Do you partake of the precious blood?

[Anna_Claire]

Ruth Catherine, your reasoning is very weak. The host can be dropped or contaminated in more than one way as well. It’s wrong to be overly concerned about contamination,irreverence or spillage than the importance of the more fuller sign which is to obey the command of Christ to eat and drink.

 

[Corki]

Ruth Catherine, your reasoning is very weak. The host can be dropped or contaminated in more than one way as well. It’s wrong to be overly concerned about contamination,irreverence or spillage than the importance of the more fuller sign which is to obey the command of Christ to eat and drink.

But it is even more wrong to believe that that fuller sign somehow makes receiving under the species of wine a better way to receive Communion.

 

[A_G]

I took the precious blood of Christ when I got married just recently during our wedding Mass, and I’m really happy I did. Before that, I do not recall ever partaking in the blood. Whenever the Eucharist would be offered, most people would take the bread, and immediately go pray or sit back down. Since most people would just take the bread and then pass over the line with the chalice, I would do it also. Basically, this was a psychological thing for me I guess. Since most people would only take the bread and sit down, I would do the same even though I really wanted to partake in the blood also.

Since most people only take the body, and the Church teaches that His body and blood are not separated, then this is ok. If you recieve the bread, that satisfies the blood and vice versa.

I really want to participate more in the precious blood in the future. In Matthew 26:27, it says… “And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.” (Douay-Rheims Bible).

 

[Anna_Claire]

But it is even more wrong to believe that that fuller sign somehow makes receiving under the species of wine a better way to receive Communion.

NO IT IS NoT!!! It’s sad that you believe that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes. Always. Except when I’m in an RC parish because its not normally offered in the RC parishes here.

 

[Corki]

NO IT IS NoT!!! It’s sad that you believe that.

I don’t believe that but there are quite a few people who have expressed this opinon. Take a look at either of the long threads on Communion under one vs both species. Especially in the US, where Communion under both kinds is much more common, it is not rare to find people who believe that there is something “less” when receiving under just the one kind. It’s a failure in catechesis, IMHO.

 

[Anna_Claire]

I…it is not rare to find people who believe that there is something “less” when receiving under just the one kind. It’s a failure in catechesis, IMHO.

You see…there lies the problem…I did not say it is “less” …it is so much better to drink His Blood.

More on this later when I have the time.

 

[SMHW]

I don’t believe that but there are quite a few people who have expressed this opinon. Take a look at either of the long threads on Communion under one vs both species. Especially in the US, where Communion under both kinds is much more common, it is not rare to find people who believe that there is something “less” when receiving under just the one kind. It’s a failure in catechesis, IMHO.

No matter what the Church teaches there will be some people who perceive things incorrectly. It might be due to poor catechesis or it might be some other reason.

While it’s hardly an adequate analogy I think that this is sort of like the smells and bells discussions we often get here. The “fuller sign” of receiving under both species has some of the same elements as the use of incense and sanctuary bells. Some people crave certain experiential aspects of the liturgy and and have no particular interest in others.

 

[Te_Deum]

Christ commanded us to “take and eat…take and drink.”

You are drinking His Blood when you consume Him under the species of bread. As both species contain the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, you are both eating and drinking when you consume either species alone.

It’s wrong to be overly concerned about contamination,irreverence or spillage than the importance of the more fuller sign

Nothing is more important. We’re dealing the substantial reality of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There can be no laxity regarding the protection of the Most Holy Eucharist. Especially not so someone can get a better visual sense of the mystery. Some things are more important.

which is to obey the command of Christ to eat and drink.

You drink when you consume Him under the species of bread. You eat Him when you consume under the species of wine.

 

[Corki]

You see…there lies the problem…I did not say it is “less” …it is so much better to drink His Blood.

But we do partake in the Precious Blood even if we receive only the species of the host.

It is **not better **to receive Communion under both kinds. It is simply a fuller sign. Fuller does not mean better. It does not confer more grace, it is not better Sacramentally, it is not better liturgically. It may be “better” for you on a personal, emotional level.

The opposite of “better” is “worse”. It most certainly isn’t worse to receive Communion under one kind. There are many parishes, dioceses and whole countries where Communion is very rarely offered under both species. If this was somehow “worse” or “less” it would be prohibited or at least discouraged. It’s not. In fact, the opposite is true. The Church cautions against offering the cup at every Mass.

The opposite of “fuller” is not “less” at least when talking about the sign value of Communion. It is only a matter of how our senses experience the Sacrament the same way the choice of music or vestments or the style of the altarware does. It’s a liturgical option that might be nice to use for some occassions. For many parishes or dioceses, the best way to use this option is to offer the cup only for very special occassions.

 

[Brendan]

Yes I do, and so does everyone else on this thread.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to recieve a single species of the Blessed Sacrament and NOT recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ fully and completely.

The Precious Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ is fully present, even in the form of the smallest crumb of the species of bread.

 

[Te_Deum]

Yes I do, and so does everyone else on this thread.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to recieve a single species of the Blessed Sacrament and NOT recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ fully and completely.

The Precious Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ is fully present, even in the form of the smallest crumb of the species of bread.

I think the OP was asking about the species of wine .

 

[Brendan]

You see…there lies the problem…I did not say it is “less” …it is so much better to drink His Blood. .

Anna, as Te Deum pointed out, we drink His Blood, even if we partake of only the species of bread.

The species of bread has, as it’s Substance, the whole, complete, living Body and Blood of Christ.

So even though our eyes do not percive the flesh and blood before us, that IS what is truely present. They see only what looks like bread.

And likewise, even though our mouths do not percieve the drinking of his Precious Blood, that is what is happening when the Host is placed into our mouths.

We both eat and drink, even if our senses tell us otherwise.

Your statement really betrays a lack of understanding on the nature of Transubstantiation.

 

[Brendan]

I think the OP was asking about the species of wine .

I understand that, but that was not what the OP asked.

That is the fundamental problem I see with both species being offered, it actually reduces the understanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

Far too many people think of the two species as being different in a way that they are really not.

They are the same thing, or really the same ‘someone’, just under a different appearence to our senses, nothing more.

 

[Te_Deum]

I understand that, but that was not what the OP asked.

That is the fundamental problem I see with both species being offered, it actually reduces the understanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

Far too many people think of the two species as being different in a way that they are really not.

They are the same thing, or really the same ‘someone’, just under a different appearence to our senses, nothing more.

Completely agree.

 

[KarenElissa]

I usually do, if it’s offered. In our parish we don’t always have an EMHC available, particularly at the Saturday evening Mass, so when that happens the Precious Blood is not offered.

If it’s not offered, I don’t miss it but if it’s available I can’t see myself not receiving unless I’m not feeling well. The Precious Blood is there and I won’t walk past and refuse to partake.

I’m with Phemie. If it is offered, I receive, I just don’t see any reason not to. But, I’m also not one to throw a fit if it isn’t offered.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

Ruth Catherine, your reasoning is very weak. The host can be dropped or contaminated in more than one way as well. It’s wrong to be overly concerned about contamination,irreverence or spillage than the importance of the more fuller sign which is to obey the command of Christ to eat and drink.

Hi Anna, I have to disagree with you. If a host is dropped it can be easily picked up and I have seen that happen. If the blood spills it is soaked into a carpet.

Also, as so many others have said we all obey the command to eat and drink every time we take the host, because the host is the body, “the blood,” soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. You are making it sound as if those who don’t take the cup are not receiving the blood of Christ and they are or we are somehow being disobedient and we are not. Everytime I take the host I take the blood, also. During the week one of the parishes I attend doesn’t even offer the cup. Am I not drinking the blood then? I am! My mother attended a parish that never offered the cup. She, still received the blood of Christ every single time. In ages past every time people took the host they drank of the blood of Christ.

I, also want to repost this from the GIRM:

1. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it, are made aware by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.[105]

I, also receive the host on the tongue and I feel the body and blood of Jesus should be handled by a priest or deacon.

 

[MissRose73]

I do when at the OF Mass, but I do not if I have a cold/flu symptom.

When I go to the EF Mass, it is not offered to the laity.

 

[jimrob]

The Catholic Church teaches that following consecration, Jesus Christ is truly present in body, blood, soul and divinity in every part of the Sacred Elements.

In my church, we usually have Holy Communion under both kinds. After I have received the host, I usually also take Holy Communion from the chalice and feel myself twice blessed. If I find that there is a crush because of a queue of people waiting for the chalice, I pass it by to help restore dignity to the occasion, but I have still fully received Jesus Christ

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

I understand that, but that was not what the OP asked.

That is the fundamental problem I see with both species being offered, it actually reduces the understanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

Far too many people think of the two species as being different in a way that they are really not.

They are the same thing, or really the same ‘someone’, just under a different appearence to our senses, nothing more.

I totally agree. This is so true.