Only receiving the Body of Christ?

[JimG]

Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a way to continue the presence and effects of his sacrifice within His Church. The method of doing that is in the double consecration, as given in the institution narratives of the Gospels and continued in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Thus, in every Mass, there must be a double consecration of the bread and the wine, and the priest must consume both consecrated species. (Remember, the Apostles were also priests–their successors continue what they did. The words of institution were addressed to his priests, not the laity.)

The method of consecration and reception by the priest is a separate matter from the question of whether Jesus is fully present under each species. It is also a separate matter from whether the laity must receive under both species.

At the consecration of the elements, the living Jesus becomes present, not a dead Jesus. Even though the bread is changed into his body and the wine into his blood, the underlying reality is that where is body is, so is his blood; and where his blood is, so is his body, because he is one living being. Theologians call this a “presence by concomitance.”

The double consecration symbolizes his death on the cross–the separation of his body and blood. But the continuing sacrifice is of the living Jesus, one body, united. Consequently, it is impossible to receive only a “partial” Jesus by receiving only under one species.

The priest satisfies the requirements of the Last Supper by consecrating and consuming under both species.

As to germs, as far as I know, nobody ever got sick from receiving the Eucharist, but that does not make it impossible. The appearances of bread and the wine retain all of what we would call their “physical” properties after consecration. Transubstantiation does not change any of the ‘physical’ properties of the appearances of bread and wine. (Otherwise they would not appear to us as bread and wine.)

Some parishes have as many as 10,000 or more people receiving communion in a weekend. Simple logistics often are the reason for receiving only under one species.

It is also worth mentioning that, from its very earliest days, the Church customarily carried the Eucharist to the sick under the species of bread only. It would not have done that if reception of only one species were considered inadequate.

 

[mikev]

My church only offers the Eucharist. At a parish across the state line they offer both, in a way that would satisfy those worrying about spilling the blood, or catching an illness. The priest dips the body in the blood before giving it to the parishoner.

I believe that either species is sufficient. It would be nice to receive both though. Hopefully our parish will start tincturing the Eucharist.

 

[RonWI]

Sarah Jane:

And if the person cannot tolerate a crumb of the bread?

See the new thread I started in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, entitled “why the bread must be wheat bread”.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Hadoque

It´s a fact. American Catholics do not drink the body of Christ, everyone knows that.

Check your facts again. This American Catholic receives the blood of Christ every week.

Please do not make statements, present them as fact when they are patently false.

 

[msproule]

Hadoque:

It´s a fact. American Catholics do not drink the body of Christ, everyone knows that.

Lars,

I am an American. I receive under both kinds. I must not know what “everyone” else knows.

 

[MariaG]

Coptic,

I was wrong.

According to the article, it was not instituted to combat heresy, but had traditionally be withheld for reverence to the precious blood. newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm

In the article, it also talks about how in the early Church, those who were sick did not receive the blood either.

A heresy started that one needed both. The church declares this as official heresy. To deny that the blood does not contain the body or the body does not contain the blood is to separate the body and blood of Christ, something that only death did. Christ is risen. Therefore, to deny that the body is just as fully present in the blood is to deny the Risen Christ.

from New Advent Utraquism newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm

Separation of flesh and blood is death, and hence Christ’s presence whole and entire under each species is a dogma of Catholic belief. Catholic theology offers this explanation: By the words of consecration, Christ’s Body is under the appearance of bread, and His Blood under the appearance of wine. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist, is known in Catholic theology under the term concomitance.

As a person stated before, it is permissible for only the priest to receive the precious blood under the species of wine since when Christ instituted communion, only the apostles were present. The priest is the only one who must receive both species of wine and bread.

I hope this helps.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[StMarkEofE]

MariaG http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_647113”, true);
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2004
Posts: 1,493

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Only receiving the Body of Christ?
Coptic,

I was wrong.

According to the article, it was not instituted to combat heresy, but had traditionally be withheld for reverence to the precious blood. newadvent.org/cathen/15244b.htm

In the article, it also talks about how in the early Church, those who were sick did not receive the blood either.

A heresy started that one needed both. The church declares this as official heresy. To deny that the blood does not contain the body or the body does not contain the blood is to separate the body and blood of Christ, something that only death did. Christ is risen. Therefore, to deny that the body is just as fully present in the blood is to deny the Risen Christ

So it is heresy when Christ said (and I have to paraphrase here) “Unless you eat of my flesh AND (not or, or either) Drink my Blood will you have live everlasting.” The operative word is AND and if this were only a suggestion by Christ why did He not say this? Christ did not say things just to say them, He said them for a reason. Why the RCC withheld the consecrated Blood from the faithful for so many centuries is incomprehensible. The excuse that “it might spill on the floor or onto someone” is really lame. How many consecrated hosts are swept up at a Papal Mass in Vatican Square after everyones gone? Yes, it does happen and we are not talking wine here. If the host is both, why the need for wine on the altar at Mass? The argument that both are in one whether wine or bread just dosnt make sense. Wine is not bread and bread is not wine. Christ did not take the Bread by itself and proclaim that this is My Body AND Blood. Early Christians, at least in the east, who were sick received the consecrated bread with a tincture of wine.

StMarkEofE

 

[StMarkEofE]

MariaG:

Check your facts again. This American Catholic receives the blood of Christ every week.

Please do not make statements, present them as fact when they are patently false.

This may be true today, but there was a time when it wasnt. As a former RC we never received any wine at Mass simply because it was never offered, it wasnt part of the Mass of the faithful. However, after VatII the cup was slowly introduced at Mass but the faithful, who were not used to such things, avoided the cup like the plague.

StMarkEofE

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hadoque:

It´s a fact. American Catholics do not drink the body of Christ, everyone knows that.

My question was. How can you think that Catholics are receiving the Communion as it was intented, when they reject the wine which is the blood of Christ?

I am asking since I am prepared to receive it as Lutheran but am not allowed to even if we share the SAME VIEW OF THE EUCHARISTH.

Lars

It’s not a fact. I recieve the blood of Christ three times a week (Sunday and daily mass on tuesday and thursday), and everyone recieves it on Sunday at mass. Besides, the Church is not “rejecting” the blood of Christ. Every Catholic Church I’ve been to in this country has offered the wine.
And another thing…you dont share the same view. Lutherans believe in CONsubstantiation. Catholics believe in TRANsubstantiation. Plus the lutherans are not in communion with Rome. And lutheran ministers cannot perform the consecration, whatever the beliefs of the Eucharist are.

 

[Ben_G]

StMarkEofE:

If the host is both, why the need for wine on the altar at Mass? The argument that both are in one whether wine or bread just dosnt make sense. Wine is not bread and bread is not wine.

First of all, since when has the Real Presence made sense??? By all physical and scientific standards, consecrated wine is neither bread nor blood, and, likewise, consecrated bread is neither wine nor flesh. The mystery of transubstantiation (the belief that the consecrated elements of bread and wine each become both the Body and the Blood of Christ), is now, has always been, and forever will be, a matter of faith.

Hadoque:

My question was. How can you think that Catholics are receiving the Communion as it was intended, when they reject the wine which is the blood of Christ?

Secondly, true, believing Catholics who do not receive the consecrated wine at Communion are not “rejecting” anything. They most certainly believe (as the Church teaches) that the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine each become both the Body and the Blood of Christ. Therefore, they know that they are fully receiving the Eucharist in the form of the consecrated bread, and, because of this, either are not offered or choose not to receive the consecrated wine.

Finally, I would like to add some anecdotal support to those who corrected the statement that:

Hadoque:

It’s a fact. American Catholics do not drink the body of Christ, everyone knows that.

In my local diocese, we have only recently begun fully implementing directives of the revised General Instruction to the Roman Missal (GIRM). Before this implementation began, some parishes regularly offered all communicants the option of receiving both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine at Communion, while others offered only the consecrated bread (with special exceptions made for those allergic to wheat). At my home parish when I was growing up, for example, the Congregation was offered the cup at one of the four Sunday Masses on a rotating basis, and I usually consumed both the consecrated bread and consecrated wine when it was offered. Now that we are implementing the GIRM, however, all parishes in our diocese are now offering all communicants the option of receiving both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine at all Masses. According to the GIRM, “Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.”

For a more detailed explanation of the history and current regulations regarding the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion in the United States, click here to read the “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America” as promulgated on its website by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and recognized by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (N.B., This document applies only to Latin Rite celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the Dioceses of the United States of America.)

 

[Coptic]

The way I look at it, when faced with issues like this, I just look to what was done or how this was practiced in the first few centuries of the church. And I mean in the first say, 4 centuries before the divison of any of the churches, when the Catholics and Orthodox–both Orthodox, that is, practiced together and were all in communion with one another.

Here, you will see that one partook of the Eucharist through receiving both the Body and the Blood. (With, of course, I’ll give you the exception of those with medical conditions). But all exceptions put aside, the everyday way to practice was to receive both, right??

I think looking to how the Early Church Fathers practiced is the best way to know how we should be practicing today.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[StMarkEofE]

Ben_G:

First of all, since when has the Real Presence made sense??? By all physical and scientific standards, consecrated wine is neither bread nor blood, and, likewise, consecrated bread is neither wine nor flesh. The mystery of transubstantiation (the belief that the consecrated elements of bread and wine each become both the Body and the Blood of Christ), is now, has always been, and forever will be, a matter of faith.

If this were so why then didnt Christ take the Bread by itself (no wine now) and proclaim that this is My Body AND Blood. Or am I missing something? I believe Christ meant exactly what he said and didnt substitute His meaning for what He showed the Apostles that evening.

StMarkEofE

 

[Ben_G]

Coptic:

The way I look at it, when faced with issues like this, I just look to what was done or how this was practiced in the first few centuries of the church. And I mean in the first say, 4 centuries before the divison of any of the churches, when the Catholics and Orthodox–both Orthodox, that is, practiced together and were all in communion with one another.

I agree, and that seems to be what the Church is saying today, as well. For younger people such as myself, we have always had the option to receive both species and I think we see the changes that were instituted during Vatican II to be healthy returns to the early roots of Christian worship, rather than the radical, heretical changes that some members of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations do, or at least did.

 

[MariaG]

StMarkEofE,

So it is your belief the the Body of Christ does not also contain the blood of Christ?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

StMarkEofE:

I have the utmost confidence in Our Lord Jesus Christ that any evidence to the contrary is simply redicuous. To believe otherwise would constitute a non-valid Eucharist.

StMarkEofE

StMarkEofE

Not true. The Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood, no matter what. It doesn’t matter what the person receiving it believes… it is the Real Presence once it is consecrated, not once we *believe *it is.

Malia

 

[MariaG]

posted by Coptic

The way I look at it, when faced with issues like this, I just look to what was done or how this was practiced in the first few centuries of the church. And I mean in the first say, 4 centuries before the divison of any of the churches, when the Catholics and Orthodox–both Orthodox, that is, practiced together and were all in communion with one another.

Here, you will see that one partook of the Eucharist through receiving both the Body and the Blood. (With, of course, I’ll give you the exception of those with medical conditions). But all exceptions put aside, the everyday way to practice was to receive both, right??

I think looking to how the Early Church Fathers practiced is the best way to know how we should be practicing today.

Elizabeth,

The key here is the *practice. * A practice is something that can change. The early Church used to have public confessions also. Do you really want to go back to that? (or do Orthodox have public confessions?)

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Ben_G]

StMarkEofE:

I believe Christ meant exactly what he said and didnt substitute His meaning for what He showed the Apostles that evening.

Well not to turn this into a discussion about Biblical interpretation, but I personally am not comfortable saying with absolute certainty that the words of institution found in the Gospels are the exact words that Christ used at the Last Supper. I am not a theologian, a historian, or a linguist, but since he was probably speaking to the Apostles in Aramaic and the earliest written Gospel manuscripts are in Greek which have been subsequently translated into English for us today, I don’t know that is it prudent to suggest that Jesus said verbatim the words we find in modern Bibles. I have faith in the Tradition of the Church when it comes to issues like this.

 

[puzzleannie]

Coptic:

I recently learned that when taking communion, often times Catholics only receive the Body and not the Blood of Christ.

Now I assume this wasn’t always the case and like the Orthodox Churches you used to receive both–is that a fair assumption?

When and why did the practice change?

I’ve heard before that you believe the host contains both the body and blood–where did this concept or theory come from?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

Catholics believe that both the consecrated host and the consecrated wine are in substance the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. To receive under either species is to receive Jesus.Where did the concept come from? From the unvarying constant teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, most eloquently expressed by Thomas Aquinas. Before the liturgical reforms of Vatican II it was sometimes permitted for the lay faithful to receive under both species in special circumstances, nuptial Mass for instance. Since then reception under both species has been permitted at all Masses. The actual practices through the history of the Church in certain times and places that have varied regarding reception of communion were due to factors like local custom, spirituality, pastoral concerns, reaction to abuses and so forth.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Ben_G:

Well not to turn this into a discussion about Biblical interpretation, but I personally am not comfortable saying with absolute certainty that the words of institution found in the Gospels are the exact words that Christ used at the Last Supper. I am not a theologian, a historian, or a linguist, but since he was probably speaking to the Apostles in Aramaic and the earliest written Gospel manuscripts are in Greek which have been subsequently translated into English for us today, I don’t know that is it prudent to suggest that Jesus said verbatim the words we find in modern Bibles. I have faith in the Tradition of the Church when it comes to issues like this.

How about the exact words of Christ in John 6:53: (caps and parenthesis are mine)

"And Jesus said to them, “I tell you the TRUTH, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man AND drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh AND drinks (Our lord repeats himself here for a reason) my blood has eternal life, AND I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food AND my blood is real drink. ( He repeats himself yet again) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. ( here He repeats for a fourth time. God Incarnate really wants to drive this home for us all.) Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefoathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever”.

It seems that the last line in this context is all that is necessary in the Roman faith.

StMarkEofE

 

[Ben_G]

StMarkEofE:

How about the exact words of Christ in John 6:53

I have had a similar discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who does not believe at all in the Real Presence. I wish I had studied Greek, but I only can translate Latin. I think any discussion of this sort should be based on the earliest written manuscripts we have of the Gospels. I will try to do some research, but, again, I personally do not believe in a completely literal interpretation of the Bible.