Drinking BLOOD of Christ not Mandatory?

[East02West]

This is slightly related (Well not really…), but it makes me wonder how we theologized after the fact the banning of infants, and children before the age of reason reception of the Eucharist. The whole thing began with an unrelated discipline regarding those who had reached the age of reason, to partake of the sacrament of Penance, from then on, as they would be accountable for any serious sins committed. That had absolutely nothing to do with what we made it out to be thereafter in banning infants, children below the age of reason, and those with mental disabilities.

Just some food for thought.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

True, but also a body without blood is a dead body. So unless we believe the body of Christ is that of someone dead rather than one who is resurrected, then we really can’t believe that the body is bloodless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is slightly related (Well not really…), but it makes me wonder how we theologized after the fact the banning of infants, and children before the age of reason reception of the Eucharist. The whole thing began with an unrelated discipline regarding those who had reached the age of reason, to partake of the sacrament of Penance, from then on, as they would be accountable for any serious sins committed. That had absolutely nothing to do with what we made it out to be thereafter in banning infants, children below the age of reason, and those with mental disabilities.

Just some food for thought.

It is how sin and salvation is viewed East and West. In the East, we believe that sin has altered our very nature, so infants who are incapable of sin do need the Sacraments to heal them from the sickness of sin. In the West sin is seen as an offense, thus one who is below age of reason is incapable of committing it. Once an infant is baptized, they are in a state of grace that they do not lose until age of reason. Thus it is seen that there is no necessity to receive the Eucharist to sustain them in the fight against sin.

 

[Brendan]

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.

When you think of your body, or anyone’s body, do you mentally exclude their blood as well?

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

That’s called intinction. It can be done in a Catholic setting but I think only the priest can do that. Our first communion children received that way and the priest dipped the body into the blood and gave it to them.

You cannot receive communion as a Catholic in a Lutheran Church and visa versa.

 

[Irishgal49]

Unless you want eternal life

 

[Brendan]

Johnny,

Here is a pretty good description on the Totality of Presence

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2

 

[East02West]

It is how sin and salvation is viewed East and West. In the East, we believe that sin has altered our very nature, so infants who are incapable of sin do need the Sacraments to heal them from the sickness of sin. In the West sin is seen as an offense, thus one who is below age of reason is incapable of committing it. Once an infant is baptized, they are in a state of grace that they do not lose until age of reason. Thus it is seen that there is no necessity to receive the Eucharist to sustain them in the fight against sin.

But that is precisely what I’m referring to. We theologized it after the fact. For the first thousand years of Christianity East, and West, we all held a common practice regarding the Sacraments of Christian Initiation, and the reception of the Eucharist of those below the age of reason.

The only issue that came up, was about the host being possibly desecrated by an infant incapable of chewing. This however wasn’t much of a problem, given that they could still receive our Lord’s blood from the chalice. When the chalice came to be withheld in response to the Ultraquist heresy, so to did Infant communion etc.

We had distinct views on the sin of our First Parents early on, but we still retained a common practice between us both.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How was the Body and Blood consecrated before the schism?

 

[East02West]

How was the Body and Blood consecrated before the schism?

Is this in response to what I wrote ? If so, I don’t see how it follows.

What I stated is that prior to the Schism, both East, and West, communion under both forms was given to infants, in that we both observed the same disciplines as regards to the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. We theologized it after the fact, withdrawing the Eucharist from Infants, those below the age of reason, and the mentally disabled.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is this in response to what I wrote ? If so, I don’t see how it follows.

What I stated is that prior to the Schism, both East, and West, communion under both forms was given to infants, in that we both observed the same disciplines as regards to the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. We theologized it after the fact, withdrawing the Eucharist from Infants, those below the age of reason, and the mentally disabled.

No I was just wondering while the churchs were in communion exactly how this was done, the same East/West? I’ve read the first few hundred years in history but not right at the break. I see today also, I’m just looking at that snapshot in time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I found the link …sorry.

 

[ProVobis]

from the Catechism of Trent

Meaning of the Real Presence

Christ Whole And Entire Is Present In The Eucharist

Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of. Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the Godman, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity.

Presence In Virtue Of The Sacrament And In Virtue Of Concomitance

Pastors, however, should not fail to observe that in this Sacrament not all these things are contained after the same manner, or by the same power. Some things, we say, are present in virtue of the consecration; for as the words of consecration effect what they signify, sacred writers usually say that whatever the form expresses, is contained in the Sacrament by virtue of the Sacrament. Hence, could we suppose any one thing to be entirely separated from the rest, the Sacrament, they teach, would be found to contain solely what the form expresses and nothing more.

On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ’s body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be.

Christ Whole And Entire Present Under Each Species

Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.

But although these are matters on which the faithful cannot entertain a doubt, it was nevertheless wisely ordained that two distinct consecrations should take place. First, because they represent in a more lively manner the Passion of our Lord, in *which His blood was separated from His body; and hence in the form of consecration we commemorate the shedding of His blood. Secondly, since the Sacrament is to be used by us as the food and nourishment of our souls, it was most appropriate that it should be instituted as food and drink, two things which obviously constitute the complete sustenance of the (human) body.

Christ Whole And Entire Present In Every Part Of Each Species

Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.

This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you.

What has hitherto been said is intended to enable pastors to show that the true body and blood of Christ are contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

 

[johnnyjones]

When you think of your body, or anyone’s body, do you mentally exclude their blood as well?

Thats why I wrote, “You could say ones blood is in their body…”

But is it only “mentally?” I was questioning the physical presence of the blood being seemingly non equal with the body (flesh) as far as taking it into you as Christ stated.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Johnny, Christ’s words in the gospel (the consecration words) are said and the actions done only by the priest. The priest 'takes and eats" the Body and ‘takes and drinks’ the Blood, but WHEN the priest has consecrated the two, Body and Blood are together, both in each other.

Therefore the lay person NEED NOT eat the one and drink the other, because once the priest has consecrated, BOTH Body and Blood are together. That is why a person with celiac disease may partake of the Blood only, and receive BOTH body and blood, and the person who is alcoholic may partake of the Body only, and receive BOTH body and blood.

It is the priest who literally takes the symbol ‘eat the bread, drink the wine’ and consecrates the two into one, so that we may partake of either or both as is offered and as we will.

 

[johnnyjones]

So could it be said the priest symbolically drinks the blood since the mass makes the bread into both. Or, is it that the priest is the only one who is 'required" to imbibe both as a condition of the sacrifice, and those attending are drinking the blood symbolically.

 

[johnnyjones]

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. (which is not true)

For me, I think any confussion I had was with the actual words of Christ. Christ said," whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood", implying both as necessary. I do understand what you are saying though.

There was a time (early 70s) when I was a kid, that the priest would dip the host into a wine(blood) filled ring he had on his finger for those at the mass to receive both, giving at least the appearance that both were necessary. So, I may have a had a double whammy of confusion.

 

[Brendan]

For me, I think any confussion I had was with the actual words of Christ. Christ said," whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood", implying both as necessary. I do understand what you are saying though…

The clue is in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

What is present before us is the Substance of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Christ is living, His Flesh is alive, and His Blood courses through His veins. ’

What our senses experience is different from the actuality.

Our senses see Bread and Wine, while the reality is a whole living person.

In consuming this living person (Christ) we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That is the definiton of ‘drinking’, is it not, to consume that which is liquid.

Our senses do not experiece the reality of what we are doing, but the reality is there, nonetheless.

We eat His Flesh, we drink His Blood, even if our senses tell us otherwise. Just as our sense of sight sees only Bread, when the reality is different.

That is the nature of Transubstantiation. Our senses do not tell us what the reality is. But the reality is there nonetheless.

In addition, as Tantum mentioned. the Last Supper narrative gives commands that only apply to clergy ( the Apostles were clergy, bishops, at that point).

The Church understands that the instruction to “Do this in memory of me” is an instruction to offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which can only be done by priests and bishops. That instruction does not apply to us.

That is one of the reasons that the priest must always consume both species, but we cannot assume that the instruction to eat and drink, in the physical sense, must apply to the laity.

That position was condemned as the part of the heresy of Utraquism, with the true teaching of the Church articulated at Trent (see ProVobis’ post above)

 

[johnnyjones]

The clue is in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

What is present before us is the Substance of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Christ is living, His Flesh is alive, and His Blood courses through His veins. ’

What our senses experience is different from the actuality.

Our senses see Bread and Wine, while the reality is a whole living person.

In consuming this living person (Christ) we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That is the definiton of ‘drinking’, is it not, to consume that which is liquid.

Our senses do not experiece the reality of what we are doing, but the reality is there, nonetheless.

We eat His Flesh, we drink His Blood, even if our senses tell us otherwise. Just as our sense of sight sees only Bread, when the reality is different.

That is the nature of Transubstantiation. Our senses do not tell us what the reality is. But the reality is there nonetheless.

In addition, as Tantum mentioned. the Last Supper narrative gives commands that only apply to clergy ( the Apostles were clergy, bishops, at that point).

The Church understands that the instruction to “Do this in memory of me” is an instruction to offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which can only be done by priests and bishops. That instruction does not apply to us.

That is one of the reasons that the priest must always consume both species, but we cannot assume that the instruction to eat and drink, in the physical sense, must apply to the laity.

That position was condemned as the part of the heresy of Utraquism, with the true teaching of the Church articulated at Trent (see ProVobis’ post above)

I completely understand what you are saying and it makes sense. I also eluded to the idea (a post or two back) that it seems priests must take in both species. It is an interesting point that “do this in memory of me” does not apply to laity as in both species must be consumed. I never fully contemplated that concept.

 

[East02West]

I completely understand what you are saying and it makes sense. I also eluded to the idea (a post or two back) that it seems priests must take in both species. It is an interesting point that “do this in memory of me” does not apply to laity as in both species must be consumed. I never fully contemplated that concept.

Yet prior to the heresy of Ultraquism, it was common practice in the West. There are even older chalice sets that confirm the practice of intinction as having been practiced.

This is one such set:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_47.101.26-29.jpg