Do you partake of the precious blood?

[Ruth_Catherine]

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.

Again, totally agree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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 think we’re overplaying with semantics here. If the OP asked if we receive the wine, people will jump all over him saying “its not wine, its the Precious Blood of our Lord!!!” And as already seen, the OP called it the Precious Blood, and people still jump over him.

Besides, the species of wine is always called the Precious Blood. That doesn’t deny the spiritual reality within. To call the bread/Host as Precious Blood is wrong.

 

[Brendan]

I think we’re overplaying with semantics here. If the OP asked if we receive the wine, people will jump all over him saying “its not wine, its the Precious Blood of our Lord!!!” And as already seen, the OP called it the Precious Blood, and people still jump over him.

Besides, the species of wine is always called the Precious Blood. That doesn’t deny the spiritual reality within. To call the bread/Host as Precious Blood is wrong.

Which is why I didn’t call it ‘bread’ or ‘wine’, but used the terms the Church uses, ‘the speices of bread’ etc…

The term ‘form of bread’ is likewise equally acceptable.

As far as calling the species of bread, "Precious Blood’ is not theologically wrong. For a Minister of Holy Communion to do so when offering that species would be an illict act in violation of the rubrics, but that term itself is not ‘wrong’.

It is a truthful description of the Substance of the species, and ‘truth’, by defintion, is not a ‘wrong’.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which is why I didn’t call it ‘bread’ or ‘wine’, but used the terms the Church uses, ‘the speices of bread’ etc…

The term ‘form of bread’ is likewise equally acceptable.

As far as calling the species of bread, "Precious Blood’ is not theologically wrong. For a Minister of Holy Communion to do so when offering that species would be an illict act in violation of the rubrics, but that term itself is not ‘wrong’.

It is a truthful description of the Substance of the species, and ‘truth’, by defintion, is not a ‘wrong’.

It is wrong in as much as it confuses people. Jesus didn’t raise the bread and said, “this is my Body, which also has my Blood, and also my soul and divinity”. Then did the same with the cup of wine. He said specifically “this is my body” referring to the bread, and “this is my blood” referring to the wine in the cup.

 

[lisahiku]

no, too many mouths on the cup for my liking.

 

[NewsTheMan]

no, too many mouths on the cup for my liking.

Do you receive at a Catholic Mass? I only ask because your religion is listed as “other” (though you may have a reason for that). If you’re not Catholic [and/or don’t believe in transubstantiation and/or in a state of mortal sin] you shouldn’t be receiving.

To answer the question:

Brendans excellent posts notwithstanding, my answer is no. Three reasons in order:

1. I don’t like receiving from EMHC as it only encourages the abuse.
2. Too many people think that you have to receive the Precious Blood to receive all the graces
3. I don’t want to get into the habit of thinking that recieving the Precious Blood is ‘owed’ to me.

 

[catholictiger]

I use to not now I do

my reasons before were just my family didn’t ever partake in the precious blood, so it just rubbed off on me. I just recently started to partake of the precious blood.

The only time I will not partake in it from now on is when I may be sick and I don’t want to spread the virus.

 

[jps23430]

I go up and receive the host and then when I pass the cup, I stop, bow my head and then continue on my way. I have already received both the body and blood when I received the host and don’t feel the need to receive it again, so I just make a sign of reverence to the cup and walk on.

At a parish near me that still does the Latin mass, the priest dips the host in the blood and puts it in your mouth.

 

[catholictiger]

1. I don’t like receiving from EMHC as it only encourages the abuse.

what if a priest is the one giving out the precious blood?

I’m just interested to see what your answer is

2

) Too many people think that you have to receive the Precious Blood to receive all the graces

that is understandable

1. I don’t want to get into the habit of thinking that recieving the Precious Blood is ‘owed’ to me.

the eucharist isn’t owed to you either don’t you avoid that habit as well.

I just want to see what your thoughts are on my questions, not trying to say your reasons for not receiving is incorrect.

 

[NewsTheMan]

what if a priest is the one giving out the precious blood?

If it were a priest or deacon, gladly. In fact, if it were an EMHC in the true sense [that is, once in a while when absolutely necessary], then I would probably do it too.

the eucharist isn’t owed to you either don’t you avoid that habit as well.

I phrased it badly. Receiving the Precious Blood isn’t the ‘norm’ and many places don’t do it. Since I am only at my University parish for a while more…

 

[catholictiger]

If it were a priest or deacon, gladly. In fact, if it were an EMHC in the true sense [that is, once in a while when absolutely necessary], then I would probably do it too.

I phrased it badly. Receiving the Precious Blood isn’t the ‘norm’ and many places don’t do it. Since I am only at my University parish for a while more…

that makes sense, and I agree with the positions you hold.

the things is at the seminary we have priests who have the precious blood, and if its not them its a seminarian. I don’t know about the rules for amount of EMHC so I can’t comment on that.

 

[mellowcalico]

My church is pretty large and doesn’t offer it. But my mom’s church does. I tried taking it a few times, I had to take some time to watch and see how you are supposed to receive it first as it wasn’t part of First Holy Communion and no Church I ever attended offered the Precious Blood. Once I figured out what to do, I accepted the Precious Blood. \

But the last two times I received it, there was chewed Precious Body floating in it. The first time I thought it was a fluke and tried to take a little sip and avoid drinking the Body that someone else had half eaten–but I gagged none the less. The second time I decided I wasn’t going to receive the Precious Blood anymore because I just can’t drink it with Precious Body floating in it and I would feel weird handing back the chalice after not drinking.

 

[lisahiku]

My church is pretty large and doesn’t offer it. But my mom’s church does. I tried taking it a few times, I had to take some time to watch and see how you are supposed to receive it first as it wasn’t part of First Holy Communion and no Church I ever attended offered the Precious Blood. Once I figured out what to do, I accepted the Precious Blood. \

But the last two times I received it, there was chewed Precious Body floating in it. The first time I thought it was a fluke and tried to take a little sip and avoid drinking the Body that someone else had half eaten–but I gagged none the less. The second time I decided I wasn’t going to receive the Precious Blood anymore because I just can’t drink it with Precious Body floating in it and I would feel weird handing back the chalice after not drinking.

Like I said, too many mouths for my liking. This just reiterates it even more how unsanitary the PROCESS (not precious blood) is.

 

[Phemie]

My church is pretty large and doesn’t offer it. But my mom’s church does. I tried taking it a few times, I had to take some time to watch and see how you are supposed to receive it first as it wasn’t part of First Holy Communion and no Church I ever attended offered the Precious Blood. Once I figured out what to do, I accepted the Precious Blood. \

But the last two times I received it, there was chewed Precious Body floating in it. The first time I thought it was a fluke and tried to take a little sip and avoid drinking the Body that someone else had half eaten–but I gagged none the less. The second time I decided I wasn’t going to receive the Precious Blood anymore because I just can’t drink it with Precious Body floating in it and I would feel weird handing back the chalice after not drinking.

Are you sure it was chewed Host? The priest does drop a piece of Host in the chalice (some put a piece in each chalice), and once it’s been floating in the Precious Blood it has the appearance of having been chewed.

 

[JerrySeibert]

Both when available as some parishes offer weekly and others do not in my area. And depending on work schedule determines where I go to Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is supposed to be a flake of Host in the Chalice. The celebrant breaks a tiny piece off and drops it in. You’ll notice it if you watch when he does the fraction rite.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

There is supposed to be a flake of Host in the Chalice. The celebrant breaks a tiny piece off and drops it in. You’ll notice it if you watch when he does the fraction rite.

I’m asking because I don’t know. The chalice that he drops the host in, is that cup shared or does it stay on the altar for the priest only?

 

[freddo]

But the last two times I received it, there was chewed Precious Body floating in it. The first time I thought it was a fluke and tried to take a little sip and avoid drinking the Body that someone else had half eaten–but I gagged none the less. The second time I decided I wasn’t going to receive the Precious Blood anymore because I just can’t drink it with Precious Body floating in it and I would feel weird handing back the chalice after not drinking.

lol, my husband thought the same thing, but as others have said, the priest puts it in. I’m pretty sure he puts a piece in each chalice.

I do not receive the blood, because I think that the idea of taking a sip out of the same cup as a whole bunch of other people is gross. When I was an altar server and EMHC I did, because I was one of the first and knew everybody who sipped before I did.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m asking because I don’t know. The chalice that he drops the host in, is that cup shared or does it stay on the altar for the priest only?

In all the masses I’ve been to, the celebrant’s chalice has been distributed to the laity as well.

I have no idea if there is ever an occasion where he can consecrate two other chalices so that only he receives the Blood from the [third] chalice with the piece of Host in it.

So yes, I think it is common for priests to distribute the “Hosted” chalice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In all the masses I’ve been to, the celebrant’s chalice has been distributed to the laity as well.

I have no idea if there is ever an occasion where he can consecrate two other chalices so that only he receives the Blood from the [third] chalice with the piece of Host in it.

So yes, I think it is common for priests to distribute the “Hosted” chalice.

I asked this question not too long ago and I think the priest is required to place a piece of the Host in the chalice where he will receive the Precious Blood from. Some priests will put a Host in all chalices if there is more than one. But from what I was told, he only had to do it on His chalice.