Drinking BLOOD of Christ not Mandatory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyjones
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnnyjones

Guest
Christ said unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh…

Drinking from the chalice at communion seems optional. If it is, why is that the case because I thought we needed to imbibe both the body and blood of Christ as per Christs instructions. Personally I rarely drink from the chalice because alcohol had been a long time foe of mine, but when moved to do so I have. Of course many others chose not to drink as well.
 
JJ,

Receiving either species is sacramentally the same as receiving both. Customarily only the Precious Body was received by the faithful at Mass.

From the Baltimore Catechism #3:
Q. 881. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the form of bread and under the form of wine?
Click to expand...
A. Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the form of bread and under the form of wine.
Click to expand...
 
I recall when AIDS first became big news. Some Catholics would not take the wine because they were afraid they could catch the disease . I Never did believe that you could get AIDS from the blood of Christ.
 
When you receive either species of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist you receive our Lord entirely Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Within the Sacred Host no longer ordinary bread you receive Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

Within the Precious Blood no longer ordinary wine you receive Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Only the priest celebrant and con-celebrants if any must communicate both species of the Holy Eucharist for a Valid Mass.

Receiving both species by the laity is a fuller symbol but is not necessary nor mandatory. We receive Christ wholly in either the Sacred Hosts and Precious Blood.
 
The more posts like this I read, the more I’m convinced it’s time to return to receiving under one species.
 
In my wife’s Lutheran church the parishoners receive their host then deep it themselves in the wine. This does make sense to me.

But I have never gone up for communion in her church.
 
johnnyjones said:
Christ said unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh…

Drinking from the chalice at communion seems optional. If it is, why is that the case because I thought we needed to imbibe both the body and blood of Christ as per Christs instructions. Personally I rarely drink from the chalice because alcohol had been a long time foe of mine, but when moved to do so I have. Of course many others chose not to drink as well.
Click to expand...
You’ll probably hear this from just about everybody, but both species (the Blood and the Body) are not ‘separate’ in that the chalice does not contain the Blood only, and not the Body, and the Host does not contain the Body only, and not the Blood. Both Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, are found totally within EITHER species.

If the option is there, receiving both the species is a fuller sign, but not a more COMPLETE sign. One need receive only one of the species to receive the ENTIRE Lord.

Many places do not have the option, and I’m beginning to see that it might be good for many to go back to only receiving the Host, as people are beginning to get confused into thinking that Christ is in two separate bits and that if you do not ‘get’ both, you’re only getting partial Jesus. :eek: (which is not true)
 
The reason the host and the chalice are both the Body and Blood of Christ is because the sacrifice is complete. Jesus’ body and blood were separated at the Passion, and His Resurrection reunited them. Jesus lives and reigns, so that when we eat His flesh, we also drink His blood in the same moment.
 
Spirithound said:
Receiving Holy Communion at all is not mandatory.
Click to expand...
That’s true outside Easter time, but if you don’t, it’s like going to a person’s house, watching them make you a cake and then saying “nah, I’m not hungry” once they’re done baking it.
 
Rich_C said:
JJ,

Receiving either species is sacramentally the same as receiving both. Customarily only the Precious Body was received by the faithful at Mass.
Click to expand...
Well, since the 13th Century - before then reception was almost always in both kinds.
 
wondrousgnat said:
In my wife’s Lutheran church the parishoners receive their host then deep it themselves in the wine.
Click to expand...
That’s probably because of their strong belief in consubstantiation, where the consecrated Bread is still bread (and the Flesh only) and the consecrated Wine is still wine (and the Blood only).
 
To the OP, this is known as the Utraquist heresy and derives from Nestorianism.

I believe that around the Council of Trent, it was decided to only offer Holy Communion under the species of bread, in order to prove that this heresy was incorrect. So for hundreds of years people received the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ under one form only. It is only through the reforms of Vatican II that both species have been returned to all the faithful in the Mass, as “a fuller sign”.
 
"JJ,

Receiving either species is sacramentally the same as receiving both. Customarily only the Precious Body was received by the faithful at Mass."

The withdrawal of the chalice from the laity, was solely a disciplinary measure in response to the heresy of Ultraquism, that for some reason or another came to be normative after the fact.
 
It’s not for me to “argue” but it surprises me somewhat that the body of Christ means the blood as well. You could say ones blood is in their body but Christ gave a command making a distinction between the two.
 
johnnyjones said:
It’s not for me to “argue” but it surprises me somewhat that the body of Christ means the blood as well. You could say ones blood is in their body but Christ gave a command making a distinction between the two.
Click to expand...
In the Mass, the distinction allows the priest to mystically recall the crucifixion by two separate consecrations (Christ’s Body and Blood separated).

But since Our Lord lives, He cannot really be separated like that because it implies death.

At least that’s the best this layman can explain it. I wish I could quote a proper source at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top