Both body and blood in the host?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Little_One0307 said:
FabiusMaximus,

I am not sure why people take it separately. I do know in the past when people were insisting that the laity had a right to the Sacred Blood of Jesus, the Church only offered the Sacred Host to combat the heresies that were rampant in these parts of history. I do know that the priest who offered Mass took under both speices and never under just one. [If I am wrong in this please by all means point it out with sources.]

I know some people do not take the Sacred Cup with the Sacred Blood in it, becuase some of them have issues with Alcohol, which to me is mute, because it is NOT alcohol but the Sacred Body, and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I have never seen anyone get drunk by taking the Eucharistic wine and albeit I can say with confidence, that I do not think I will ever see this happen.

As to it being imcomplete by only taking one species, I can understand this where you are coming from. But only being incomplete as one is not taking both species. But whichever one takes, they are still consuming Christ Whole and Entirely present. So you see it is very complete in this sense.

For me, I perfer to take both species of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I can certainly understand that those who are sick and/or have problems with alcohol would decline to take it.

But I would personally prefer to take both, but I’m assuming in certain parishes, not even the option is available, right? At least the few times my friend invited me to her Latin Mass I’ve never seen anyone take the cup but the priest.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I can certainly understand that those who are sick and/or have problems with alcohol would decline to take it.

But I would personally prefer to take both, but I’m assuming in certain parishes, not even the option is available, right? At least the few times my friend invited me to her Latin Mass I’ve never seen anyone take the cup but the priest.
Click to expand...
FabiusMaximus,

You could be right in your assumption. It certainly is not an unreasonable one.

The Latin Mass is different, it is traditional that no one take from the Chalice but the priest. That is keeping with the tradition of that particular Mass as well as how Communion was distributed pre-Vatican II.

But all the Novus Ordo Masses I have been too, offer both Eucharistic Species.

God bless.
 
Just as a point of information, the “accidents” of both species remain the same after the Consecration. The physical properties of the Host remain those of bread, and the physical properties of the Precious Blood remain those of wine. Therefore, there is still gluten in the Host, and there is still alcohol in the Precious Blood. So it could be an issue for someone who is a recovering alcoholic (especially if they are taking a medication called Antabuse, which causes a violent physical reaction,) or someone with severe celiac disease. They could react physically exactly the same as if they had consumed actual wheat-based bread or wine.

In my diocese, both species were offered at most churches right up until the swine flu epidemic, and at that time the diocese strongly advised the parishes to distribute only the host. After the big scare was over, about twenty-five percent of the parishes did not resume offering the chalice to communicants, and continue to offer only the host. I don’t know why.
 
Dear FabiusMaximus,

I will tell you what I have learned from Latin Catholic apologetics.
FabiusMaximus said:
Is there a biblical justification?
Click to expand...
I’m surprised no Latin Catholic has provided it yet. The biblical justification is in I Corinthians 11:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord.”

In other words, if you profane just one, Scripture states you profane them both.
Also, why does the Church believe in the ‘age of reason’ for Communion? Isn’t that technically a departure from the Early Church? Just curious.
Click to expand...
The reason is also contained in 1 Corinthians 11.
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Also, since the Lord says that the Eucharist must be done in remembrance of Him, it might be assumed that such remembrance (and understanding of the significance of what is being remembered) is required of the one who receives.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The reason is also contained in 1 Corinthians 11.
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Also, since the Lord says that the Eucharist must be done in remembrance of Him, it might be assumed that such remembrance (and understanding of the significance of what is being remembered) is required of the one who receives.

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
I do not think that helps at all.

If one makes the argument for “age of reason” regarding receiving the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—then one would have a much weaker argument against the protestants claims for believer’s baptism.

Infants can…and should…receive communion…just as they should be baptized.
 
Mickey said:
I do not think that helps at all.

If one makes the argument for “age of reason” regarding receiving the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—then one would have a much weaker argument against the protestants claims for believer’s baptism.

Infants can…and should…receive communion…just as they should be baptized.
Click to expand...
As soon as humanly possible.😃
 
mardukm said:
Dear FabiusMaximus,

I will tell you what I have learned from Latin Catholic apologetics.

I’m surprised no Latin Catholic has provided it yet. The biblical justification is in I Corinthians 11:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord.”

In other words, if you profane just one, Scripture states you profane them both.
Click to expand...
Thank you dear Marduk. Always entirely clear and concise with your reply.
The reason is also contained in 1 Corinthians 11.
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Click to expand...
Also, since the Lord says that the Eucharist must be done in remembrance of Him, it might be assumed that such remembrance (and understanding of the significance of what is being remembered) is required of the one who receives.
Click to expand...
I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Once more, thank you. No objections :). I’ve always personally believed in an ‘age of discernment’ myself in this case, too. Generally, the churches I’ve attended (Evangelical I mean) have an unspoken rule of offering Communion only to those who have already been baptized (which, for Evangelicals, is credobaptism, and therefore, after an ‘age of reason’). But it was good to get the actual justification. Thank you.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
Once more, thank you. No objections :). I’ve always personally believed in an ‘age of discernment’ myself in this case, too. Generally, the churches I’ve attended (Evangelical I mean) have an unspoken rule of offering Communion only to those who have already been baptized (which, for Evangelicals, is credobaptism, and therefore, after an ‘age of reason’). But it was good to get the actual justification. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Case in point.
 
Mickey said:
Case in point.
Click to expand...
The difference, though, I would say is that in the case of infant baptism, the Lord commanded us to baptize all nations, therefore all people, without distinction. And passages concerning the baptism of entire households seems to suggest that children were baptized as well.

I don’t think most people would put them together. Lutherans too, practice infant baptism, yet they seem to believe that Communion is for those who are able to understand it. Isn’t that the primary reason why it is disallowed for those who believe in memorialism? Not that little children are memorialists, but they can’t really grasp their heads around the mystery enough.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
The difference, though, I would say is that in the case of infant baptism, the Lord commanded us to baptize all nations, therefore all people, without distinction. And passages concerning the baptism of entire households seems to suggest that children were baptized as well.

I don’t think most people would put them together. Lutherans too, practice infant baptism, yet they seem to believe that Communion is for those who are able to understand it. Isn’t that the primary reason why it is disallowed for those who believe in memorialism? Not that little children are memorialists, but they can’t really grasp their heads around the mystery enough.
Click to expand...
Did you ever see an infant receive Holy Communion in the Eastern Catholic or Holy Orthodox Church? They know they are receiving Christ. Christ would never refuse children from receiving Him. “Let the little children come to me.”

The discernment is for adults who must be properly prepared.
 
Mickey said:
Did you ever see an infant receive Holy Communion in the Eastern Catholic or Holy Orthodox Church? They know they are receiving Christ. Christ would never refuse children from receiving Him. “Let the little children come to me.”

The discernment is for adults who must be properly prepared.
Click to expand...
The infants know? At the risk of sounding flippant, but, did they tell you this themselves?

Personally I think the difference is trivial. Both Catholics and Orthodox affirm the Real Presence, that’s the important part.
 
Mickey said:
Indeed.
A risk you should not have taken.

For thou art he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother. I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother’s womb thou art my God,
Psalm 21
Click to expand...
Can you provide me some sources where it says that Infants know that they are taking Holy Communion? I thought they were to delay in taking Holy Communion because they needed to be catechized.

Thanks.

God bless.
 
Little_One0307 said:
Can you provide me some sources
Click to expand...
“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”
St Augustine of Hippo
 
**Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. **(who was on the faculty of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome) explains about the history of infant Communion in the Western Church in an article entitled “Liturgy in the Life of the Church” :

“The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

“Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants….So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. **And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants.Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.”
 
Mickey,

Thanks for providing those sources. I am looking into them now. I had never know that it was the practice of the Latin Church to communicate Infants, wow I learned something new. Thanks.

I do have a question though, surely this is covered in Canon Law. I am not sure if the Church comes out and forbids infants taking communion, it’s just not practiced anymore. Can the Church change its practices?

Thanks for posting these sources and your orginal post. I am learning a great deal from these forums, and I especially love the topics on the Eucharist.

God bless.
 
Little_One0307 said:
I do have a question though, surely this is covered in Canon Law. I am not sure if the Church comes out and forbids infants taking communion, it’s just not practiced anymore. Can the Church change its practices?
Click to expand...
Since many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome) administer infant baptism, it is obvious that Rome Herself could change this practice if She so wished. Let us hope that Rome returns to the ancient practice.
 
Mickey said:
Since many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome) administer infant baptism, it is obvious that Rome Herself could change this practice if She so wished. Let us hope that Rome returns to the ancient practice.
Click to expand...
Amen. May the most just, the most lovable, and the Most High Will of God be done, be fulfilled, be praised and exalted in all things forever. Amen.

Again thank you for opening up my horizons on this.

God bless you.
 
Mickey said:
Since many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome) administer infant baptism, it is obvious that Rome Herself could change this practice if She so wished. Let us hope that Rome returns to the ancient practice.
Click to expand...
Oops. I meant to say infant communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top