel
Click to expand...
It is neither wrong nor “better” to receive Holy Communion via both species rather than one. Both species contain the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as previously mentioned.
 
**Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Prot. 1382/01/L
​
**Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
  1. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the *Missale Romanum *and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.
 
40.png
Brendan:
My biggest objection is that it creates a veritable army of EMHC’s. And what should be Extraordinary now becomes the norm.
Click to expand...
A great arguement to support intinction!
40.png
Brendan:
There is also the great danger of spillage of the Cup. It’s been estimated that that occurs 2-3 each year in the US. And once is one time too many.
Click to expand...
Another great arguement to support intinction!

Can you tell I’m a big fan of intinction? 🙂
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
If I am going to be quoted… PLEASE dont “cherry pick” my posts.

I also gave a very logical analogy that followed my “why not” statement.

and the statement… it only creates an army of EMs… contradicts and seems to say the Church is creating confusion in offering both.
Click to expand...
While I detest the Sioux-Nation sized gangs of EMHCs that clomp-up on my parish’s sanctuary to “help” with Communion, the Church in NO WAY suggests that Communion be limited to one species in order to reduce the number of EMHCs.

These gangs of EMHCs are caused by arrogance and ignorance – not Communion under both kinds.
 
40.png
Crusader:
It is neither wrong nor “better” to receive Holy Communion via both species rather than one. Both species contain the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as previously mentioned.
Click to expand...
Fine. But I gave good reason why both is better. And 20 of 21 Catholic Churches agree with me. It is only the Roman rite that does not offer both regularly. Just because one is adequate does not make it better. Jesus instructed the use of both. He instituted it with both. It is pretty easy to see why both would be the preferred method. I am not arguing right and wrong. I am arguing good and better.

Mel
 
Crusader said:
Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Prot. 1382/01/L
​
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
  1. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the *Missale Romanum *and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.
Click to expand...

This is what I’ve heard as the explanation --the fuller sign business. The only problem --besides the hoards of EMHCs–is that this statement tends to undermine the theology which says the host --the tiniest bit of a host–contains both the Body and Blood of our Lord. If one can believe in the Real Presence (and some 70% don’t they say), the symbol or the sign is not so important.

Also, Intinction is great when it is available which is not too often where I live. But the rest of the time, you receive the host and the priest or more likely, EMHC says “Body of Christ”; you receive from the Chalice, the the priest or EMHC says “Blood of Christ.” In a way, this also undermines the theology. Shouldn’t they say “Body and Blood of Christ” in both instances? That is the way it is with an intincted host.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Fine. But I gave good reason why both is better. And 20 of 21 Catholic Churches agree with me. It is only the Roman rite that does not offer both regularly. Just because one is adequate does not make it better. Jesus instructed the use of both. He instituted it with both. It is pretty easy to see why both would be the preferred method. I am not arguing right and wrong. I am arguing good and better.

Mel
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t.

And not a single one of the Eastern Catholic Churches suggest that their form of Holy Communion is “better.”

Within the Latin Rite the Church has said Communion under both kinds is “fuller”, but "fuller certainly does not equate to "better. or even “preferred” as you suggest.
 
40.png
Crusader:
No, you didn’t.

And not a single one of the Eastern Catholic Churches suggest that their form of Holy Communion is “better.”

Within the Latin Rite the Church has said Communion under both kinds is “fuller”, but "fuller certainly does not equate to "better. or even “preferred” as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Since when would fuller not be preferred?

Example Pasta is a good expression of Italian food. Pasta with sauce is a fuller expression of Italian food. One is a better example fo an Italian dish than the other. In this case fuller is better.

Why wouldn’t you want the fullest expression of something? Fuller implies better or more complete. Otherwise fuller has no meaning.

So why did Christ establish the New Covenant meal in His body and blood with bread and wine and not just bread? I don’t get how this is not obvious?

Mel

Mel
 
Communion under both species as being what is typical at a Sunday mass was never intended by Vatican II and took root in the US as a form of dissent, the Vatican as they have so often with liturgical matters caved in on this matter of dissent 20 years ago. That said, the council of Tren still stands, the fullness of the Body and Blood of Christ is present in either species. It seems many Catholics do not understand that anymore.

My take, communion of the blood via the chalices should be abolished, and should only be given via intinction, for there is less danger of spillage, less danger of diseases being spread and also no need for extra ministers.
 
CCC

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."[222] This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

(MY BOLD)

I would always recieve under both kinds, if possible, as I agree the sign is more complete, but if not my communion does not feel ‘incomplete’ as I understand the Church teaching that Christ is fully present in both species.
 
40.png
JNB:
Communion under both species as being what is typical at a Sunday mass was never intended by Vatican II and took root in the US as a form of dissent, the Vatican as they have so often with liturgical matters caved in on this matter of dissent 20 years ago. That said, the council of Tren still stands, the fullness of the Body and Blood of Christ is present in either species. It seems many Catholics do not understand that anymore.

My take, communion of the blood via the chalices should be abolished, and should only be given via intinction, for there is less danger of spillage, less danger of diseases being spread and also no need for extra ministers.
Click to expand...
Communion originated under both species and was the universal practive of the church until the late medievel period when communion was taken completely from the laity and reinstituted years later in part. And the changes that came were denying small children communion and the precious blood to the laity.

This idea of rebellion is, respectfully, absurd. Both species has a much longer history and is still practiced in all the other rites. Why the blank would you abolish the the precious blood that **Christ himself ** instituted?!?!?!

You think that one can catch a disease from the blood of Christ? The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have been doing it for 2000 years without a problem.

Mel

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top