Do you accept the Blood of Christ?

[Serap]

I only used to accept the Body of Christ during Eucharist and since I have been re-kindling my relationship with Christ, I realized that by rejecting the Blood of Christ, I was in effect, rejecting Christ.

I was afraid of catching a cold or flu or worse.

Is anyone else guilty of that? I see a lot of people at church bypass the Blood of Christ also.

 

[Walking_Home]

I only used to accept the Body of Christ during Eucharist and since I have been re-kindling my relationship with Christ, I realized that by rejecting the Blood of Christ, I was in effect, rejecting Christ.

I was afraid of catching a cold or flu or worse.

Is anyone else guilty of that? I see a lot of people at church bypass the Blood of Christ also.

---

I accept the Blood of Christ each and every time I receive via the Host alone.

 

[Serap]

So if you accept the Body of Christ (host alone), you are not rejecting the Blood of Christ?

I am just trying to understand.

Why then is there the “host” AND the wine? Why not just the host if we are accepting the Body and Blood of Christ by taking the host alone?

 

[TheDoctor]

You receive Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, when you receive under the form of bread or under the form of wine. It is not necessary to accept both, even when both are offerred (and you will find the precious blood is offerred in relatively few Mass settings).

Do not worry about some form of rejection if you choose to partake one and not the other (in fact, for many with celiac disease who cannot tolerate the wheat in the Host, the Precious Blood is their only way to receive).

 

[PatienceAndLove]

In recieving just the host or just the wine (as is the case for many celiacs), you are recieving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. You are not rejecting Him by “only” recieving the host.

 

[SMHW]

I have received under both forms for as long as they were available. Naturally I do not receive from the cup when I know that I am ill.

Receiving both is a greater sign. …not more Jesus. Just a greater sign. Christ chose to use physical SIGNS because sacraments are both spiritual and physical realities. As such, the meaningfulness of the sign is important.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It can be a greater sign but it is not necessary and indeed for many people it is imprudent. Alcoholics should not receive the Blood; celiacs should not receive the Body.

While it is certainly a praiseworthy gesture to receive both it is JUST AS PRAISEWORTHY to receive one–even if one has absolutely no physical or other constraint to receiving either.

Both of you are fine so long as you don’t try to impose your personal preferences on each other.

Those who receive one species should never dream of telling those who receive both that they are ‘excessive’.
And those who receive both species should never dream of telling those who receive one that they are 'not doing enough."

 

[Cristiano]

…Those who receive one species should never dream of telling those who receive both that they are ‘excessive’.
And those who receive both species should never dream of telling those who receive one that they are 'not doing enough."

Are you trying to say that people should behave in a charitable manner with their comments?

 

[feargalmac]

Here in Ireland we tend not to get the choice. I don’t feel any the less for it.

 

[SMHW]

It can be a greater sign but it is not necessary and indeed for many people it is imprudent. Alcoholics should not receive the Blood; celiacs should not receive the Body.

It is still a greater sign to receive under both species even if there is a reason not to do so. And naturally those with a reason to receive under only one species, whether that reason is temporary or permanent, personal or communal, should receive under only one species. The sign is still present, just not as overt.

I consider this similar to the situation with baptism. Full immersion is a greater sign than pouring. But baptism by pouring is just as valid and still

Fuller signs have a tendency to be messier and are likely to be more subject to abuse. A simpler sign may seem more reverent and is generally more controllable. It’s kind of a balancing act. I happen to think the fuller sign is worth the risk. But I appreciate that not everyone does.

 

[discerning92088]

The Body of Jesus Christ does include the Blood as well as Flesh. If you look through history at many Eucharistic Miracles, you will find that in many of them, there have been instances where the Body began to bleed the Precious Blood, or even turned into the Precious Blood of our Lord.
I would recommend the book Eucharistic Miracles

 

[EasterJoy]

I only used to accept the Body of Christ during Eucharist and since I have been re-kindling my relationship with Christ, I realized that by rejecting the Blood of Christ, I was in effect, rejecting Christ.

I was afraid of catching a cold or flu or worse.

Is anyone else guilty of that? I see a lot of people at church bypass the Blood of Christ also.

If the Holy Spirit prompts you to re-consider some aspect of your spiritual life, don’t automatically take that as a condemnation. There is a reason why the fuller sign is made available, but yet no one is compelled to avail themselves of it directly. God does not call us all to himself in exactly the same way or by the same timeline. I would encourage you to look at your recent realization more in terms of an invitation from Our Lord, rather than an issue to feel guilty about! In what way is Our Lord encouraging you to come closer, to bind yourself more deeply to himself, to his sacrifice, and to all the graces he makes available through his Church?

As far as fearing disease, consider this statement by the USCCB, concerning HIV/AIDS:
usccb.org/comm/q%26aabouthiv-aids.pdf
“Since 1985 the Liturgy Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has contacted the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta on a regular basis to request their latest advisories concerning the possible health risks associated with drinking from a common communion cup. Each time, the CDC, while not ruling out the fact that there are some risks involved in the practice of drinking from a common cup, has stated that with proper precautions (such as wiping both sides of the rim of the chalice after each communicant has received the Precious Blood) such risks are greatly reduced. The CDC has also responded that there is no clinical evidence that life-threatening pathogens such as the HIV virus have been transmitted through the Precious Blood. The CDC has not recommended to the Catholic Church that it abandon the practice of drinking from the cup because of these risks.”

Common sense and charity will tell you to refrain from receiving the Precious Blood when you know you have a condition such as a cold or a cold sore that could conceivably be transmitted that way.

 

[porthos11]

I only used to accept the Body of Christ during Eucharist and since I have been re-kindling my relationship with Christ, I realized that by rejecting the Blood of Christ, I was in effect, rejecting Christ.

I was afraid of catching a cold or flu or worse.

Is anyone else guilty of that? I see a lot of people at church bypass the Blood of Christ also.

I don’t mean to sound snide, but it’s because of such a mindset several centuries ago that the Church forbade the Cup to the laity, in an effort to reinforce that one receives the Full Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the species of bread alone, and that not receiving the Cup does not constitute receiving “less” of Christ.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t mean to sound snide, but it’s because of such a mindset several centuries ago that the Church forbade the Cup to the laity, in an effort to reinforce that one receives the Full Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the species of bread alone, and that not receiving the Cup does not constitute receiving “less” of Christ.

Yes. Someone who finds greater graces in the sign of the Precious Blood should not be doing so under the assumption that they are receiving “more” Christ.

Just as Christ is fully present in even under the appearance of the smallest fragment of the Body of Christ, as compared how he is present under the appearance of a much larger or unbroken host, so is Christ just as present when received under one species rather than both.

 

[benedictgal]

Soneone else brought this issue up in another thread. Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas which aptly sums up what the Church teaches:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

Therefore, as the Angelic Doctor notes, Christ is present in his entire glorified Body and Blood in either species.

 

[feargalmac]

Thanks Benedictgal. I was getting worried for a while!

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I only used to accept the Body of Christ during Eucharist and since I have been re-kindling my relationship with Christ, I realized that by rejecting the Blood of Christ, I was in effect, rejecting Christ.

I was afraid of catching a cold or flu or worse.

Is anyone else guilty of that? I see a lot of people at church bypass the Blood of Christ also.

I am sure someone else covered this, but typically the Chalice is reserved for the priest alone (especially in the EF, the Chalice is not offered to the congregation).

By receiving the Host, however, you receive, as others above me have stated, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I do not receive from the Chalice at Novus Ordo Masses because I do not feel right receiving the Chalice from the overused EMHCs, and I typically haven’t received from the Chalice. At the EF, there is no problem.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I don’t mean to sound snide, but it’s because of such a mindset several centuries ago that the Church forbade the Cup to the laity, in an effort to reinforce that one receives the Full Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the species of bread alone, and that not receiving the Cup does not constitute receiving “less” of Christ.

?

Prove it.

I have not heard this, and I am severely questioning that. So, I ask that you prove your assertion.

Thank you.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks Benedictgal. I was getting worried for a while!

You’re welcome. I find that when it comes to matters concerning the Holy Eucharist, it is a good thing to consult St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

?

Prove it.

I have not heard this, and I am severely questioning that. So, I ask that you prove your assertion.

Thank you.

Not to steal the thunder, but this is from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. The article dates from 1913, not 2008, but you can see that it pretty much confirms the assertion.

1: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John 6:54, Matthew 26:27, and Luke 22:17-19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament.