Genuflecting, etc. before the Precious Blood

[maendem]

When I came into the Church, I was taught by the very devout monks who catechized me that it was technically incorrect to genuflect before receiving the Precious Blood at Mass, since one had already consumed the Body of Christ (to which one always makes a bow or genuflection). In other words, since the physical presence of Christ was already in one’s body, one did not need to gesture toward that presence externally in the Precious Blood, having become, in a sense, a “tabernacle” oneself.

The monks emphasized, of course, that one COULD make the gesture both times, since it is not possible to show too much respect for the Eucharist, but simply taught that the second genuflection was not necessary.

However: most orthodox Catholics I know gesture both times. What do people think?

 

[scylla]

Maybe not incorrect but not completely necessary.

But since one cannot make too much respect it is a matter of doing what is right. If you have a chance to respect Jesus more without doing it for prideful purposes then go ahead do it. It is always better to give more respect than just what you minimally can.

Now if I am incorrect in this feel free to correct me.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[tee_eff_em]

In the US, we are instructed to make a sign of reverence before receiving both the Body and the Blood, but the normative sign is a bow of the head, not a genuflection.

1. … When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

tee

 

[musicgal4jesus]

I usually bow either when I walk past the Precious Blood (if I did not receive it) or as I am standing in line to receive it. But I just do that out of personal habit… I think my parents taught me that.

 

[maendem]

In the US, we are instructed to make a sign of reverence before receiving both the Body and the Blood, but the normative sign is a bow of the head, not a genuflection.

tee

Thanks for the reference quote. The monks were not American, so that would explain the deviation.

 

[ltbpoe43]

I admire the monks but sometimes they overthink things just a bit. God Bless them.

If a sign of reverence is made genuinely from the heart and is indeed reverent and not prideful of self - how can it be a bad thing?

We bow before both species before receiving. My heart tells me to.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

When I came into the Church, I was taught by the very devout monks who catechized me that it was technically incorrect to genuflect before receiving the Precious Blood at Mass, since one had already consumed the Body of Christ (to which one always makes a bow or genuflection). In other words, since the physical presence of Christ was already in one’s body, one did not need to gesture toward that presence externally in the Precious Blood, having become, in a sense, a “tabernacle” oneself.

The monks emphasized, of course, that one COULD make the gesture both times, since it is not possible to show too much respect for the Eucharist, but simply taught that the second genuflection was not necessary.

However: most orthodox Catholics I know gesture both times. What do people think?

Well if I remember correctly the GIRM instructs that a bow of the head is done before receiving either the Host or Precious Blood. So therefore I bow before receiving both. A person should NOT genuflect when receiving standing up this is dangerous and could cause a fall.

 

[LilyM]

I genuflect before the Host, but because I don’t receive the Precious Blood I give a bow as I pass whoever is ministering the chalice.

If I received I’d also bow before I did so - simply because people are passing behind the line for the chalice and I’d trip 'em over if I genuflected.