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.
PREFERRED

Not commanded, not dictated.

Good glory, ask your Bishop what he prefers.
 
1ke said:
You do not need to receive under both species.

You do not need to receive from the chalice, ever.
Click to expand...
1ke: In answer to G2024: Do I need to do it more than once?

Please excuse me for adding an addendum here: You do not even have to “do it” once, never mind “more than once.”
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
PREFERRED

Not commanded, not dictated.

Good glory, ask your Bishop what he prefers.
Click to expand...
With all due respect: “No!” I do not have to. It is clearly stated in my quote from the USCCB earlier in this thread and what others are saying to support it as well. What of concomitance is not understood? What about those churches that do not offer Precious Blood to the congregants?

Can you support your claim as “preferred” by any documentation?

Actually, our bishop"s Episcopal Secretary (ordained priest) was a parishioner. Anyway, this was an issue brought up years ago. In his monthly letter to all the clergy and staff of all diocesan churches, he clearly stated the USCCB stance. I think I’ll stick with that thank you.
 
They are receiving the Precious Blood if they receive under the species of bread alone. They aren’t being deprived of anything.
 
The tone of your post is that we are somehow less reverent in doing so, or not worthy.
The Church in her wisdom gives us options. If it was WRONG ,they wouldn’t give options.
 
Irishmom2 said:
Per Semper:
You do not need to receive the Precious Blood, and I would actually recommend against it.

Per Irishmom:
Fortunately, Catholics do what the Church recommends, not what you recommend, because your opinion is just that, your opinion.
Click to expand...
I take this is a just Semper’s opinion, take it or leave it, nothing more or nothing less, tone or otherwise.

However, where did you hear that the Church actually “recommends” that you receive the Precious Blood? My church has never said this nor have I heard of any other church stating this. And, actually, during the height of some dangerous flu seasons, our diocese has asked that the Precious Blood not be offered and
announce to the people that receiving the Host only was sufficient for the same reasons stated throughout this thread. It then became a church decision: one year we did not offer Precious Blood, the next, we did, but cautioned the people about the flu. Many passed the cup by.
 
Last edited:
If one thinks that by not receiving communion under the appearance of wine, they are being deprived of the whole Christ or something else, then they lack the fundamental understanding what the Eucharist is. When you receive under one species, you aren’t receiving part of God, or not the full God. You’re receiving the WHOLE God.
 
semper_catholicus said:
If one thinks that by not receiving communion under the appearance of wine, they are being deprived of the whole Christ or something else, then they lack the fundamental understanding what the Eucharist is. When you receive under one species, you aren’t receiving part of God, or not the full God. You’re receiving the WHOLE God.
Click to expand...
This thread will go on and on because many refuse to believe what you or I, others, the Church, and the USCCB states as truth. Don’t know about you, but I’m moving on and just respectfully leave those in opposition in this discussion believe what they want. What more can we say?
 
Last edited:
I know most of the posters are giving reasonable, correct answers to the OP’s question. I’ll just add the citation from the Catechism.
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.” [225] This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

[225] GIRM 240.
Click to expand...
So, no, you do not ever “need” to receive Communion under both species. Jesus is fully present—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity—in every particle of the Eucharist. But, yes, some priests and bishops encourage Communion under both species because the sign value is “more complete.”
 
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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. - CCC 1390
 
Lots of my brothers and sisters have joined in this thread and many good points have been made.
But beyond all that has been said, they key thing is that everyone received the sacrament. That IS the most important thing.
 
FrDavid96 said:
These are BOTH personal opinions. Let’s please allow both members to present their personal preferences.
Click to expand...
Fr. David, to me, both members have presented themselves adequately enough. From that:
It appears to me that semper’s tone was stating his recommendation: his opinion, his preference.
However, I see a distinct tone difference in what TheLittleLady states: That “it is preferred,” indicating to me that it is not an opinion, not a personal preference, but an emphatic statement regarding something she has read, was taught, or heard.
That’s how I read both of them in their wording: perhaps right or perhaps wrong on my part.
 
Realizing that another personal opinion (mine) would be of little value, may I offer something a little more weighty with emphasis boldly added by me

From The General Instruction: “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.” (no. 281)

and from Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on Eucharistic Worship) which it cites in a footnote: Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).
 
By the way, I found this Canon from the Council of Trent:

“If any one shall say, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist; let him be anathema.”
 
I always receive Christ’s Body only, and think that the requirement only extends to His body.
 
MCH1 said:
I always receive Christ’s Body only, and think that the requirement only extends to His body.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Whether you receive the Host or the Chalice you receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top