Do we need to drink the blood at least once?

  • Thread starter Thread starter G2024
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

G2024

Guest
I’ve never had a liking to alcohol or wine.
I can barely even smell wine without gagging.

I plan on drinking the precious blood once in my life.

Do I need to do it more than once? Is it like the host where we are obligated to drink it? I know it isn’t required at every mass but say I died before I had a chance to have some.
Would I be alright?
 
Many, many generations of Catholics received communion only in the form of bread for many centuries.

It isn’t required, unless you are the priest celebrating the mass.
 
You are just fine. From the USCCB:

"Does one receive the whole Christ if one receives Holy Communion under a single form?

Yes. Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is wholly present under the appearance either of bread or of wine in the Eucharist. Furthermore, Christ is wholly present in any fragment of the consecrated Host or in any drop of the Precious Blood."
 
Last edited:
You are not required to receive the Chalice. In many regions around the world, the Chalice is rarely distributed to the faithful. This is true in my archdiocese.
 
Agreed with all the previous posters. You don’t need to drink the chalice. And for that reason, it is not available to the congregation in many parts of the world, where only the Body is given.

The full body, soul and divinity of Christ is present in either of the species. You will receive the same amount of grace of the Sacrament, not less, when you receive either one.

God bless.
 
Jesus did not say drink only of my blood or partake only of my body but rather he said BOTH at The Last Supper! ;’
Where did this nonsense of the priest being empowered to drink the blood of Christ our Lord for the entire congregation begin? Jesus gave EACH disciple, His Body, His Blood.
So should it be for each congregant.
 
I just know it. We will have this type of poster entering this thread, never mind that we are discussing Catholic liturgy, which makes it turning ugly,
 
G2024 I agree. There are some really nasty, smelly, awful tasting wines in the world. You will learn pretty quickly which parishes that have a higher % of alcoholic wine than others. Our pastor wanted a different kind of wine for Easter and there were a lot more “funny faces” than I expected after people had received the Precious Blood. That was among the worst tasting wines I have ever tasted. Smelled badly when I opened the bottle compared to our “normal” wine.

I would guess that it is common to receive both the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive our First Holy Communion and also when we are receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. In some of the churches within the Catholic church there is a tradition of receiving Holy Communion on a spoon (open your mouth with head tilted back and the priest will drop the Body and Blood in you mouth) or via intinction (the Body is dipped in the Blood by the priest and received on the tongue only). As others have written you can receive either one or both the Body and Blood depending upon how the priests want to give Holy Communion to the people.
 
We should receive communion whichever way we feel comfortable.
It is only necessary to receive communion, whether it be through the bread and/or the wine. It is transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that IS the most important thing.
May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be with everyone this terrific day! ✌️
 
marci16 said:
Jesus did not say drink only of my blood or partake only of my body but rather he said BOTH at The Last Supper! ;’

Where did this nonsense of the priest being empowered to drink the blood of Christ our Lord for the entire congregation begin? Jesus gave EACH disciple, His Body, His Blood.

So should it be for each congregant.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Receiving Communion under both species is NOT required. If you disagree with that you are disagreeing with the Church.
 
marci16 said:
Jesus did not say drink only of my blood or partake only of my body but rather he said BOTH at The Last Supper! ;’

Where did this nonsense of the priest being empowered to drink the blood of Christ our Lord for the entire congregation begin? Jesus gave EACH disciple, His Body, His Blood.

So should it be for each congregant.
Click to expand...
Each congregant receives the full body and blood of Christ even if they only receive one form of Communion. It is not required to receive in two forms in order to receive both the body and the blood.

Your post is contrary to Church teaching on this matter.
 
You do not need to receive the Precious Blood, and I would actually recommend against it.

The whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is contained under one species. This was infallibly defined at the Council of Trent. So it is only necessary to receive under one species.
 
Last edited:
The Apostles are considered members of the ordained clergy. So, what Jesus said at the Last Supper to them does not necessarily apply to lay Christians. Only bread is mentioned in Jesus’ appearance to the two lay disciples from Emmaus. (Luke 24:30,35)

St Paul talks about lay Christians receiving the body and blood of Christ under both species, bread and wine, in 1 Corinthians 10-11, but he also seems to talk about the possibility of lay Christians receiving the body and blood of Christ under only one species, bread or wine, when he says, “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.” (1 Cor 11:27)
 
Last edited:
marci16 said:
Jesus did not say drink only of my blood or partake only of my body but rather he said BOTH at The Last Supper! ;’
Click to expand...
@marci16,
The Church teaches that the host is the Body of Christ, and that His Blood is present with the host by concomitance (in other words, in a living body, wherever the body is, there too is the blood). And vice versa – in the Precious Blood, the Body is present by concomitance.
Where did this nonsense of the priest being empowered to drink the blood of Christ our Lord for the entire congregation begin?
Click to expand...
Who ever said that? A priest must consume the Precious Blood because he is the one offering the sacrifice (therefore, he must consume both the Eucharistic host and Precious Blood). In doing so, he’s not doing it “for the entire congregation”…!
Jesus gave EACH disciple, His Body, His Blood.
So should it be for each congregant.
Click to expand...
And so it is… for every person who receives the Eucharist… regardless which species they consume!
 
Please don’t tell people not to partake of the Precious Blood.
It’s up to the individual and OK to do int he U.S…
 
marci16 said:
Where did this nonsense of the priest being empowered to drink the blood of Christ our Lord for the entire congregation begin?
Click to expand...
What? Where are you coming from by say that? The priest is doing what is prescribed for him to do. He is not partaking in both species for us all. Where did you hear that?

The USCCB statement I quoted says it all, and some have repeated that. Also, like some said, some churches do not even offer the Precious Blood.

Oops…I see that Gorgias just answerd that same question. I knew there was a term for this and could not remember it…“concomitance.” Thanks for the answer, even though you had no idea I banging my head to remember! Lol!
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
For your FHC it is preferred that you receive both species.
Click to expand...
Preferred by who?
If it is not offered everywhere, how can it be the preferred way of receiving? When I made my first holy communion, it was not offered both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top