How many people understand the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterMuz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PeterMuz

Guest
So I was sitting in mass the other day after communion and this thought came to my mind. I was watching people receive the Body and then get in line to receive the Blood and I wonder how many of those people think they received “more” Jesus than someone who receives just the Body or just the Blood. There was a time where people would go to communion multiple times a day because they thought they received “more” Jesus. The Church corrected this and thus the rule that you should only receive once a day, except under certain circumstances.

Does anyone else ever think about this, or is it just me? I guess I just do not see a need to have both at every Mass. Maybe if someone cannot receive one form they could receive the other.

I think by having both the Body and the Blood either enforces the idea that you are receiving “more” Jesus or the idea that the Eucharist is a symbol, which I know is not true.

Any thoughts?

*If anyone wants to discuss whether or not the Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ, please do it in another thread. I just want to know if anyone else thinks about these things. Thanks
 
PeterMuz,

No I never wondered whether or not people thought they must take both species in order to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus.

For those that do this, perhaps the following will help:

Let’s start with the four Gospels. Nowhere, that I could find, does it say that we should drink this cup “in remembrance of me”. Neither Matthew or Mark says “In remembrance of me” at all when taking the bread and the cup. John does not even mention the Eucharist (bread) or the Cup at the Last Supper, even though John’s comments on the Last Supper are the longest of all the Gospels. Luke does have Jesus saying the words “do this in memory of Me.” when he said “This is My body which is given for you”. However when He took the cup He did not use these words.

So as far as the four Gospels go, as I understand it (humbly speaking), no where does it say that Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me when He took the cup. Is this telling us that taking the cup (consecrated wine) is not as important as taking the consecrated bread, which Jesus refers to as His body?

Now let’s move on to 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Paul tells us that Jesus did say “In remembrance of me” when He took the bread “and” the cup. This is the only place in Scripture where I could find where Jesus said to take this bread and take this cup in remembrance of Him.

But now, concerning the taking of one or both species at Communion, skip down to verse 27. Here Paul says “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR (my caps) drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND (my caps) blood of the Lord.” Do these words “OR” and “AND” here mean that we do have a choice? I believe so. I surmise from this statement that if we only eat the consecrated bread, OR drink only the cup, we will have taken the body and blood of Jesus; but if we take either one in an unworthy manner, we will be guilty of taking both the body and blood in serious violation of Jesus’ teachings.

My humble and non-educated opinion on the above paragraph tells me that by taking either the consecrated bread, OR the consecrated wine, we do, in fact, receive the BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus Christ. (This is what the church teaches us also).

By the way, in case some of you noticed, at Mass the words “This is my body which ‘is for all‘” is said while Scripture uses the words “that is for you” (1 Cor 11:24). Although the words “all” or “you” are different, they mean the same. They are synonymous.
 
SeanTom said:
My humble and non-educated opinion on the above paragraph tells me that by taking either the consecrated bread, OR the consecrated wine, we do, in fact, receive the BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus Christ. (This is what the church teaches us also).
Click to expand...
Exactly, that was my point. I wonder if people realize that or if it has been forgotten by many Catholics.
 
Try not to worry about it.It’s not really helpful to look at other people and make assumptions about their faith. If it comes up in a conversation of some kind then make the church teaching known. The main reason why people receive that way is because the church offers it . Many receive both for the fuller sign value that the church acknowledges.
 
I had mentioned in another thread about this subject that I only received the Body of Christ. Someone came on and said that was fine as long as I had a good reason.
 
SeanTom said:
PeterMuz,

No I never wondered whether or not people thought they must take both species in order to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus.

For those that do this, perhaps the following will help:

Let’s start with the four Gospels. Nowhere, that I could find, does it say that we should drink this cup “in remembrance of me”. Neither Matthew or Mark says “In remembrance of me” at all when taking the bread and the cup. John does not even mention the Eucharist (bread) or the Cup at the Last Supper, even though John’s comments on the Last Supper are the longest of all the Gospels. Luke does have Jesus saying the words “do this in memory of Me.” when he said “This is My body which is given for you”. However when He took the cup He did not use these words.

So as far as the four Gospels go, as I understand it (humbly speaking), no where does it say that Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me when He took the cup. Is this telling us that taking the cup (consecrated wine) is not as important as taking the consecrated bread, which Jesus refers to as His body?

Now let’s move on to 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Paul tells us that Jesus did say “In remembrance of me” when He took the bread “and” the cup. This is the only place in Scripture where I could find where Jesus said to take this bread and take this cup in remembrance of Him.

But now, concerning the taking of one or both species at Communion, skip down to verse 27. Here Paul says “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR (my caps) drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND (my caps) blood of the Lord.” Do these words “OR” and “AND” here mean that we do have a choice? I believe so. I surmise from this statement that if we only eat the consecrated bread, OR drink only the cup, we will have taken the body and blood of Jesus; but if we take either one in an unworthy manner, we will be guilty of taking both the body and blood in serious violation of Jesus’ teachings.

My humble and non-educated opinion on the above paragraph tells me that by taking either the consecrated bread, OR the consecrated wine, we do, in fact, receive the BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus Christ. (This is what the church teaches us also).

By the way, in case some of you noticed, at Mass the words “This is my body which ‘is for all‘” is said while Scripture uses the words “that is for you” (1 Cor 11:24). Although the words “all” or “you” are different, they mean the same. They are synonymous.
Click to expand...
cough John ch. 6 cough
 
Seatuck said:
Try not to worry about it.It’s not really helpful to look at other people and make assumptions about their faith. If it comes up in a conversation of some kind then make the church teaching known. The main reason why people receive that way is because the church offers it . Many receive both for the fuller sign value that the church acknowledges.
Click to expand...
That’s what I do. I’ll take it a step further, I get annoyed w. the people that take the eucharist, & BOLT out the door before we’re finished kneeling & take our seats again. The mass is ended when the mass is ended. If you bolt out the door BEFORE the “mass is ended”, our priest says, you havent fulfilled your obligation. That’s my 2c.
 
Just a thought… In John 6:50-55, Jesus talks several times about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you.

Yes, receiving either the blood or the body is acceptable… But that little passage leads me to want to receive both.
 
Will_B said:
Just a thought… In John 6:50-55, Jesus talks several times about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you.

Yes, receiving either the blood or the body is acceptable… But that little passage leads me to want to receive both.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I think this is the way I feel also. That passage was impressed upon my mind very, very strongly when I started going back to the Church and receiving the Eucharist and that is why I receive both.
 
Will_B said:
Just a thought… In John 6:50-55, Jesus talks several times about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you.

Yes, receiving either the blood or the body is acceptable… But that little passage leads me to want to receive both.
Click to expand...
I agree, and probably there are a lot of folks that feel the same.

But I want to know why obviously some folks feel if you don’t do it you have to have a good enough reason not too.
 
Will_B said:
Just a thought… In John 6:50-55, Jesus talks several times about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you.

Yes, receiving either the blood or the body is acceptable… But that little passage leads me to want to receive both.
Click to expand...
I know John 6. The gospel read at my wedding was from John 6. I know its says body and blood. But even if you receive just one, you are receiving the Eucharist in its entirety.
 
PeterMuz said:
So I was sitting in mass the other day after communion and this thought came to my mind. I was watching people receive the Body and then get in line to receive the Blood and I wonder how many of those people think they received “more” Jesus than someone who receives just the Body or just the Blood. There was a time where people would go to communion multiple times a day because they thought they received “more” Jesus. The Church corrected this and thus the rule that you should only receive once a day, except under certain circumstances.

Does anyone else ever think about this, or is it just me? I guess I just do not see a need to have both at every Mass. Maybe if someone cannot receive one form they could receive the other.

I think by having both the Body and the Blood either enforces the idea that you are receiving “more” Jesus or the idea that the Eucharist is a symbol, which I know is not true.

Any thoughts?

*If anyone wants to discuss whether or not the Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ, please do it in another thread. I just want to know if anyone else thinks about these things. Thanks
Click to expand...
No - I don’t think about these things. I’m focused on God at the time. So are you saying we shouldn’t have both?

John Marie Philomena
 
Jason,

You cited: “cough John ch. 6 *cough”. I’m not sure what you meant by that, unless you were referring to my comment that Jesus did not mention the bread or the wine at the last supper - which he didn’t. But he did make references to them at other times. I should not have said that there was no mention of these species in the Gospel of John. There is no question in my mind that the consecrated bread and/OR the wine are acceptable to us when taking the body of Jesus into our bodies. Blood is just as much part of His body as His body is part of His blood. We can not consume the Host into our bodies with the understanding that we are only receiving the body, without the blood, or visa versa.

Have a blessed weekend,
 
I’m too busy reflecting on my own shortcomings when approaching the Eucharist to consider whether or not the guy in front of me needs catechizing…
 
From "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”:

“Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.”

The Church offers reception of both the Body and the Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection. How does it follow that when people step up to accept both, they are acting upon an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist?

[edited]
 
JohnMPhilomena said:
No - I don’t think about these things. I’m focused on God at the time. So are you saying we shouldn’t have both?

John Marie Philomena
Click to expand...
No, Not at all. I think you should receive both. I understand the fuller sign argument mentioned below. I’m simply wondering, because I know a lot of cafeteria Catholics, how many people understand the Eucharist. Wondering maybe if anyone has encountered someone who believed they were receiving more of Jesus because they received both?
 
jpjd said:
From "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”:

“Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.”

The Church offers reception of both the Body and the Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection. How does it follow that when people step up to accept both, they are acting upon an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist?

I would suggest that during Communion time, instead of making assumptions about your fellow parishioners, that you close your eyes and bow your head in prayer and thank God for the gift of His Son, and ask that the strengthening of grace in your soul will help you to more fruitfully bring the love of God to the world as you live your daily life.
Click to expand...
Hey. Since you are SO HOLY, please please please, talk down to me some more. That feels really good! Maybe you should pray for humility!!

Please look back at my post. Tell me where I assumed anything. I believe I said “I wonder”. Big difference. Then after you do that, look at your past paragraph. Tell me who made the assumptions.

I do pray and thank God for the gift of His Son. I do as for the grace to help me in my daily life, that I may be a light to others and that God would use me in anyway he wants.

But like I said, I was just wondering. I have encountered many people that don’t understand the Eucharist, just wondering if anyone had thought about this or encountered anyone who has.
 
jpjd said:
From "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”:

“Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.”

The Church offers reception of both the Body and the Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection. How does it follow that when people step up to accept both, they are acting upon an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist?

[edited]
Click to expand...
jpjd,

I do apologize if my last post (the one that apparently was deleted) was harsh.
 
jpjd said:
From "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”:

“Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.”

The Church offers reception of both the Body and the Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection. How does it follow that when people step up to accept both, they are acting upon an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist?

[edited]
Click to expand...
So I do not know if you saw my post before it was deleted, but I do believe I had a good point. I understand the fuller sign statement. I was simply wondering if people have encountered this. I know I have from others.

I do pray after Communion. I do thank God for His Son and I ask that God use me however he wants, so that I may be a light to others.

Sorry for the sarcasm in my response that was deleted.
 
jpjd said:
From "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”:

“Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.”

The Church offers reception of both the Body and the Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection. How does it follow that when people step up to accept both, they are acting upon an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist?

[edited]
Click to expand...
Thanks for bring up this important viewpoint which I fully support.
Christ is (“Fully and Transubstantially Present”) under BOTH distinct species.
Whether one receives under one or both species of Body or Blood (“Host or Wine”) the substance of Jesus being fully present is entirely the same.
There can be NO human distinction of the consuming of the Body or Blood being prejudged as (“Fuller Sign”) than either species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top