Both body and blood in the host?

[Gara3987]

I see that a majority of Catholics receive only the bread/host when receiving Communion. I know the Church believes that both the body and blood are really present. But why? Wouldn’t it be better to receive both species at all times, like the Orthodox do (and all Protestants, for that matter)?

How does the Catholic Church prove that both the body and blood of Christ are present in both species of Communion?

Is there a biblical justification?

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.

Regards,

The Biblical Justification would be within St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 11, 27. He said “OR.” “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice…” To which in Latin VEL and in Greek Ἢ. Saint Paul was saying either or, one or the other.

Is the body of Christ divided or broken, when we divide or break the Sacrament?

It is not, for “he is now immortal and impassible, he cannot die nor suffer any more.” Rom.vi. 9.

Because Christ is whole in the whole host, and whole in every particle thereof, if you divide or break it; seeing that wherever there would have been bread before consecration, there must needs be the whole body and blood of Christ after consecration.

There is no command in scripture for the laity to do it under both, though there be for priests in those words, “Drink ye all of this.” Matt. xxvi. 27, which was spoken to the apostles only and by them fulfilled; for it follows in Mark xiv. 23. “And they all drank.” 2. Out of John vi. 58, “He that eateth (Gr. τρώγων | trogo) of this bread, shall live for ever,” therefore, one kind suffices. 3. Out of Acts xx. 7, where we read, “That the faithful were assembled on the first of the sabbath to break bread,” without any mention of the cup; and the two disciples in Emmaus, “knew Christ in the breaking of bread,” where the cup is not mentioned.

Oremus pro Invicem!

 

[JonNC]

This is Apostolic teaching…

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. ***Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207 ***

Peace, Carlan

Hi Carlan,
I don’t think this was the big issue for the Lutheran reformers. The issue was the command and example of Christ at the last supper - “Drink ye all of it”.
The Augsburg Confession:

To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26:27: Drink ye all of it, 2] where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. 3] And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. 4] And this usage has long remained in the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time 5] when it was approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. 6] The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests administer the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the people. Indeed, Pope Gelasius 7] commands that the Sacrament be not divided (dist. II., De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus). 8] Only custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident 9] that any custom introduced against the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the Canons witness (dist. III., cap. Veritate, and the following chapters). 10] But this custom has been received, not only against the Scripture, but also against the old Canons 11] and the example of the Church. Therefore, if any preferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they ought not to have been compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. And because the division 12] of the Sacrament does not agree with the ordinance of Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has been in use.

As hn160 rightly says, Lutherans are not fans of concomitance (though I can’t imagine a Lutheran not being content with one kind or the other if, for example, health reasons prohibited either), but we see it as an obligation of the Church to offer both kinds to the laity, as it is Christ’s call that we eat and drink.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I agree with you there about the sacraments. I wish the RCC did go back to administering all three sacraments at infancy.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Biblical Justification would be within St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 11, 27. He said “OR.” “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice…” To which in Latin VEL and in Greek Ἢ. Saint Paul was saying either or, one or the other.

Is the body of Christ divided or broken, when we divide or break the Sacrament?

It is not, for “he is now immortal and impassible, he cannot die nor suffer any more.” Rom.vi. 9.

Because Christ is whole in the whole host, and whole in every particle thereof, if you divide or break it; seeing that wherever there would have been bread before consecration, there must needs be the whole body and blood of Christ after consecration.

There is no command in scripture for the laity to do it under both, though there be for priests in those words, “Drink ye all of this.” Matt. xxvi. 27, which was spoken to the apostles only and by them fulfilled; for it follows in Mark xiv. 23. “And they all drank.” 2. Out of John vi. 58, “He that eateth (Gr. τρώγων | trogo) of this bread, shall live for ever,” therefore, one kind suffices. 3. Out of Acts xx. 7, where we read, “That the faithful were assembled on the first of the sabbath to break bread,” without any mention of the cup; and the two disciples in Emmaus, “knew Christ in the breaking of bread,” where the cup is not mentioned.

Oremus pro Invicem!

So what exactly is the ‘sacrifice’ of the Mass? I’ve heard rumors that Christ is “re-sacrificed” but then I always hear Catholics said that it is a “re-presenting” but that there is a sacrifice. What’s that all about?

 

[mardukm]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

So what exactly is the ‘sacrifice’ of the Mass? I’ve heard rumors that Christ is “re-sacrificed” but then I always hear Catholics said that it is a “re-presenting” but that there is a sacrifice. What’s that all about?

The Sacrifice of Christ exists in the aeveternal moment (aeveternal is outside of time as we know it, but it is a state that has a beginning and an end- namely, at the final consummation; angels and Purgatory and Hades can be stated to exist in the aeveternal moment; it is distinct from the eternal moment which has no beginning and no end). You can see this in St. John’s description of what he saw in “heaven” as described in the Book of Revelation - the Lamb as though it had been slain on the altar of Heaven. When Catholics (and other apostolic Christians) say that the Sacrifice is re-presented, but that Christ is not sacrificed anew, we are referring to that one propitiary Sacrifice of Christ that St. John described in the aeveternal moment. That one Sacrifice of Christ in the aeveternal moment is regarded as one and the same the Sacrifice of Calvary.

Some explain the Mass to be that one Sacrifice in the aeveternal moment as being re-presented here in temporal time. Others explain it as the congregation being mystically transported to the reality of the aeveternal moment where the one Sacrifice exists. They are two ways of explaining the same event that occurs at each valid Eucharist.

I hope that helps (and that I have continued my record of conciseness )

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fred_conty]

Both Body and Blood of Jesus in the Sacred Host?

This has been the costant teaching of the Church for many centuries…

The Sacred Body in the Host has been displayed in the mostrance for many years.
And the Church proclaims that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present in this Sacred Host.

Since Consecrated Bread is white or brown it is not as easily apparent to see that Sacred Blood is also there.

A story is told of a man who needed money. He went to his friends to borrow it, but was unsuccessful. He then went to his enemy, and that man lent him the money on one condition. The condition was that it all of it was to be paid back by a certain day or he could ask anything of the man He wanted. When the day due came, the man didn’t have the money. Then his enemy said I may have anything I want from you and now I want a pound of your flesh. The man said, “you may indeed have a pound of my flesh, but you may not have one drop of my blood.”

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Both Body and Blood of Jesus in the Sacred Host?

This has been the costant teaching of the Church for many centuries…

The Sacred Body in the Host has been displayed in the mostrance for many years.
And the Church proclaims that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present in this Sacred Host.

Since Consecrated Bread is white or brown it is not as easily apparent to see that Sacred Blood is also there.

A story is told of a man who needed money. He went to his friends to borrow it, but was unsuccessful. He then went to his enemy, and that man lent him the money on one condition. The condition was that it all of it was to be paid back by a certain day or he could ask anything of the man He wanted. When the day due came, the man didn’t have the money. Then his enemy said I may have anything I want from you and now I want a pound of your flesh. The man said, "you may indeed have a pound of my flesh, but you may not have one drop of my blood."

That sounds almost entirely like the story of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

The Sacrifice of Christ exists in the aeveternal moment (aeveternal is outside of time as we know it, but it is a state that has a beginning and an end- namely, at the final consummation; angels and Purgatory and Hades can be stated to exist in the aeveternal moment; it is distinct from the eternal moment which has no beginning and no end). You can see this in St. John’s description of what he saw in “heaven” as described in the Book of Revelation - the Lamb as though it had been slain on the altar of Heaven. When Catholics (and other apostolic Christians) say that the Sacrifice is re-presented, but that Christ is not sacrificed anew, we are referring to that one propitiary Sacrifice of Christ that St. John described in the aeveternal moment. That one Sacrifice of Christ in the aeveternal moment is regarded as one and the same the Sacrifice of Calvary.
**
Some explain the Mass to be that one Sacrifice in the aeveternal moment as being re-presented here in temporal time. Others explain it as the congregation being mystically transported to the reality of the aeveternal moment where the one Sacrifice exists. They are two ways of explaining the same event that occurs at each valid Eucharist.
**
I hope that helps (and that I have continued my record of conciseness )

Blessings,
Marduk

Always do a good job, brother . Thanks for the clarification.

 

[fred_conty]

That sounds almost entirely like the story of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.

Hi,
You caught me! Good for you.

 

[Adonia]

I like intinction. At my old Evangelical church nearby that’s how we did communion. I was always used to the small cups and bread and all of us taking in unison. But I like the intinction better, it allows one to have a brief few seconds of solemn reflection.

But again, I don’t see why the host has both the body and blood?

Look at it this way brother. If they take a sample of your blood and a sample of your body and do a DNA analysis an exact match will result. Your body and blood are mixed with each other, are they not? Also, in a previous post you asked where the Church gets the justification for proclaiming this or that. We believe that Christ himself gave the keys to St. Peter to bind or loose things here on earth and in heaven. The Pope we have today is the apostolic successor to St. Peter.Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church can do and proclaim whatever it wants and it’s all perfectly legal. You either believe that that is the correct interpretation of Scripture or you don’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see that a majority of Catholics receive only the bread/host when receiving Communion. I know the Church believes that both the body and blood are really present. But why? Wouldn’t it be better to receive both species at all times, like the Orthodox do (and all Protestants, for that matter)?

How does the Catholic Church prove that both the body and blood of Christ are present in both species of Communion?

Is there a biblical justification?

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.

Regards,

Jesus being God and being alive, cannot be separated. Do you think Jesus’ body and blood can be separated? To do so would mean death, because the body and blood needs to be together to be alive.

 

[hn160]

Always do a good job, brother . Thanks for the clarification.

The Lutheran position is that the sacrifice of Christ was a once and down event at Calvary where Christ said “It is finished”. The Roman position is akin to the Calvinist, who say that when they receive communion their souls soar to Heaven where they commune with Christ because His Body is confined to Heaven.
What one believes what happens when you receive the bread and wine is what you believe in the Communication of Attributes in the Person of Christ. Christ had a Divine Nature and a human nature which translated into the Personal Union of Christ being fully True God and fully True Man. When we receive Communion, we receive His Body and His Blood in, with, and under the bread and wine as He said “This is …”.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Lutheran position is that the sacrifice of Christ was a once and down event at Calvary where Christ said “It is finished”. The Roman position is akin to the Calvinist, who say that when they receive communion their souls soar to Heaven where they commune with Christ because His Body is confined to Heaven.
What one believes what happens when you receive the bread and wine is what you believe in the Communication of Attributes in the Person of Christ. Christ had a Divine Nature and a human nature which translated into the Personal Union of Christ being fully True God and fully True Man. When we receive Communion, we receive His Body and His Blood in, with, and under the bread and wine as He said “This is …”.

Very interesting! Thank you!

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

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

Beautiful, Marduk! If you don’t mind, I will copy this into my apologetics folder.

Paul