Do you accept the Blood of Christ?

[Whdevo]

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

Hi again,

Firstly, I would thank you for your patience, and for having taken the time to reply.

It may be helpful if I clarify a thing or two …

Firstly, although I do treat the Bible, as the written Word of God to be primary, and that upon which all the Church’s teachings are founded (I understand that to have been what was decided when the One Holy Catholic an Apostolic Church was “instigated” (if that’s the right word …), I do not “discount” the teachings of the Church, or of others (and, indeed, I make it my business to familiarise myself with as many of them as I am able, in my quest for understanding of “what is”)

I respect the vastly superior knowledge that many of the “instructors” of the Church have to mine, and have varying degrees of confidence in their “instructions”.

But, at the end of the day, I feel I can only put my full and complete confidence in God, and, I believe, God reveals Himself to me as His words resonate with my conscience and immortal soul.

And, I say this without the slightest intent of disparagement of any one, or any one’s beliefs or actions or pronouncements … , but, because I realise that we are all souls and, no matter how eminently qualified,well respected and, indeed, well wishing they may be, souls, being imperfect, can make mistakes.

And, again, when I say “any one” (above), neither is that meant in the way of “any person, willy, nilly, off the street”, but, rather literally).

I take all your points, and would agree with them, except the impression you seem to have that I look at things only from one angle … I only express my sincerely considered, and sincerely held beliefs, not with the intent of injuring others, but with the intent of better understanding, and, as always, you have given me much to muse upon.

You have my best wishes and continued gratitude for your patience and efforts onmy behalf,

God Bless

William

P.S. in the above quotation of mine, I meant, of course, to say: “Again, I would iterate that I firmly believe that: “but I took such and such’s word for it” will NOT suffice in mitigation…,”

W

 

[redrosetea]

William what would you have done before there was a bible?

How do you think the church survived for almost 400 years before the Church gave us one

Yes the church…what you are reading is given to us by the Catholic Church…

 

[benedictgal]

William what would you have done before there was a bible?

How do you think the church survived for almost 400 years before the Church gave us one

Yes the church…what you are reading is given to us by the Catholic Church…

We should remember that the Bible came out of the Church and not the other way around. Furthermore, two Church stands on two great pillars: Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

We are not Sola Scriptura. Our Traditions are just as valid because these are the teachings of the Apostles. In fact, the Didache, which contains some of the Church’s teachings on the Holy Eucharist. In fact, one of our venerable hymns, “Father, We Thank Thee Who Has Planted” is taken directly from the Didache. Furthermore, the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Sts. Ignatius of Atioch, Clement of Rome and others, have teachings on the Eucharist. Each indicated that the While and Complete Christ was contained in either species.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The Liturgy and Sacraments forum is not for debating the teachings of the Church, but for discussing how the Church does its liturgy and sacraments. If you wish to debate the teachings of the Church start a new thread, or find an existing one, in the Apologetics forum. Thank you everyone.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by porthos11
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
Reply:
Are you a Catholic? I will assume that you are. Do you accept the Church’s MANDATE from Jesus Himself to “teach the faith?”

Catholic Catecheism:
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.

If your not Catholic, or don’t accept the “Primacy of Peter” let me
know and I will prove that for you too.

God’s continued blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

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!

Reply:
Jesus indeed did offer “both.” Why? Because we receive the Body and the Blood and The Soul and the Divinity of Jesus Himself in Holy Communion.

Now why is it better to receive Christ in just the form of Bread?
Because the CCC tells us that it is the Sacred tradition of the Latin Rite. See CCC 1390 for verification, I have posted it mutiple times.

Why is this? First you should know that the World Wide Magisterium voted on both the issue of “Communion in the hand,” and “reception under both species.” BOTH were voted DOWN by a very large majority. Again I have posted this in the past with specifics.

Why? Because the early Church discovered through experience that the orgianl practice of reception under both Species, is a “fuller experience” BUT the practice had often lead to the Profination of Christ!

One can seem the same results today.

Also: The American Bishops gained an indult after the practice had already become a “comom practice” rooted in there disobedience to Rome, and the Magistrium.

The World Wide Bishops said NO to both, for very good reasons.
The recent Catecheism explains that Communion under Bread alone is the NORM for the Latin Rite. The CCC is a “current, valid and licit” instruction from Rome. In simple words it binds us to it’s teaching.

Why do you think Our Supreme Pontiff, in a very public manner now insist, if your going to receive Holy Communion from HIM, the successor of Christ on Earth, it WILL be in the form of BREAD only, you WILL kneel, and you Will receive Jesus on your tongue and not touch the Body of Christ? Might He be trying in charity to tell us something? Might he be trying in charity to correct a serious error?

Lets use the intellect God gave us and pray about what our Pope IS teaching!

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

Pray about it, and do the right thing

God continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[benedictgal]

I came across this quote “God and the World”, a book-length interview with the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. I believe that the Holy Father sums up the issue brought up by the OP:

The Eucharist is seen as the most sacred action in the world, carried out in the most sacred place in the world. The Body, the Blood, the Soul, and even the Godhead of Jesus, it is said, are present in this sacrament. Let me ask again, quite particularly: Is it true that a new miracle happens each day in this action? The transformation of bread and wine into flesh and blood – surely that can only be meant as a symbol.

**No. The Church believes firmly that the Risen One truly gives Himself here, wholly and entirely. To be sure, at various periods in the Church’s history there have, again and again, been disputes about this. The first great dispute cropped up in the early Middle Ages, the second in the sixteenth century. Luther held out in favor of transubstantiation here, with great emphasis, while Calvin and Zwingli, in their different ways, were in favor of a symbolic understanding, so that from this developed the great division within the Reformation movement.

While Luther, in any case, held the view that this presence of Christ was necessarily associated with the moment of the celebration, the Catholic Church believes that the presence of Christ within these gifts continues. For if bread and wine have truly been “transubstantiated”, that is, if the gifts of the earth have really become the gifts of the Lord, then the Lord has thereby irrevocably taken possession of them. And of course in our own century there has been renewed debate about this. But even if exegetes have found themselves divided on this question, nonetheless non-Catholic exegetes such as Käsemann have strongly defended the Real Presence. It is clearly stated and described, they say, in the words of Scripture themselves. And indeed, Scripture – and likewise the whole of the primitive tradition of the Church – is unequivocal: Christ does not just give us symbols; He truly gives Himself. That means that Communion is an encounter between one person and another. That Christ enters into me, and I may enter into Him.**
But anyone can see that the wine remains wine

But this is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives Himself in them.

To avoid confusion, what is in bold is the Holy Father’s answer. He also adds something that is germaine to the discussion at hand:

If, then, someone has received Christ in this way – how will this most Holy Sacrament then take effect upon a person? Or, at least, how might it take effect?

**There, too, we must leave aside all thought of what is miraculous and magical. This is a personal process. The Risen One, who is now present – the expression “Body and Blood” always refers to the entirety of the Incarnate Lord, who how continues to live in bodily form in the new world of the Resurrection – is not a thing. I don’t receive a piece of Christ. That would indeed be an absurdity, but this is a personal process. He Himself is giving Himself to me and wants to assimilate me into Himself.

Once, in a sort of vision, Augustine thought he heard these words: “Eat me; I am the bread of the strong”. Jesus is saying here that it is the opposite to how it is with ordinary food that your body assimilates. That food is lesser than you, so that it becomes part of your body. And in my case, it is the other way around: I assimilate you into me. I am the stronger; you will be assimilated into me. This is, as we said, a personal process. Man, if he abandons himself in receiving this, is, in his turn, received. He is made like Christ, made to resemble Christ. And that is what is really happening in Communion, that we allow ourselves to be drawn into Him, into His inner Communion, and are thus led finally into a state of inner resemblance.**

I hope that this helps further the discussion along.

 

[TBolt1000T]

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.

That doesn’t make any sense, considering what Christ commanded of us. He commanded that we eat his flesh, and drink his blood. Aren’t we breaking his commandment by not taking both the Host and the Blood? Please explain this to me.

 

[benedictgal]

That doesn’t make any sense, considering what Christ commanded of us. He commanded that we eat his flesh, and drink his blood. Aren’t we breaking his commandment by not taking both the Host and the Blood? Please explain this to me.

Josh, if you read the above quote from Pope Benedict, perhaps it might explai things a little clearer to you. Remember, too, that right before we receive Holy Communion, the priest places a piece of the Host into the Chalice. This reunites the body and blood of Christ thad had been separated at the moment of Consecration. Remember, when a body dies, flesh and blood are separated.

Therefore, when the priest performs this simple ritual, the comingling of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, we are, in fact, receiving the Body and Blood of the Living God. Christ is very much alive when we consume him. That is why, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, Christ is fully and completely present in either species.

 

[TBolt1000T]

Josh, if you read the above quote from Pope Benedict, perhaps it might explai things a little clearer to you. Remember, too, that right before we receive Holy Communion, the priest places a piece of the Host into the Chalice. This reunites the body and blood of Christ thad had been separated at the moment of Consecration. Remember, when a body dies, flesh and blood are separated.

Therefore, when the priest performs this simple ritual, the comingling of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, we are, in fact, receiving the Body and Blood of the Living God. Christ is very much alive when we consume him. That is why, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, Christ is fully and completely present in either species.

I’m still not fully understanding this, especially considering what Christ commanded of us on multiple occasions in scripture. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I’m simply saying that I just don’t understand, and I mean, I really and truely don’t understand. It seems to me that if you don’t receive both the Body and the Blood, that you’re breaking Christ’s commandment, which was stated multiple times in scripture, to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

I also have another question. I’ve heard that now, you can choose to either receive the Body of Christ on the hand, or on the tongue. This may be a stupid question, but if one receives the Body on the tongue, can they then receive the Blood? Also, is the pope teaching that we can no longer receive the Blood?

 

[Aramis]

I’m still not fully understanding this, especially considering what Christ commanded of us on multiple occasions in scripture. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I’m simply saying that I just don’t understand, and I mean, I really and truely don’t understand. It seems to me that if you don’t receive both the Body and the Blood, that you’re breaking Christ’s commandment, which was stated multiple times in scripture, to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

One of the councils declared that the fullness of the body and the blood is present in the species with the accidents of bread, and that the fullness is also present in the species with accidents of wine. Either, alone, is fullness for reception.

In Byzantine churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, infants are communed with the blood of Christ alone, but receive the fullness of both species in this act; as they grow older, the particles of the precious body are increased until the child is receiving just as an adult would.

In the Roman Church, typically only adults with celiac disease and some with various conditions making swallowing of solids hazardous are communed with only the precious blood. One fellow, his jaw wired shut, showed up for a daily mass where communion under both species was not normal; the priest went back to the altar to get the chalice for him to be communed.

I also have another question. I’ve heard that now, you can choose to either receive the Body of Christ on the hand, or on the tongue. This may be a stupid question, but if one receives the Body on the tongue, can they then receive the Blood?

Yes. You still (if you are physically capable of so doing) have to take the communion cup or chalice in hand to do so.

Also, is the pope teaching that we can no longer receive the Blood?

Nowhere that I’ve seen.

 

[TBolt1000T]

Thanks Aramis! These were major concerns of mine.

What do I do if I go to a NO mass, and only the Body is offered, but I want to receive the Blood also? Could I say something to the priest before mass? I’d rather receive both.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks Aramis! These were major concerns of mine.

What do I do if I go to a NO mass, and only the Body is offered, but I want to receive the Blood also? Could I say something to the priest before mass? I’d rather receive both.

I can understand your desire in wanting to communicate under both species; however, as Aramis and others have indicated, Christ is completely and fully present under both species. Therefore, if the priest in that particular parish decides that communion under the species of the Host is what his parish will do, that is perfectly acceptable.

Now, there is something else to factor into the situation: the number of communicants. If the number of communicants is of a significantly high number, then, administering the chalice is not a viable option. Please read what Redemptionis Sacramentum says with this regard:

102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

There is also another point to consider regarding the offering of the chalice:

It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187

That is a risk that many pastors do not and should not want to take.

 

[japhy]

What do I do if I go to a NO mass, and only the Body is offered, but I want to receive the Blood also? Could I say something to the priest before mass? I’d rather receive both.

Given the current rules about Communion under both kinds, I do not think it would not be proper to offer the Chalice only to some of the faithful. The Chalice should not be offered when a notable portion of the faithful choose not to receive from it.

And it’s really up to the priest (and his bishop) to determine when the Chalice is offered to the faithful.

And you don’t need to receive under both kinds. Not to say you have the wrong idea, but there have been heretics in the history of the Church who demanded Communion under both kinds and denied that Communion under the species of bread alone (or wine alone) was invalid. Christ is present, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, under the form of bread alone and under the form of wine alone.

 

[PJM]

I’m still not fully understanding this, especially considering what Christ commanded of us on multiple occasions in scripture. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I’m simply saying that I just don’t understand, and I mean, I really and truely don’t understand. It seems to me that if you don’t receive both the Body and the Blood, that you’re breaking Christ’s commandment, which was stated multiple times in scripture, to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

I also have another question. I’ve heard that now, you can choose to either receive the Body of Christ on the hand, or on the tongue. This may be a stupid question, but if one receives the Body on the tongue, can they then receive the Blood? Also, is the pope teaching that we can no longer receive the Blood?

Reply:

Not a dumb question at all. Thanks for asking. Yes, one may receive Jesus on the tongue, and also the Blood of Jesus under the appearance of wine. This has always been a valid option, but under only special conditions.

I’m delighted to hear that you are filmiliar with the bible. Way to go, and keep it up.

To answer your first querry, it might be good to began with Mt. Chapter 16: verses 14-20. Take special note that “I,” “you,” “my” and “church” are all singular. One cannot truthfully debate that Jesus desired to have only “one church,” nor that He made Peter the foundation and head of that church. The terms “to bind or to loose” at the time of Jesus, who was speaking to a Jewish audience at the time, were common Rabbitical terms that carried the weight of Law. He knew exactly what He was saying, exactly what auhority He was granting, and why.

So the Pope not only has “the right to teach,” but a MANDATE directly from the Son of God to do so. Jesus gives futher evidence of His entent by and through His Personal Merits, that a Papal teaching on matters of Faith and Morals, cannot, not only willnot, but cannot be in error.

The Church has alway’s understood that “the Entire Jesus,” Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, are in every single particle of the Sacred Host, and in every single drop of Christ Sacred Blood. Thus in receiving either or both, we still (and only) receive the now Glorified Body and Blood of Jesus ONE TIME.

The reason that our Vatican II Fathers rejected by a large margin, to authorize Holy Communion under Both Species, and also rejected to permit Hily Communion to be received in our hands, also by a large majority, is experience and history had proven that receiving Jesus only on our tongues in the form of the Sacred Host,was far less likely to be profaned our Blessed Lord and thus a more worthy way to receive Jesus.)

One should note futher that when Jesus said: “do this in memory of Me,” He, Jesus was speaking to His Apostles (now Bishops and the priest.) He was not speaking to lay folk as the vatican Council made speciffically clear. An indult was granted, after the practice had become “common practice,” and then only as “Extrodinary Ministers,” not the Ordinary ministers we have today, at every Mass and every day.

Hope this helps you?
God’s continued Blessings, keep asking!

PJM m.c.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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, I’m afraid to spill Him on my shirt. I receive the Precious Blood once or twice and it was just too scary and awkward.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks Aramis! These were major concerns of mine.

What do I do if I go to a NO mass, and only the Body is offered, but I want to receive the Blood also? Could I say something to the priest before mass? I’d rather receive both.

You accept that it is the way it is. If you have a good medical reason, such as celiac disease, wheat or gluten allergies, your jaw is wired shut, or you can’t swallow solids, then you let the priest know before mass, and it is up to the priest to make reasonable accommodations within the Law.

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the species of bread alone or, in accordance with the liturgical laws, under both species or, in case of necessity, even under the species of wine alone.

Unless you have one of those real medical needs, reception under the species of bread alone is still full communion with the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

If you have one of those medical needs, then reception under both is out anyway…

As an aside: The other option is to attend Byzantine or Coptic Rite liturgies… since intinction is the norm, and reception of one species alone is the exception, and is usually the precious blood… But then you have to deal with all the other issues of participation in a parish of a different rite.