Do you accept the Blood of Christ?

[puzzleannie]

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

m

the sacrifice is not “performed” without wine, ever, both bread and wine are required as valid matter for Eucharist, which is confected (not performed) by the priest, ordained as successors to the apostles who were the recipients if this orgininal command, in every Mass w/o exception, where the priest does, as he must, consume both. It is not required and never has been that the faithful do so.

 

[bilop]

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

Kolbelover,

If your parish is pouring out the excess precious blood (even into the sacrarium) that is a serious abuse.

Any extra Precious Blood must be consumed, at the altar, by the priests, deacons, and EMHCs.

You should speak to your pastor about this.

God Bless

 

[Whdevo]

the sacrifice is not “performed” without wine, ever, both bread and wine are required as valid matter for Eucharist, which is confected (not performed) by the priest, ordained as successors to the apostles who were the recipients if this orgininal command, in every Mass w/o exception, where the priest does, as he must, consume both. It is not required and never has been that the faithful do so.

Hi,

I would thank you for your most enlightening correction, but would, nonetheless, ask you the question: Is the premise/question I have put just the same, no matter whether the “right words” have been used?

(And, I would advise that I used the word “performed” deliberately, because it might be seen that the reception of only a part of a Sacrifice, if accepted as rendering participation “deficient”, means that the Sacrament is, indeed, not “confected”, (and, yes, I made a typographical error here … tiredness can do that …), but, rather “performed”.)

Look first to understand, and not to criticise, I would suggest, since criticism without understanding is a trap for the unwary, and leads only to obfuscation.

In closing, I would re-pose my initial question …

Best wishes and

God Bless

William

 

[Whdevo]

It is not required and never has been that the faithful do so.

Hi again,

and, in response to this point, could it not be argued that, in the Bible quotation I have previously referred to, Jesus Christ Himself “required” that it be done?

God Bless

William

 

[SMHW]

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. ".

I would offer this answer:

It is necessary that the bishop/priest partake of both the host and the cup. So every Mass follows both the words and actions of Jesus.

But while the Catholic Church holds the Scriptures in high esteem, she also reserves the right to interpret the Scriptures. It has long been Catholic doctrine (not tradition, small “t”, but doctrine) that Christ is wholly present under either species. The faithful in attendance at Mass follow the admonition of Christ even if they do not receive both species,

 

[Whdevo]

I would offer this answer:

It is necessary that the bishop/priest partake of both the host and the cup. So every Mass follows both the words and actions of Jesus.

But while the Catholic Church holds the Scriptures in high esteem, she also reserves the right to interpret the Scriptures. It has long been Catholic doctrine (not tradition, small “t”, but doctrine) that Christ is wholly present under either species. The faithful in attendance at Mass follow the admonition of Christ even if they do not receive both species,

HI,

Then I am moved to ask the question: if it seems that the Words of Jesus Christ Himself are in conflict with the Catholic “doctrine”, then what do we accept as truth?

Is not to accept the latter in favour of the former, tantamount to accepting that what man has interpreted can have more importance than what Jesus Christ himself specifically directed?

I seek not to be obstinate, but, rather, to understand … but will not relinquish my own God given gifts of reasoning and the power to discern …

Again, with best wishes,

God Bless

William

 

[PatienceAndLove]

HI,

Then I am moved to ask the question: if it seems that the Words of Jesus Christ Himself are in conflict with the Catholic “doctrine”, then what do we accept as truth?

Is not to accept the latter in favour of the former, tantamount to accepting that what man has interpreted can have more importance than what Jesus Christ himself specifically directed?

I seek not to be obstinate, but, rather, to understand … but will not relinquish my own God given gifts of reasoning and the power to discern …

Again, with best wishes,

God Bless

William

My ability to argue this theologically is limited, so please bear with me

We believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is present in both the Body and the Blood of Christ, correct?

If this is so, than recieving either one of the other, exclusively, still provides the recipient with the whole of Christ.

Remember that when Christ was giving the Last Supper, He was fulfilling many parts of Jewish pascal tradition. The body of the Lamb was burned as offering, the blood collected also (and remember the the Blood of the Lamb was placed on the lentils of the homes of the Isrealites during the Exodus). So- in giving both His Body and His Blood to the disciples, He was fulfilling the Pascal Sacrifice. Both of these “symbols” (bear with me on this for the moment) were needed to intensify Christ’s standing as not only the High Priest, but the Pascal Lamb (at this point, Peter has already told us that Christ is the Son of God). So yes, the “symbols” of both the Body and Blood are more intense when we recieve under both species, but the Sacrifice is fulfilled even if we only recieve under one species.

Additionally, remember that Eucharistic Miracles have shown that the the Body and the Blood are united. Hosts have bleed, etc…

I hope that all of that made sense. Like I said, not totally able to argue Theologically, yet.

 

[Whdevo]

My ability to argue this theologically is limited, so please bear with me

We believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is present in both the Body and the Blood of Christ, correct?

If this is so, than recieving either one of the other, exclusively, still provides the recipient with the whole of Christ.

Remember that when Christ was giving the Last Supper, He was fulfilling many parts of Jewish pascal tradition. The body of the Lamb was burned as offering, the blood collected also (and remember the the Blood of the Lamb was placed on the lentils of the homes of the Isrealites during the Exodus). So- in giving both His Body and His Blood to the disciples, He was fulfilling the Pascal Sacrifice. Both of these “symbols” (bear with me on this for the moment) were needed to intensify Christ’s standing as not only the High Priest, but the Pascal Lamb (at this point, Peter has already told us that Christ is the Son of God). So yes, the “symbols” of both the Body and Blood are more intense when we recieve under both species, but the Sacrifice is fulfilled even if we only recieve under one species.

Additionally, remember that Eucharistic Miracles have shown that the the Body and the Blood are united. Hosts have bleed, etc…

I hope that all of that made sense. Like I said, not totally able to argue Theologically, yet.

Hi,

thank you most kindly for your response, I appreciate it.

Having reconsidered, and looked into the matter a bit deeper, in the light of your comment, I was moved to to accept your explanation (particularly since in Luke, Jesus tells us to “do this in memory” of Him after having broken the bread, and then goes on to the “cup”…)

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

But, then, looking further into The Gospel of John, and also at the Gospel of Luke ad the Epistle to the Corinthians it seems that they say differently …

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
John 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
John 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

(now, this quotation only partially answers the question for me … because, although it says “drink this blood”, it does not, after the drinking of the cup, say “do this in memory of me”, whereas, the next quotation does support …, but not in the “strongest” of ways).

Corinthians I 11:25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

In such a confusing situation, is it not correct to turn to the Word of God in the Bible, and try to understand what God is saying to us therein?

Of course, is it not acceptable to have the opinion of others as “guidance”, but not, maybe, the same to treat their “guidance” in “blind Faith” (I say this, feeling that the only “thing” in which I believe I am able to have “Blind Faith” is in the matter of the existence and goodness (if He can have any attributes) of God.

The rest of the Faith I hold is “reasoned Faith”, and, as such, I am responsible to myself and my God for how I put my conscience’s understanding into action.

(After all, is it not for my actions, no matter how motivated or whence informed, that I shall be asked to answer on the Day of Judgement, and how tragic would it be for me to find that I am rejected, because the excuse:

“But he/she/it told me to do it, or that it was right”,

in the face of the answer

“Ah, but I told you too, and put it right all in one Book for your convenience and salvation. Why did you not do what I told you to do (I always told you, also, that you would come before Me to answer for how you reacted in the face of my revealed Word)?”

At the end of the day, then, and based on what you have said and my own knoiwledge and reason, I am of the opinion that what you suggest is probably correct.

Again, I would thank you for your reply, and also would say that, as you have substantiated in your own posting, the ability to argue “theologically”, I believe, need not prevent one coming to one’s own conclusion about what is one’s very personal relationship with God.

Rather, I believe, it is mine to have some knowledge of the subject, but, more than that, to listen to my own “concience” and accept the guidance that comes thencefrom, together with any other guidance which “resonnates” with it, and all in the earnest hope that, calling upon the assistance and guidance of God, I will come to the right conclusion.

In this case, I accept (at least at the moment … and only because I am continually trying to understand, and I do not accept blindly, except that God is, and His Goodness) your explanation and thank you most kindly for it.

With Best Wishes

God Bless

William

God Bless

William

P.S. I am aware that I might seem to "ramble in
my respomses if that is the case, I apologize … I am merely trying to ascertain the truth behind this life I am experiencing, and never am deliberately disrespectful, or dismissive, or unnecessarily contradicting of the sincerely held opinions of others …

Thank you again

William

 

[LordNecro]

Not when I’ve got a cold!
Like today!

 

[ethelzguy]

If both are offered, I recieve both. Who am I to reject the Precious Blood?

 

[valient_Lucy]

I accept the Precious Blood of Christ whenever it is offered, because, as other posters have pointed out, the sacrament is both the outward sign and the grace of God. The sign is more complete when both are received.

However, I do not receive the Blood of Christ when I feel I am becoming ill. And I agree with the other poster, that it is uncharitable to look down on those to whose practice differs from our own. I am sure that people who only receive the Host have valid physical or religious reasons not to do so, and I don’t even pay attention to who receives under both signs and who receives under one sign.

 

[redrosetea]

I can recall a time when all that was offered was the host, and not the wine, when we went to communion

 

[LilyM]

The rest of the Faith I hold is “reasoned Faith”, and, as such, I am responsible to myself and my God for how I put my conscience’s understanding into action.

(After all, is it not for my actions, no matter how motivated or whence informed, that I shall be asked to answer on the Day of Judgement, and how tragic would it be for me to find that I am rejected, because the excuse:

“But he/she/it told me to do it, or that it was right”,

in the face of the answer

“Ah, but I told you too, and put it right all in one Book for your convenience and salvation. Why did you not do what I told you to do (I always told you, also, that you would come before Me to answer for how you reacted in the face of my revealed Word)?”

At the end of the day, then, and based on what you have said and my own knoiwledge and reason, I am of the opinion that what you suggest is probably correct.

Again, I would thank you for your reply, and also would say that, as you have substantiated in your own posting, the ability to argue “theologically”, I believe, need not prevent one coming to one’s own conclusion about what is one’s very personal relationship with God.

Rather, I believe, it is mine to have some knowledge of the subject, but, more than that, to listen to my own “concience” and accept the guidance that comes thencefrom, together with any other guidance which “resonnates” with it, and all in the earnest hope that, calling upon the assistance and guidance of God, I will come to the right conclusion.

In this case, I accept (at least at the moment … and only because I am continually trying to understand, and I do not accept blindly, except that God is, and His Goodness) your explanation and thank you most kindly for it.

With Best Wishes

God Bless

William

God Bless

William

P.S. I am aware that I might seem to "ramble in
my respomses if that is the case, I apologize … I am merely trying to ascertain the truth behind this life I am experiencing, and never am deliberately disrespectful, or dismissive, or unnecessarily contradicting of the sincerely held opinions of others …

Thank you again

William

But it’s not a case of “he/she told me” in opposition to “Christ said” … Christ said to the Apostles ‘who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me’, in other words that He speaks through them. So when an Apostle taught you, it WAS Christ teaching you.

Now the Apostles had all the authority to bind and loose heaven, given to them by Christ Himself. They taught, using that authority, that the office of the Apostles was to continue beyond their own lifetimes and their own persons - why otherwise appoint Matthias to fill the place left vacant by Judas?

And Matthias and other successors to the Apostles, appointed by them through their God-given authority, had exactly the same office, with all its powers and prerogatives, as the Apostles themselves. And they in turn appointed successors through that same authority, in unbroken succession on down to our day.

Now God did no such thing as ‘put it all down in a book for our convenience’. What a ludicrous notion - it basically damns all those who cannot read, and all those who believed in Christ before a single word of the NT was written. And certainly many of those who lived in the centuries before, at the end of the 300s AD, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage made a definitive list of which writings WERE scriptural and which weren’t.

Before then you had Christians, in good faith but wrongly, treating the Didache or the Letters of Clement as scriptural (reading them out in church alongside the Gospels, for example) - so where does your idea leave them, since they believed in false scripture?

Your logic also ignores the many passages in Scripture itself that indicate that it is INcomplete. ‘If all the things Christ said and did were to be written down, the world itself could not contain the books’ - but who would dare to assert that a single thing Christ did or said was unimportant, or unnecessary for our salvation? And does Paul not say, in Timothy, that the CHURCH, not scripture, is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?

Those successors to the Apostles, with all the same authority and prerogatives, today are the Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church. So when THEY ‘tell us’ something, as magisterial teaching, it IS Christ telling us! There simply is no dichotomy between the two.

And we DON’T have any option to disagree with their Magisterial teaching (although we can disagree with their private actions as Peter did with those of Paul) - any more than the scribes and Pharisees had any option to disagree with the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. We either accept or reject, there’s no option for reservations or private consciences when Christ speaks - either in person or through His Apostles and their successors.

 

[estesbob]

I have not recieved from the cup in nearly 23 years. As a recovering alchoholic I never saw a reson to do so-to be honest I can say I dont miss it do nor do I think I am missing something by not partaking in it.

 

[benedictgal]

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

True, William, but, what perhaps the OP didn’t quite understand, or, at least, how I interpreted the question to mean was that there is a misunderstanding that we are not receiving the complete and whole Christ if we are not consuing the Blood of Christ as well.

Remember, too, that we are receiving Christ in his glorified body. At the Last Supper, the consecration of the elements are separate indicating that when the body and blood of Christ are separate, it is in anticipation of the death of the Lord. When body and blood separate, death insues. When the body and blood are reunited, as in the case of the resurrection (and when the priest places a fraction of the body of our Lord into the chalice containing his blood, we receiving the glorified, living body of Christ. Therefore, the whole and complete Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are contained in either species.

 

[Whdevo]

But it’s not a case of “he/she told me” in opposition to “Christ said” … Christ said to the Apostles ‘who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me’, in other words that He speaks through them. So when an Apostle taught you, it WAS Christ teaching you.

.

Hi,

thanks for having taken the time to respond …

I shall respond paragraph at a time ;-

In paragraph one, you state that “Christ said to the Apostles 'Who hears you …”

In the Gospel, we read that Jesus said:

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

However, we must be attentive to the actual text,and not to inaccurate repetitions of it (for whatever reason) before we can come to a true understanding of what the text ACTUALLY refers to …

And, so using our reasoning and discernment, we look at the next surrounding verses for clarification … the next verse says:

Luke 10:17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” …

“The seventy”? Again, we must look at the other verses to discern the truth of the premise put (which, here, of course, is that “Christ said to the Apostles…”) …

If we, then go to the start of the Verse, we read:

Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.

There’s the “seventy” again …

Reading the whole verse, we find that Jesus appointed 35 pairs of followers to precede Him into the towns in which he was to preach and to prepare the way. He gave them certain instructions and he gave them certain assurances, among which was “Who hears you … etc.”

So, Jesus did not, apparently, then speak the words you attribute to Him to the Apostles.

What is said of their “powers”, however, is:

Matthew 10:1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.

And I have been unable to ascertain wherein, in the Bible (the written Word of God) it is written that “as an Apostle taught you, it WAS Christ teaching you”

Your first paragraph, then would seem to have been built up misconstruction, but it was also an excellent opportunity for me to illustrate practically the effects of “taking another’s word for it” when it comes to the Word of God.

(Again, I would iterate that I firmly believe that: “but I took such and such’s word for it” will suffice in mitigation…, and I believe that it is my duty to myself and my God that I do whatever to ascertain the truth, since only in the truth do I truly know how to follow Him, and all the better being aware that there are many potholes along the way.)

Best Wishes, and God Bless

William

 

[Whdevo]

Now the Apostles had all the authority to bind and loose heaven, …as to fill the place left vacant by Judas?
.

Hi, again,

I am not familiar enough with the position of Mathias to offer a point of view …

“God did no such thing … basically damns all those who cannot read …”

What happened with Moses and the Israelites?

Didn’t Moses come down from the Mountain with the Law WRITTEN in tablets of stone?

Could the Israelites read???

Although we are not specificall told in the Bible, the Bibe does assure us that:

Acts 14:16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways;
Acts 14:17 yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

God is never without witness in this world, but his witness is intelligible to all … and that does not necessarily mean that its only revelation throughout all time wil be by book, and nor, indeed did I state or imply that).

Its just that the form of which I treat is a book.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us:

The Reformed Churches were unanimous in declaring the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. “We believe that the only rule and standard by which all dogmas and all doctors are to be weighed and judged, is nothing else but the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments” (Form. Concordiae, 1577).

And, under Rule of Faith:

The Rule of Faith
tt=76
The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible;

Th Bible (The Word of God), I understand to be The Rule of Faith, whereas, again, I understand, The Church is, among other things, the Deposit of Faith.

So, perhaps my allusion to the Bible is not so “ludicrous” at all …

“…where does your idea leave them, since they believed in false scripture”? you ask…

Well, once again, I see your contrary points only proving complimentary to my premise …

You see, if there was once something that was accepted by the whole Church and it is now no longer accepted, there must have been a mistake somewhere along the way at one point (and I say this as a matter of fact, and not in the least to be disparaging).

All the more reason, then, for checking for ourselves … or do you think when these Christians who were misled by the mistake and are thus “condemned” for their mistake, that God will let them off because they did or believed what they did or believed at the behest of some perceived higher authority???

I do not think so …

You relate to “many passages in Scripture that indicate that it is incomplete”… so, am I to take it that Catholics believe that The Bible (the Word of God) is “incomplete”?

I would be interested to be able to examining references to this in the Scripture …

I made no suggestion that “a single thing Christ said or did was unimportant …” Nothing like it, indeed, and specifically becauseI believe the exact opposite.

In your statement from Timothy, referring to, I presume,

Timothy I 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Again, I feel that you make my point ,since, if we care to look at the function of a Pillar or a Bulwark …

A pillar “supports” and a bulwark “defends”, and we are therefore being told that th Church both supports and defends the Truth, and wherein is the Truth contained other than in the Bible (the Word of God … The Rule of Faith)?

Again, as to “Bishops and Popes” and “when they tell us it is Christ telling us”, and that we “DON’T have any option to disagree with their Magisterial teaching…”, I believe that this premise is “misguided”.

By its dictate, once the Magisterial teaching has been pronounced, there being no “option to disagree”, it could never be changed, since nobody could ever 'gainthnk it, let alone 'gainsay it.

We must remember that even the most “enlightened” souls on this earth are necessarily “imperfect” …

What, again, I would ask you about the various Anti-Popes that there have been???

The list of questions could be endless, but, in the end, I still feel that you have actually made my point, which is that to use his God given power of reason and discernment in all things, is not only desireable, but is a duty incumbent.

And, just for the record, if you read the Pharisaic teachings (and I mean purely for information,I am not “canvassing” for them…), you will find many of them broadly similar to those of Jesus Christ (in fact, such is the similarity, that I know of more than one book suggesting that Jesus Christ was a Pharisee himself … again, this is not a theory for which I imply support, I merely report its existence.

I am sorry that my post irked you, but I hope now that you see my position is not quite so “ludicrous” after all.

With best wishes and

God Bless

William

 

[Whdevo]

True, William, but, what perhaps the OP didn’t quite understand, or, at least, how I interpreted the question to mean was that there is a misunderstanding that we are not receiving the complete and whole Christ if we are not consuing the Blood of Christ as well.

Remember, too, that we are receiving Christ in his glorified body. At the Last Supper, the consecration of the elements are separate indicating that when the body and blood of Christ are separate, it is in anticipation of the death of the Lord. When body and blood separate, death insues. When the body and blood are reunited, as in the case of the resurrection (and when the priest places a fraction of the body of our Lord into the chalice containing his blood, we receiving the glorified, living body of Christ. Therefore, the whole and complete Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are contained in either species.

Hi,

I tend to feel disposed toward your position, remembering the impression I retain from the Roman Catholic Catechism in primary school, some forty-eight years ago …

I had initially posted, wondering about the perceptions people hold of the Scriptural position …

Thank you for your kind attention, and

God Bless

William

 

[redrosetea]

William if I might reply to this part of your post

Again, I would iterate that I firmly believe that: “but I took such and such’s word for it” will suffice in mitigation…, and I believe that it is my duty to myself and my God that I do whatever to ascertain the truth, since only in the truth do I truly know how to follow Him, and all the better being aware that there are many potholes along the way.)

You seem to go around in a circle once again… Catholics must trust 3 things

Scripture…but it is defined for us by the magerium…and tradition

You are using scripture alone…WE are not taking the word of just anyone…We are taking the word of the Church, as defined by the Pope and Bishops

We are looking to what tradition taught before there was a bible…remember there was no bible for about 400 years until St Jerome translated it and the canon was chosen

You are not looking at the big picture…You are interpreting for yourself…and this is why you seem lost in my opinion

 

[PJM]

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.

Reply:

Point one. You coun’t catch anything God does not entend for you to catch.

Point two: this is the teaching of the RCC…

Our Catecehism teaches:
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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

point three, I will only take the Blood of Christ from an priest or deacon.

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.