Communion

[mlz]

Can anyone tell me why it is that at some Catholic Masses they recieve only the Body and not the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist? Aren’t both important?

Obviously I’m not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe and why.

Mary

 

[Simon_X]

They are both equal. However, some churches can only make the Host available. It’s up to the Pastor to determine if both species are offered or not to communicants.

 

[jmcrae]

The priest is required to receive both the Body and the Blood (the host and the chalice).

The lay members of the congregation aren’t actually required to receive Holy Communion at all, if they don’t want to, or if they are not properly disposed to receive, for any reason.

Jesus is fully present under the appearances of both species, so lay members [assuming they are Catholic, have been trained and educated in classes for First Holy Communion, are free of mortal sin, as undistracted as can reasonably be expected, and having fasted for at least one hour beforehand,] are free to receive either the Host or the Chalice, or both.

Some people are allergic to the accidents of the bread, others may have health reasons for avoiding the Chalice, and still others may appreciate the sign value of receiving both, so the Church provides all three options.

There are times and places where offering the Chalice exposes it to danger from profanation (for example, if the congregation is not trained on how to receive it correctly, or if the parish is one of those that is often visited by alcoholics who are not yet recovering alcoholics,) then they would choose not to offer the Chalice to the congregation, so that no accidents or unfortunate events could occur.

This is possible to do because we receive Jesus alive and entire under the appearance of the Host alone, as well as when we receive both.

 

[Reuben_J]

The priest is required to receive both the Body and the Blood (the host and the chalice).

The lay members of the congregation aren’t actually required to receive Holy Communion at all, if they don’t want to, or if they are not properly disposed to receive, for any reason.

Jesus is fully present under the appearances of both species, so lay members [assuming they are Catholic, have been trained and educated in classes for First Holy Communion, are free of mortal sin, as undistracted as can reasonably be expected, and having fasted for at least one hour beforehand,] are free to receive either the Host or the Chalice, or both.

Some people are allergic to the accidents of the bread, others may have health reasons for avoiding the Chalice, and still others may appreciate the sign value of receiving both, so the Church provides all three options.

There are times and places where offering the Chalice exposes it to danger from profanation (for example, if the congregation is not trained on how to receive it correctly, or if the parish is one of those that is often visited by alcoholics who are not yet recovering alcoholics,) then they would choose not to offer the Chalice to the congregation, so that no accidents or unfortunate events could occur.

This is possible to do because we receive Jesus alive and entire under the appearance of the Host alone, as well as when we receive both.

A clear and comprehensive explanation.

I just want to add, though been mentioned too, even without receiving the communion, one’s attending the mass is considered valid as if one has received communion.

God would surely honor Catholics who truly love and revere the Eucharist by not receiving the communion if they are not prepared for it or not in a state of grace. Too often Catholics step up the aisle because of pressure that they have too. That is absolutely wrong.

Another understanding is the Host contains flesh and blood of Jesus and therefore it is complete communion just to receive one species.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A clear and comprehensive explanation.

I want to echo that. Very well said Judith (jmcrae)!

VC

 

[emeraldcoast]

The priest is required to receive both the Body and the Blood (the host and the chalice).

The lay members of the congregation aren’t actually required to receive Holy Communion at all, if they don’t want to, or if they are not properly disposed to receive, for any reason.

Jesus is fully present under the appearances of both species, so lay members [assuming they are Catholic, have been trained and educated in classes for First Holy Communion, are free of mortal sin, as undistracted as can reasonably be expected, and having fasted for at least one hour beforehand,] are free to receive either the Host or the Chalice, or both.

Some people are allergic to the accidents of the bread, others may have health reasons for avoiding the Chalice, and still others may appreciate the sign value of receiving both, so the Church provides all three options.

There are times and places where offering the Chalice exposes it to danger from profanation (for example, if the congregation is not trained on how to receive it correctly, or if the parish is one of those that is often visited by alcoholics who are not yet recovering alcoholics,) then they would choose not to offer the Chalice to the congregation, so that no accidents or unfortunate events could occur.

This is possible to do because we receive Jesus alive and entire under the appearance of the Host alone, as well as when we receive both.

Why is the priest the only one required to receive both the body and blood of Jesus at Communion? Since the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is complete in either form, why doesn’t he just consume one form?

God Bless!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Why is the priest the only one required to receive both the body and blood of Jesus at Communion?

Hi Emarldcoast,

Good question! For two main reasons:

1. It is a divine command. At the Last Supper, Christ told his apostles who were then made priests to take and eat and take and drink.
2. It is a liturgical law.

Hope that helps,
VC

 

[emeraldcoast]

Hi Emarldcoast,

Good question! For two main reasons:

1. It is a divine command. At the Last Supper, Christ told his apostles who were then made priests to take and eat and take and drink.
2. It is a liturgical law.

Hope that helps,
VC

Hi VC,

I honestly do not follow why the Church does not always offer both forms to the people especially since Jesus did it. Why does the Church teach that His complete presence is present in either form since Jesus clearly stated that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood?

Thank you, VC!

God Bless!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Your welcome emeraldcoast,

I honestly do not follow why the Church does not always offer both forms to the people especially since Jesus did it.

I think my fellow posters can do a good job addressing this question from a historical point of view, so I’ll just address your next question if that’s ok.

emeraldcoast:

Why does the Church teach that His complete presence is present in either form since Jesus clearly stated that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood?

It follows from the reality of the Real Presence, as the Church understands it. Since Christ is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, he must be present as he really is. And he right now, at this moment, really is alive, glorified, with his body and blood united in a living body. So, wherever his body is, so is his blood. And wherever his blood is, so is his body.

Any help? There’s a bit more to it, but does that get you on the right track?

 

[emeraldcoast]

Your welcome emeraldcoast,

I think my fellow posters can do a good job addressing this question from a historical point of view, so I’ll just address your next question if that’s ok.

It follows from the reality of the Real Presence, as the Church understands it. Since Christ is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, he must be present as he really is. And he right now, at this moment, really is alive, glorified, with his body and blood united in a living body. So, wherever his body is, so is his blood. And wherever his blood is, so is his body.

Any help? There’s a bit more to it, but does that get you on the right track?

Thank you, VC. I have never had someone in the RC explained to me from the point of view of His body and blood being united now.

God Bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother VC,

Hi VC,

I honestly do not follow why the Church does not always offer both forms to the people especially since Jesus did it. Why does the Church teach that His complete presence is present in either form since Jesus clearly stated that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood?

Thank you, VC!

God Bless!

The separation of the body from the blood represents death. What we receive at the Eucharist is the RESURRECTED CHRIST, whole and complete. Thus, in either the bread alone, or the wine alone, the full RESURRECTED divine Christ is sacramentally present.

It should also be noted that St. Paul in I Corinthians states that to receive the body of the Lord unworthily makes one guilty of BOTH the body AND the blood. That should tell you that the ENTIRE Christ is present in EITHER species.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nicholas82]

These days I would say it’s because they don’t feel like having one of the 3 Eucharistic ministers hold a chalice?? I’ve been to masses with one priest, 2 extraordinary ministers and no chalice available for the laity; although the nuns seemed to help themselves at the altar.

 

[Eucharisted]

Can anyone tell me why it is that at some Catholic Masses they recieve only the Body and not the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist? Aren’t both important?

Obviously I’m not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe and why.

Mary

In the Body of Christ (appearance of bread) we receive also the Blood of Christ. A living body always has blood in it, for blood is the river of life. And so it is with the Body of Christ. In the Blood of Christ (appearance of wine) we receive also the Body of Christ. It so happens that living blood contains particles of the human heart. And so it is with the Blood of Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In the Body of Christ (appearance of bread) we receive also the Blood of Christ. A living body always has blood in it, for blood is the river of life. And so it is with the Body of Christ. In the Blood of Christ (appearance of wine) we receive also the Body of Christ. It so happens that living blood contains particles of the human heart. And so it is with the Blood of Christ.

Hi Eucharisted,

I’m not quite sure if I understand your meaning here. What is the reason you give that we receive both the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of wine? I’m not sure if I am reading you correctly, and I want to understand.

Thank you!
VC

 

[paarsurrey]

Can anyone tell me why it is that at some Catholic Masses they recieve only the Body and not the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist? Aren’t both important?

Obviously I’m not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe and why.

Mary

Hi

Who does have a communion and with whom? Please

Thanks

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi VC,

I honestly do not follow why the Church does not always offer both forms to the people especially since Jesus did it. Why does the Church teach that His complete presence is present in either form since Jesus clearly stated that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood?

Thank you, VC!

God Bless!

My boyfriend is a recovery alcoholic therefore he cannot drink the wine. so he only receive the Bread.

Peace!

 

[jmcrae]

Why is the priest the only one required to receive both the body and blood of Jesus at Communion? Since the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is complete in either form, why doesn’t he just consume one form?

God Bless!

Because when the Apostles were being ordained to the priesthood at the Last Supper, He instructed them to receive both species.

But He did not require anyone else present so much as to receive it at all, never mind one or both species.

But, obviously, He had intended for us to receive it, too, once the priesthood was established. (I Corinthians 11) So, the Church cannot allow priests to not receive at Mass, nor to receive only one of the two species - the priest must recieve both. The lay people who are present at the Mass may choose not to receive at all, or they may choose to receive under only one species (since Christ is fully present in each of them), or, if circumstances allow it, they could also receive both.

I hope this helps you.