Eucharist

[Joseph651]

Hello All;
I am an Anglican at present, I am thinking about the one true Church and what it means to me. One of many questions I have is why during Eucharist you only receive the body of Christ and not the Blood?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually throughout Church history at times the cup has been available. For the last 40 years, many parishes have it available. Reception of both species constitutes a "fuller’ sign but one receives ‘all’ of Christ whether one receives the host (Body) only, the cup (Blood) only, or both. You don’t get ‘more God’ by receiving from both.

 

[Nominefili]

Hello All;
I am an Anglican at present, I am thinking about the one true Church and what it means to me. One of many questions I have is why during Eucharist you only receive the body of Christ and not the Blood?

I’m sure the Catholics on the board can answer better than I can, but as far as I know the reasoning originally was that the body contained the blood anyway. But not all Catholics commune in one kind, most commune in both. However recently with the swine flu thing some diocese are going back to one kind.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hello All;
I am an Anglican at present, I am thinking about the one true Church and what it means to me. One of many questions I have is why during Eucharist you only receive the body of Christ and not the Blood?

It depends on which parish you attend.

I’ve been Catholic for about 8 years and I rarely have been to a mass where both the body and blood aren’t offered.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m sure the Catholics on the board can answer better than I can, but as far as I know the reasoning originally was that the body contained the blood anyway. But not all Catholics commune in one kind, most commune in both.

As a Catholic, and not particularly well-travelled, I merely note that I have no idea whether *most *communicate both species, one species, or if it is too close to call.

(I shall also recommend reading: Are You an Utraquist?)

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

(I shall also recommend reading: Are You an Utraquist?)

tee

 

[twopekinguys]

Hello All;
I am an Anglican at present, I am thinking about the one true Church and what it means to me. One of many questions I have is why during Eucharist you only receive the body of Christ and not the Blood?

Part of the issue is purely logistical.

Since the precious blood cannot be reserved like the consecrated hosts, it is best not to consecrate too much at a particular mass. There is really no way in knowing what attendance will be at a particular Mass, and you don’t want a whole bunch left over which would have to be consumed by the clergy, or the emhc.

Also, the cup is not distributed at Masses with a large amount of children present, like a school Mass.

Another point is, that Christ is completely present in both species. He is there body, blood, soul and divinity, so by receiving just the host, you have received Jesus completely.

Someone else pointed out the the swine flu, and some restrictions that are in place right now. These restrictions are only temporary, and should be lifted once we are past the outbreak.

 

[Joseph651]

Thank you All for Your Answers;
When Jesus offered his Body as the Bread, and the Wine as his blood, I believe he is pointing out how important both were. When we receive only half of his command, which this is one of Jesus commands to us as when he commands us to pray to the father using the Lord Prayer, then I can not see how you can tell me that when you receive only his body you also receive his blood? I can’t believe that a priest can’t figure out how much wine to prepare for giving out the Eucharist, I have been in churches that fulfill the needs of the congregation with numbers into the hundreds.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, here’s the thing. Do you believe that you only get like half Jesus in the body (host) and half in the blood? I don’t think you really do, do you?

Jesus is glorified, right. That full, human AND divine body, isn’t ‘part’ body, ‘part’ blood. It’s all for all.

Now I’m sure y’all know that some people cannot consume the host (gluten) and some cannot consume the wine (alcoholics). . .but since Jesus is WHOLE (not a part), even the tiniest fraction of either species contains His totality. To think otherwise is to intimate that Christ is ‘fractions’ and that, to carry the analogy logically, somebody who gets a bigger piece of the host gets ‘more God’ and somebody who gets a bigger swallow of wine gets ‘more God’ than another. . .

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you All for Your Answers;
When Jesus offered his Body as the Bread, and the Wine as his blood, I believe he is pointing out how important both were. When we receive only half of his command, which this is one of Jesus commands to us as when he commands us to pray to the father using the Lord Prayer, then I can not see how you can tell me that when you receive only his body you also receive his blood? I can’t believe that a priest can’t figure out how much wine to prepare for giving out the Eucharist, I have been in churches that fulfill the needs of the congregation with numbers into the hundreds.

Putting aside practical considerations, in Catholic theology, each particle of consecrated bread and each drop of consecrated wine contain the entirety of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It’s not as though someone who receives half of a host only receives half of Jesus, or someone who takes a bigger sip from the cup receives more Jesus. You can’t get any more Jesus than Jesus, and Jesus is not divisible.

The Eucharist is a sacrament. Although the sign value of the sacrament lends itself to a host=Body, cup=Blood comparison, that’s not what’s going on theologically. It’s actually host=Body & Blood, cup=Body & Blood. Sacramentally, there is not a distinction between the two.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, here’s the thing. Do you believe that you only get like half Jesus in the body (host) and half in the blood? I don’t think you really do, do you?

Jesus is glorified, right. That full, human AND divine body, isn’t ‘part’ body, ‘part’ blood. It’s all for all.

Now I’m sure y’all know that some people cannot consume the host (gluten) and some cannot consume the wine (alcoholics). . .but since Jesus is WHOLE (not a part), even the tiniest fraction of either species contains His totality. To think otherwise is to intimate that Christ is ‘fractions’ and that, to carry the analogy logically, somebody who gets a bigger piece of the host gets ‘more God’ and somebody who gets a bigger swallow of wine gets ‘more God’ than another. . .

I guess we were typing at the same time. Ditto what Tantum ergo said.

 

[notacat]

It looks to me as if several popes have condemned the practice of taking only the bread.
For example Pope Gelasius I said, "We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons, without any doubt, since they are stated to feel thus bound by some superstitious reason, either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege” (Corp. Jur. Can. Decr. 3:11, 12)

 

[Newbie2]

It looks to me as if several popes have condemned the practice of taking only the bread.

  For example Pope Gelasius I said, "We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons, without any doubt, since they are stated to feel thus bound by some superstitious reason, either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege” (Corp. Jur. Can. Decr. 3:11, 12)

Actually, if you read closely, methinks that they’re condemning the “superstitious reason”.

 

[notacat]

Actually, if you read closely, methinks that they’re condemning the “superstitious reason”.

I think if you’ll reread it you will see that he’s speaking of the superstition of taking it in only one form.

Another quote from another pope is this one by Pope Paschal II, “Therefore, according to the same Cyprian: in receiving the Lord’s body and blood, let the Lord’s tradition be observed, nor let any departure be made, through human institution, from what Christ the Master ordained and did. For we know that the bread was given separately, and the wine was given separately, by the Lord Himself, which custom we therefore teach and command to be always observed in Holy Church, save in the case of infants and very infirm people, who cannot swallow bread.” (In a letter written to Pontious, Abbot of Cluny, referring to the teaching of St. Cyprian)

 

[Joe_5859]

It looks to me as if several popes have condemned the practice of taking only the bread.

  For example Pope Gelasius I said, "We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons, without any doubt, since they are stated to feel thus bound by some superstitious reason, either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege” (Corp. Jur. Can. Decr. 3:11, 12)

A quote straight from the pages of Boettner’s seminal (anti-Catholic) work “Roman Catholicism.” I haven’t been able to find any other source for that quote apart from Boettner.

In any case, this is what the Council of Trent has to say on the matter:

930 Thus, the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, [Isa. 11:2]. and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics not officiating are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation.
[source]

 

[notacat]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in its article about Pope Gelasius:
"A stanch upholder of the old traditions, Gelasius nevertheless [knew](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) when to make exceptions or modifications, such as his [decree](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) [obliging](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) the reception of the [Holy Eucharist](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) under both kinds. This was done as the only effective way of detecting the [Manichæans](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm), who, though present in [Rome](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) in large numbers, sought to divert attention from their hidden propaganda by feigning [Catholicism](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm). As they held wine to be impure and essentially [sinful](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), they would refuse the [chalice](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03561a.htm) and thus be recognized. Later, with the change of conditions, the old normal method of receiving [Holy Communion](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm) under the form of bread alone returned into vogue."

 

[Joseph651]

930 Thus, the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, [Isa. 11:2]. and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics not officiating are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation.

I do not understand how the holy Synod decided that their wisdom and understanding was above Jesus Christs teachings? Was this not a command that Christ gave his Apostles to do as I say? How can men of faith even with the holy spirit with-in them over ride a command by Jesus Christ? Are they trying to tell us that Jesus Christ changed his mind about the how we are to receive him when we partake in the Eucharist?

 

[PJM]

=Joseph651;5843174]Hello All;
I am an Anglican at present, I am thinking about the one true Church and what it means to me. One of many questions I have is why during Eucharist you only receive the body of Christ and not the Blood?

Friend whaile I am able to explain it, perhaps you’d be more comfortable with what the CC actually teaches?

**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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

**CCC 1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

**CCC 1376 **The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Given your training and education, you know doubt know that God “being every good thing Perfectly” can in fact do this IF He Wills it.

IF you’d like a more indepth explaination on precisely WHY God does such an incredible thing, let me know and I’ll be happy to at least try to supply the answer.

May our Blessed Lord Continue to Bless and guide you.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[MariaG]

930 Thus, the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, [Isa. 11:2]. and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics not officiating are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation.

I do not understand how the holy Synod decided that their wisdom and understanding was above Jesus Christs teachings? Was this not a command that Christ gave his Apostles to do as I say? How can men of faith even with the holy spirit with-in them over ride a command by Jesus Christ? Are they trying to tell us that Jesus Christ changed his mind about the how we are to receive him when we partake in the Eucharist?

I assumed this was a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church but when I looked it up I see I am mistaken. Could you please tell what document that is from, since it starts with the term THUS, one clearly needs to read what came before

 

[Joseph651]

Thank You Pat;
Because of my age, my brain takes alittle warming up. I think that my best bet would be to talk to a RC pastor and have it explained to me. I have printed your comment and will take with me and go over each answer as there are two different rite within the CC it seems. I am filled with the holy spirit when I partake in the Eucharistic Service, so this is vary important to me to get the full understanding.

Jesus said, take eat do this in the remembrance of me, he gave to them, and said, Drink this, all of you: This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this for the remembrance of me.

Therefore we proclaim the mystery of faith:

Praise God for Jesus Christ our savior and teacher.