Do you accept the Blood of Christ?

[Claire_from_DE]

?

Prove it.

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

Thank you.

I was taught this in Catholic school in the 1950’s. We were also told that this was the original reason for the elevation of the host and the chalice separately after the consecration of each. Since at that time (the 50’s) communion under both forms wasn’t available to us, the sisters took time to explain why.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

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.

Thank you for the New Advent citation.

However, my question was referring to the whole “prevent disease being spread,” as porthos11 stated.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused?

Or maybe you quoted me accidentally?

 

[redrosetea]

I won’t partake of the chalice during flu season…I don’t feel in the least bit guilty

 

[LilyM]

I won’t partake of the chalice during flu season…I don’t feel in the least bit guilty

I just don’t partake of the chalice fullstop, and neither do I feel in the least guilty. My mother as an EMHC has become sick a few times, as a result of doing so (and being a doctor she’s got a perfectly good idea of how various diseases are transmitted, so I believe her when she says that’s how it happened)

If St Joan of Arc could receive communion but once a year, and that only in the form of the Sacred Host, and yet become a saint, then I don’t think any of us will be lacking in anything needful if we forego the chalice at our communions.

 

[palmas85]

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?

Christ if fully present under both species or either by itself. You cannot reject or bypass Christ by only receiving under one species.

Yet another reason why the Church mandated that proper catechisis be given prior to the laity being allowed to receive the precious blood. How many more threads are we going to see where people just do not understand and think they must receive under both species?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

However, my question was referring to the whole “prevent disease being spread,” as porthos11 stated.

Ah, Bayern. I see. One or the other of us misread.

I understood Porthos not to be addressing the ‘germs at communion’ but instead to be addressing the erroneous idea that receiving the Blood and the Body, instead of just one, gives us “more” Christ.

And that was what he even said, that the Church restricted the cup because the reformers and other people in error were teaching that one HAD to receive Body and Blood, and that the Catholics were wrong in restricting it to just one.

The OP might have been thought by some to be implying that those who only received one species were 'lacking" in fullness and that they SHOULD receive both. . .the idea being that the only reason they don’t receive the Blood is ‘fear of germs’ (which again is untrue) but again, it is ‘implication’ and I don’t think the OP actually stated this as such. But the way it was presented some people could get the idea that this was being advocated–receiving both to get ‘more’ Christ.

 

[Little_Katie]

I received the blood of christ every time it was offered. A lot of churches I have been to actually don’t usually offer the blood. The Parish I go to now does though. I stopped accepting it during my pregnancy though. Once the baby is born I will go back to accepting it .

 

[Kolbelover]

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.

I am a recovered alcoholic (14 years sobriety), and I receive from the cup on occasion… why? because it is the Precious Blood now… and I have never had any problem doing so (although, I have only started doing this within the past 3 years)

the bigger issue for me is one of potential danger of spilling the Precious Blood. We have so many EMHCs that we pour out far more than is prudent, IMO… I wil only receive the Precious Blood from the Deacon of the Cup, on those occasions that the Spirit moves me to receive

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

No one is guilty of any such thing including you. You are not rejecting Christ by receiving in one form only.

 

[porthos11]

Thank you for the New Advent citation.

**However, my question was referring to the whole “prevent disease being spread,” as porthos11 stated. **

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused?

Or maybe you quoted me accidentally?

I addressed nothing of the germs issue. What I referred to was the line of thinking that not receiving from the cup was “rejecting” Christ, and the New Advent citation is the proof of my assertion. That’s why the Church forbade the Cup for many centuries; to assert that receiving the Sacred Host alone constitutes receivine the whole Christ, including his Blood.

 

[feargalmac]

I addressed nothing of the germs issue. What I referred to was the line of thinking that not receiving from the cup was “rejecting” Christ, and the New Advent citation is the proof of my assertion. That’s why the Church forbade the Cup for many centuries; to assert that receiving the Sacred Host alone constitutes receivine the whole Christ, including his Blood.

I’m starting to think the Church may have to go back to that. There are people out there saying, “I’m a better Catholic than you, because I receive under both species.” Is there an element of the sin of Pride involved?

 

[ac_claire]

I used to receive from the Chalice most of the time when it was offered at a mass in the ordinary form. Because of what the CCC says about it:

…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. (1390)

Obviously this is a moot point when I attend the TLM.

However…I recently went back to receiving the Host on the tongue only, even at OF masses.

Since I started doing that again, I have to say it’s now somehow awkward for me to then go and take the Chalice in my hands. It feels that way, anyhow. So nowadays I almost never receive the Blood even at an OF mass.

 

[Podo2005]

---

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

of course you do…

 

[Adonia]

My wife and I just became Eucharistic Ministers and at our first time serving we both got to give out the Precious Blood. I was so honored to do this, to be able to hold the cup in my hands. I like having both speices now, but I know this is not necessary. Our Lord is present in both, so all those years when we were just given the Body of Christ, He was truly present in the Host alone. I believe 1 Corinthians 11 v 26 helps explain this.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

this statement is simply not true, and if you are governing your spiritual life by this false assumption, you need to correct it, especially if you are teaching others. Whether we receive under form of consecrated bread or consecrated wine, the Body or the Precious Blood, we receive the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, truly and sacramentally present in the sacred species. There is no “rejection” involved.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well, while I fully acknowledge that every part of Christ is fully present in the bread, He did offer us both the bread and the wine . So it’s logical that there would be a benefit in receiving Him in both, seeing as He offered Himself in both. Even though He is fully present in each. However it works .

 

[Whdevo]

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:

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

Hi,

it is with the greatest of respect that I suggest that, when questions such as this arise, we might choose, firstly, to consult the most authoritative Word fo God, which is the Bible; and, therein, we read:

"Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. "

“Drink it all of you” … does this not, strictly speaking, state that the Sacrifice which is performed without the wine is, somehow, “deficient”

Please believe that I do not intend to judge or make any other evaluation of those who feel that, in receiving either the bread or the wine, the full Sacrifice iss conferred. Rather, I pose a question, in a genuine attempt better to understand my own understanding.

In peace,

God Bless

William

 

[Lief_Erikson]

this statement is simply not true, and if you are governing your spiritual life by this false assumption, you need to correct it, especially if you are teaching others. Whether we receive under form of consecrated bread or consecrated wine, the Body or the Precious Blood, we receive the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, truly and sacramentally present in the sacred species. There is no “rejection” involved.

Perhaps there was in Serap’s personal attitude, though? It is possible that on a personal level, he was “rejecting” the blood, even though most people who take only the bread do not do so with an attitude of rejecting the blood. Perhaps it was a personal thing involving Serap.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, while I fully acknowledge that every part of Christ is fully present in the bread, He did offer us both the bread and the wine . So it’s logical that there would be a benefit in receiving Him in both, seeing as He offered Himself in both. Even though He is fully present in each. However it works .

---

If you are starting down a path where you believe it is more beneficial to receive both species vs. one —I suggest that you reconsider.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m sure it’s fine to receive just one. For the last few days I’ve been just partaking of the bread because I’ve had a cold and don’t want to infect anybody. I love both the Bread and the Wine of Life.

Jesus did offer us both. For whatever reason . So it’s natural that there would be benefit to receiving both parts of what he offered rather than just one. Not that I’m saying we must, of course, or that our experience is in any way lacking if we don’t. Like I said, I don’t understand these things perfectly.

I’m not saying that the fullness of Christ is not in each part of the Eucharist, and I’d never say that. I don’t know why Jesus gave Himself as both wine and bread. He did, though!