Do you take the Blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Henricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Henricus

Guest
Hello, folks. I am new here but a lifelong Catholic.

When I was a kid, once I went through First Holy Communion in 1965, we only received the Body.

Then in the mid-1980s, I began seeing the Blood offered as well and I have availed myself ever since to what I believe is a fuller celebration of the Eucharist.

I have friends, however, who only receive the Body when both are offered.

Does anyone know the history of when the Church, or at least the one in America, a) settled on the Body as “the” Eucharist for the lay people, reserving the Blood for the priest alone? and b) relaxed this restriction and allowed the lay people to share the Blood as well?

One of my Body-only friends told me, “You don’t take the Blood.” Excuse me? Apparently there is a conservative element that still frowns on receiving both species even when the Church allows it.

Thanks for your info!

Henry
 
The Catechism of Trent confirms that lay people are only to receive the “bread” element while the Priest is the only one to receive under both species. As well, Priests then were the only ones who administired the consecrated bread.

However, I’m sure the most recent Catechism changed that all just by judging on how the Mass is today and I’ll let experts on that Catechism confirm that.
 
First remember that you can’t receive only the “Blood”. Body, Blood, soul and divinity are present in both species.

I am not an expert but this is what I have been taught.

The council of Trent restricted the reception of Communion under both species in order to surpress a heresy that the seperate elements were equivalent to seperating the Body from the Blood of Christ.

At the time of Vatican II it was determined that the danger of this heresy was no longer prevalent and the restrictions for Communion under both species were relaxed considerably. I do not think it has every been encouraged, however, as a regular daily or weekly occurance. In many US churches it is at every Mass but in Latin America, nearly never offered to the laity under both species.

I don’t think there is anything wrong wiht receiving under both species when offered. Many do not either because of conservatism, as you mentioned but also because of cultural upbringing or any number of other reasons.
 
The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity are wholly present in both species. Your misunderstanding of this is precisely why the Latin Church changed its discipline such that only Holy Communion was given to the laity in “one kind.” It was an attempt to hammer home a catechetical point. Another reason was that spilling the Precious Blood was a concern.

As for the history of Communion in both kinds and in one kind, see here. Obviously, it was originally in “both kinds.” What we have now is a return to that practice.

See here for a more detailed discussion:
Under Both KindsCATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Communion (1909)
 
Thanks, everyone. :tiphat:

And thanks, Dave, even though I think you misunderstood my “fuller celebration” as a misunderstanding.

I was talking about a fuller celebration with the priest, who always got to have both species. Not that one species is fuller than the other or both species fuller than one.

Anyway, I hope to learn much more about my faith here. And you can certainly keep posting to this thread.

Henry
 
Hi Henry,

The routine offering of both species is often linked to liturgical abuse.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum” states:

– The practice of Communion under both kinds for the entire congregation should be avoided when there is such a large number that “it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that ‘more than a reasonable quantity’” will remain to be consumed after Communion.

– In the practice of intinction, or receiving Communion under both kinds by dipping a host into the wine, “the communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. … It is altogether forbidden to use nonconsecrated bread or other matter.”

– “The pouring of the blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls or other vessels.” This instruction prohibits the widespread U.S. practice of placing one or more pitchers of wine on the altar before the consecration when Communion is to be distributed under both kinds, and then pouring that wine into chalices before Communion. A related instruction says there is no problem with placing multiple chalices filled with wine on the altar before the consecration, but for the sake of “sign value” the main chalice should be larger than the others.

Henry, there is no difference between receiving communion under one or both species.

The reason is this: When you receive either the Body or the Blood of Christ, you are not receiving from the body or blood of the dead Christ, (in death the body and blood separated); you receive Jesus in his resurrected, glorious body. His glorious body contains his humanity and his divinity. The body and the blood are not separated in Christ’s glorious body. That is why if you receive one, you receive the other. In the case of the Precious Body, you receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Similarly when you receive the Precious Blood, you receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. So in fact when you receive under both species, you are duplicating.
 
I sure do!

From the Anima Christi

…’ Body of Christ Save me…BLOOD of Christ inebriate me…

I am glad its offered…I couldnt fathom walking past that inebriating cup of blood and not drinking it!
 
Henricus,
I was talking about a fuller celebration with the priest
Click to expand...
Ah yes, in that sense you’re right. The Church encourages celebration under both kinds.

From Fr John Hardon:
According to the *Code of Canon Law, *“Holy Communion is to be given under the form of bread and wine or under both kinds in accord with the norm of the liturgical laws or even under the form of wine, alone in case of necessity” (Canon 925). The Second Vatican Council has encouraged the reception of Holy Communion under both forms. Yet since the Vatican Council, there have been various qualifications which limit the administration of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and wine. The reason for this restriction is the liability to abuse of the Blessed Sacrament where the whole congregation, at every Mass, would receive from the chalice. Not the least of these abuses is consecration of such an abundance of wine that a large quantity of the Precious Blood is left over after Mass. Sacrilegious disposition of the consecrated chalice is not uncommon in some places. As a result, the normal procedure is to restrict the reception of communion under both species only to special occasions, such as weddings or certain solemn feasts. Moreover, the priests may administer Holy Communion by intinction. Here they dip the consecrated Host into the chalice and say to the communicant, “The Body and Blood of Christ.”
Click to expand...
At our parish, I cannot remember when a Mass offered communion under only one kind. We have very little Precious Blood remaining in the chalices (sometime we run out), which is immediately consumed by the minister after Communion. I suppose we are just good guessers regarding the amount of wine to consecrate. 😉
 
I don’t because it guarantees that EHMC’s will be needed at evry Mass.
 
I take both species! I love taking the Body and I love taking the Blood. Even though they both are sufficient in themselves and both are equally Jesus, I feel like a *fuller *celebration when I take both.

F2R, just like you said, how could I walk by that wonderful cup?

Before I converted, I was a little worried about germs, but actually I’ve never worried about it since.

In my parish, probably less than 50% take the Blood as well as the Body; the majority of people seem to just pass by on their way back to their seats.
 
CCC

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.**”[222] This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. (MY BOLD)
 
I do on the Large Feast Days of the church, Easter, Christmas, Feasts of Our Lord and the Virgin Mary.

No reason other than those big days in the church are for us to celebrate and that is I guess you could say my way of celebrating. To receive both species.
Although I was taught the same as one of the other posters, we only ever received the body back in the 60’s so I guess that is why I have chosen to receive under both species on the large Feasts of the church.
 
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would refuse the Cup. IMHO, those who refuse would do so to Christ’s face were he to appear and offer it to them.

Pride comes in many forms.
 
Many would “refuse” (for lack of a better term) the cup because of earlier church tradition.
 
I receive both, the only time I will not recieve the Blood is if I have a cold, or if they run out.
 
40.png
otm:
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would refuse the Cup. IMHO, those who refuse would do so to Christ’s face were he to appear and offer it to them.

Pride comes in many forms.
Click to expand...
You have alot of nerve. Would you say the vast majority of Papal masses are in error because only the host is given? Would you say that the masses I have seen with both species where 75%-90% of Catholics only took the host are in error? Again, the Council fo Trent declaration that the body and blood are present in either species stands.
 
40.png
JNB:
You have alot of nerve. Would you say the vast majority of Papal masses are in error because only the host is given?
Click to expand...
I did not see him say that.
He did not speak of Masses where Eucharist is offered in one form only to the laity.

He spoke of those who refuse [to receive] the cup [when it is offered to the laity.]
Would you say that the masses I have seen with both species where 75%-90% of Catholics only took the host are in error?
Click to expand...
No, the Masses {where both species are distributed] are not in error.

I go by what the Church teaches and when I am offered Holy Eucharist under both forms, then I submit to the Church and I acccept Eucharist under both forms.
If those 75%-90% of Catholics who are refusing the cup are in error, is not for me to question. THEY must inquire if this is an error or not.
For me, I do not need to question. The Church provides, and I submit.
Again, the Council fo Trent declaration that the body and blood are present in either species stands.
Click to expand...
True.

And the Catholic Church offers Holy Eucharist under both forms to the laity.
 
When the eucharist is offered under both forms, there is no submission to do, it is the communicants choice to take either of the species, one can communicate under the form of blood only if they so choose to do so. The church does not require, much less insist that the communicant take both species. I know this will not sound charitable, but I have to say this, where do you people get this information from? Submission to the church means taking both species? Sorry, try again…
 
I used to but no longer. When I opened the fridge in the sacristry and saw that the sacramental wine we use is Sunset Blush from the Franzia vineyards, I questioned the validity of this wine. Is it unadulterated? Is is licit? I never got a straight answer so I prefer to abstain.

Micki
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top