Holy Communion in the Catholic Church

[peacecomfort]

According to WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? By Father Michael Azkoul

The Orthodox faithful receive both the “body” and “bl ood of Christ” in Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive only the “bread,” a wafer.

Is this true? If so, why don’t Catholics receive both the body and bl ood of Christ?

According to a document I found on the internet titled THE SEVEN SACRAMENTAL MYSTERIES
ACCORDING TO THE MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ANTIOCH which talks about how Holy Communion is given in a Maronite Catholic church compared to a Latin Catholic church

**Eucharist: THE DIVINE LITURGY

MARONITE**

Holy Communion is given under both
Species: Host dipped into the
Precious Bl ood and received on the
tongue (“intinction”)

LATIN

Holy Communion can be given under
both Species: Host in the hand or on
the tongue and drinking from the
Chalice

Anyway, if it is true that Roman Catholics don’t receive both the body and the bl ood of Christ, why don’t they receive both?

John 6:53-56

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His bl ood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My bl ood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My bl ood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My bl ood abides in Me, and I in him.

 

[Lujack]

Catholics receive both the Body and Blood of Christ. Regardless of what form (bread or wine or both) one receives under, both are fully present.

 

[benedictgal]

The Church teaches us that, as Lujack pointed out, we receive the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Sacred Host. While the documents of the Church indicate that receiving under both species would constitute a “fuller sign”, we receive the complete and whole Christ under either species.

This is what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in “Lauda Sion”:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
**yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be. **

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

Thus, I am not missing anything if I only receive our Lord in the Sacred Host. Furthermore, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the living Son of God whenever we receive Holy Communion. The Body and Blood are reunited when the celebrant places a piece of the Sacred Host into the Precious Blood. When someone is alive, the blood flows throughout the body. The reunion of the Body and Blood during the Communion Rite takes us to the moment of the Resurrection.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

According to WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? By Father Michael Azkoul

Is this true? If so, why don’t Catholics receive both the body and bl ood of Christ?

According to a document I found on the internet titled THE SEVEN SACRAMENTAL MYSTERIES
ACCORDING TO THE MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ANTIOCH which talks about how Holy Communion is given in a Maronite Catholic church compared to a Latin Catholic church

Anyway, if it is true that Roman Catholics don’t receive both the body and the bl ood of Christ, why don’t they receive both?

John 6:53-56

I don’t know where this Maronite Catholic Church was located but the Maronite Catholic Church I have attended here in the US there was no difference in the method of reception, between there and a Latin Rite parish.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t know where this Maronite Catholic Church was located but the Maronite Catholic Church I have attended here in the US there was no difference in the method of reception, between there and a Latin Rite parish.

Note that many Maronite parishes have adopted Latin ways. There is a concerted effort now to correct this anomaly and get them back to the proper Maronite forms.

This is also true of other Eastern Churches, but the Maronites seem to have the greatest problem. It may be due to their close association with the French Catholics in Lebanon.

 

[malphono]

Br. Rich SFO:

I don’t know where this Maronite Catholic Church was located but the Maronite Catholic Church I have attended here in the US there was no difference in the method of reception, between there and a Latin Rite parish.

Note that many Maronite parishes have adopted Latin ways. There is a concerted effort now to correct this anomaly and get them back to the proper Maronite forms.

This is also true of other Eastern Churches, but the Maronites seem to have the greatest problem. It may be due to their close association with the French Catholics in Lebanon.

BTW, intinction is an accepted, if relatively uncommon, form of distributing communion in the Latin Rite OF as well.

Not that it makes any difference, but the linked article was written by a US-born Maronite priest who was on loan for a while to the Maronite Eparchy of Australia.

This really isn’t the proper forum to discuss the matter, but it has been common practice among Maronites in the US to distribute communion by intinction for at least 35 years. It may not be absolutely universal, but it is the most commonly employed method. The use of intinction has spread widely among the Maronites, and is now similarly used in Canada, Australia, and to the Patriarchal Territories. (I have no personal knowledge of what is done elsewhere, but I presume the same method is used there as well.)

Yes, there was a certain amount of “Latinization” among the Maronites, but the same was equally (if not more so) true of the Syro-Malabars. The Chaldeans also accepted a great degree of “Latinization” although it was perhaps less pronounced to the casual observer. Anyway, among the Maronites, the old-style “Latinizations” really had nothing to do with France, but they had everything to do with Rome.

What you call a “concerted effort now to correct this anomaly” is not quite what one might think. What there has been is the introduction of an ongoing series of true anomalies, thanks to the the “Novus Ordo-inspired school of neo-Lainization.”

 

[peacecomfort]

Thanks for all your replies everyone

 

[peacecomfort]

Thanks everyone for all your helpful responses.

Catholics receive both the Body and Bl ood of Christ. Regardless of what form (bread or wine or both) one receives under, both are fully present.

The Church teaches us that, as Lujack pointed out, we receive the entire Christ, Body, Bl ood, Soul and Divinity, in the Sacred Host. While the documents of the Church indicate that receiving under both species would constitute a “fuller sign”, we receive the complete and whole Christ under either species.

This is what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in “Lauda Sion”:
Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense ;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Bl ood from wine,
**yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be. **

I was wondering if someone could quote me an official Catholic document (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that states that Catholics receive both the Body and Bl ood of Christ, regardless of what form (bread or wine or both) one receives under, both are fully present?

 

[japhy]

I was wondering if someone could quote me an official Catholic document … that states that Catholics receive both the Body and Blood of Christ, regardless of what form … one receives under, both are fully present?

I’ll quote you the current Catechism and the Council of Trent.
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. (CCC 1390)

This has always been the belief of the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body and the true blood of our Lord, together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of bread and wine, the body under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine ex vi verborum; but the same body also under the form of wine and the same blood under the form of bread and the soul under both, in virtue of that natural connection and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ the Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are mutually united; also the divinity on account of its admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul. Wherefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either form as under both. For Christ is whole and entire under the form of bread and under any part of that form; likewise the whole Christ is present under the form of wine and under all its parts. (Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 3)

 

[FrDavid96]

According to WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? By Father Michael Azkoul

Is this true? If so, why don’t Catholics receive both the body and bl ood of Christ?

According to a document I found on the internet titled THE SEVEN SACRAMENTAL MYSTERIES
ACCORDING TO THE MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ANTIOCH which talks about how Holy Communion is given in a Maronite Catholic church compared to a Latin Catholic church

Anyway, if it is true that Roman Catholics don’t receive both the body and the bl ood of Christ, why don’t they receive both?

John 6:53-56

Peacecomfort,
I can’t help but wonder why you seem to be intentionally typing “bl ood” in reference to the Blood of Christ?