Not enough precious blood?

[AlNg]

His blood is in the Host.

Do you see any difference between drinking water, say drinking a glass of liquid water, and consuming water which is contained in a cake? Do the words “to drink” and “to consume” mean the exact same thing?

I can assure you the amount of saints formed just eating the body in the host is all the proof you need that they had enough.

But that is not the question i was asking. I was asking as to whether or not the word “drink” John 6: 53 is to be taken in a figurative and not a literal sense.

 

[Vico]

I went to Sunday Mass and when I went to take the chalice the EM said “it’s all gone”…
First off, I was frustrated because I don’t feel I completely consumed the Lord…even though I took the body, I never feel complete without the precious blood…then I was off put and distracted by being turned away from the chalice…is the issue of not putting enough in the chalice, or is it that some people consume to much…?

OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF​

Doctrinal Formation and Communion Under Both Kinds (2011)

For modern generations, the Council of Trent may not have been mentioned in their doctrinal formation which emphasizes that “nothing is lost by the body being received by the people without the blood: because the priest both offers and receives the blood in the name of all, and the whole Christ is present under either species” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 80, a. 12, ad 3). So, under the species of bread there is also present, by concomitance, the precious blood.

The purpose, then, of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds, is not that the faithful receive more grace than when they receive it under one kind alone, but that the faithful are enabled to appreciate vividly the value of the sign. Sadly, this distinction has not always been made clear and some people, when not offered Holy Communion under both kinds, have expressed a sense of bewilderment, even thwarted entitlement, or a feeling that Holy Communion under one kind alone was, to some extent, deficient.

Bishops conferences and diocesan bishops, in particular, are the key to ensuring locally that Holy Communion is distributed with reverence and avoidance of misunderstanding. “Redemptionis Sacramentum” makes clear that the slightest danger of the sacred species being profaned is to be avoided (101). It also expresses concern about the “detriment of so great a mystery” (106). While “profanation” and the “detriment of so great a mystery” suggest different levels of Eucharistic abuse, both levels are expressly mentioned so that they will be avoided.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110601_comunione_en.html

 

[OSN]

Most ministers put the white napkin over the chalice to indicate it is empty, the precious blood is only an option to receiving , The Eucharist is evidently the only part of both species that seems to really matter. Which is a bit odd, because humanity was given both the body and blood of Christ. Perhaps, since there isn’t a ready supply of wine that can be consecrated and kept fresh for consumption that some where down the line it was established that only the Eucharist was the primary focus. We have containers to display the Eucharist and not the Blood. Though, I assume one could be made. Yet, even during some masses, there is not enough consecrated hosts, and the priest will break a host in half, and even that half is the fullness of Christ.

Be it a drop of the precious blood or a crumb of the bread/ body, Eucharist, one has fully received Christ. In the sacrament.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Who knows? I don’t know what the patriarchs of the east allow, we are in schism.

 

[InThePew]

Do you see any difference between drinking water, say drinking a glass of liquid water, and consuming water which is contained in a cake? Do the words “to drink” and “to consume” mean the exact same thing?

The difference is that when we eat the body of Christ what we consume is living flesh (Christ being alive and all) and so, in order for the flesh to be “living” it must contain blood.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But did you DRINK the Precious Blood? Should Catholics take what Jesus has said literally or only in a figurative sense when He commanded us to DRINK His Blood and to eat His Body if we are to have life within us? “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, there is no life in you”
I don’t see where you drink any liquid when you consume the host.

I am not here to argue this point with you because it is settled Church teaching for centuries that the Eucharist in the form of a consecrated Host contains both the Body and the Precious Blood. I believe this is further supported by “bleeding host miracles”.

You and your donut and water are irrelevant. The donut is a donut. It is not the Body and Blood of Christ having the accidents of bread.

Now leaving the thread, good day.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There is no Body without Blood- and our Lord’s Body works same way. After all, even in Eastern Rites people do not necessarily drink the Precious Blood- it’s just that Body of our Lord is somehow dipped in it (for lack of my knowledge of better word, forgive me, don’t mean to disrespect). Liturgy of St. James is only one that allows communion in such a way Bible explicitly tells us to, if I am not mistaken.

I have attended Divine Liturgy several times and I have never seen people actually “drink” the Precious Blood there either- perhaps that’s a local thing and you will correct me, but if not, there is no real reason for your words as no Apostolic Church actually follows that practice.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No, we are not. Eastern Catholics are in the Church- it’s Eastern Orthodox who are in schism. Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic, authentic and in full communion with Pope.

Eastern Catholics receive both. Does that make us “all Luther”?

I think comment should have referred to hussites- who believed that you need to receive under both species to attain salvation- which is some misconception that is often present among Catholics who have chance to do so. If receiving under both species made someone Luther, all Priests would be Luther because they are obliged to receive under both species anyway.

 

[AlNg]

The difference is that when we eat the body of Christ what we consume is living flesh (Christ being alive and all) and so, in order for the flesh to be “living” it must contain blood.

I am sure that Jesus knew that. Yet, speaking literally, He commanded us to do both: Drink his Blood and eat His flesh in order to have life within us.

 

[Fauken]

Yet, speaking literally, He commanded us to do both : Drink his Blood and eat His flesh in order to have life within us.

I don’t think you answered this in the last topic about this, but are you suggesting that the Saints who didn’t consume the Precious Blood for a millennia don’t have life in them?

 

[AlNg]

are you suggesting that the Saints who didn’t consume the Precious Blood for a millennia don’t have life in them?

I have no doubt that those saints were holy people and that they did have life in them. And they did not literally drink the Precious Blood as you would drink a liquid. That is why I suspect that this command to drink the Precious Blood should not be taken literally, because it does not require you to drink anything. As pointed out already by everyone here, the Host, being the living body of Jesus, would contain His blood, so by consuming the Host, you are consuming His Blood. But consuming Blood and drinking Blood are not the same.

 

[DeniseNY]

Who knows? I don’t know what the patriarchs of the east allow, we are in schism

I think we’ve been through this before. Eastern Catholics are not in schism. Why do you insist on repeating that?

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I don’t know how they can estimate the amount they will need. When I took communion when much younger–in a Lutheran church–we were told to just take in enough that it’s the equivalent to two drops. Two drops is plenty. When I go forward now, I just take what feels like two drops. Maybe many people do this. But then, if you get several people all taking a big gulp or two out of the chalice, that would get the level down pretty fast.

Our father is a wine maker, and he makes all of the wine for the church, both communion wine and what is used for events. He’s into his wine and makes it the way that is tasty to him, so he doesn’t have a problem with finishing up whatever is left. Course, there’s the other fathers and the deacon, who might not want that much alcohol in the a.m., so I don’t really have a solution.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Thomasbradley312:

Who knows? I don’t know what the patriarchs of the east allow, we are in schism

I think we’ve been through this before. Eastern Catholics are not in schism. Why do you insist on repeating that?

It seems to me that some Catholics have a bad tendency to define themselves not primarily by the teachings of Catholicism but rather by their opposition to non-Catholics. Such people would look down on Eastern Catholicism because it is too much like the Orthodox.

To me, wanting to receive under only one species to distinguish oneself from Protestantism seems like punishing oneself to get at others. I realize that one does not need to receive both to have fully received, but it seems that, perhaps to distance themselves from heretical memorialism, many Catholics focus so much on the RP that they neglect that, while the Eucharist is not only a memorial, it is still a memorial. Receiving under both kinds makes that memorial a more faithful reenactment of the Last Supper.

 

[phil19034]

Then does that not mean that the words of Jesus John 6:53 are not to be taken in the literal sense of drinking liquid?

That’s not what I said or meant.

We believe that the Eucharist contains the complete Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For example, if a Catholic priest visits a sick person at home or in the hospital and brings them communion; typically, the priest only brings Hosts. So those people who receive communion outside of Mass are not missing anything.

Now, that does NOT mean that receiving Jesus under both species is not a more complete SYMBOL. I also think receiving under both species can be spiritually / psychologically beneficial.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would suggest you offer it up and let it go. What else would you do?

I prefer receiving under both species, too, but it doesn’t always work out. Getting distracted and agitated by that in the moment we receive the Eucharist is not what God wants for us. It’s the devil who wants to steal our peace.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Yes. I recently went to a beautiful OF Mass where the people received kneeling and only the Host was distributed.
Communion took a little longer, but nobody seemed to mind.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

It’s not a “crumb” but a Particle.

 

[SMHW]

… I never feel complete without the precious blood…then I was off put and distracted by being turned away from the chalice…

Feelings are a real pain sometimes, aren’t they? They can help us apprehend our Faith when they align with it but then they go and betray us sometimes.

…is the issue of not putting enough in the chalice, or is it that some people consume to much…?

I think the goal is that there will be no Precious Blood left over after Mass so you would expect them to have a little less than would be necessary if all people were to partake. But sometimes parishes estimate TOO low. I know that when I am one of the last people in line I sometimes notice that those in front of me are tipping the chalice a bit more than is usual and I wonder if there will be any more of the Precious Blood in the cup when it is my turn. Sometimes a person in front of me is the last to get any. Oh well.

 

[Brendan]

But did you DRINK the Precious Blood? S

His Blood is living, flowing blood, even in the species of Bread, and we consume it. That pretty much sums up ‘drink’ to me.

We might not participate in the physical accidents of liduid, but the accidents are not what I concern myself with, rather it is the Substance: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.