Only receiving the Body of Christ?

[Fr_Ambrose]

Coptic:

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the congregation always receives both right?

Yes.

Those who suffer from Celiac Sprue may ask the priest to avoid, as much as possible, having any of the consecrated Bread on the spoon and to give them only the Blood of the Lord.

Babies who cannot take solids may receive only the Precious Blood.

However, both the babies and the Celiac Sprue sufferers would almost certainly be receiving tiny particles of the Bread as well since it has been immersed in the Chalice for 10 or more minutes prior to communion time.

So, even with these two special cases, the answer is still, yes.

 

[kmktexas]

NewCatholicGirl:

I recently went to a day Mass where the body was dipped in the blood and then placed in your mouth. I never heard or saw this before. Is that okay?

Yes, this is called Communion by intinction. It is perfectly ok although not too common these days.

 

[kmktexas]

StMarkEofE:

Ok, then I will again go back to my original question: Why does the priest require BOTH bread and wine for the consecration if only one is required? Is the wine only a symbol or is it only the bread the symbol? Since as you say, the bread and wine somehow disappears and either is both the Body and Blood of Christ. If the bread is sufficient then technically the Mass could be said without the wine.

StMarkEofE

No, technically, that could not happen. For the Consecration to be valid, both elements must be consecrated. This is different from what constitutes Communion. Without a valid Consecration (of both elements) you do not have a valid Mass.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Elizabeth,

False. Catholics still receive both host and wine that contain both the body and blood of Christ.

Coptic:

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

There are exceptions. Cases like when there are millions of faithful gathering to attend the celebration of the Eucharist. I think this is uncommon in the Orthodox church but VERY common in the Catholic church. The pope’s funeral mass is one very good example with estimated 5 million people. Imagine how long it will take to give both host and wine (and even imagine if you do it by spoon the way you guys do) to millions of people. The mass and communion will take a very long time even with the help of lay people.

Coptic:

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

The practice did not occur overnight. As the church consistently teaches that both the Body and Blood of Christ are BOTH present in the host and the wine (therefore host and wine are always to be present during the consecration), the church has expanded to far away places with different cultures and situations.

For example, in my country - the Philippines - occasionally we only get to receive wine during special ocassions like Christmas or Easter Sunday because wine is expensive in my country. But that doesn’t mean we are not receiving Christ’s Blood because it is present in the host we are taking during communion. The absence of wine in ordinary masses is primarily because of economic reasons.

If your church has billions of members from all four corners of the world who most oftentimes gather like thousands and millions and coming from poor third world countries, Elizabeth and StMarkOfE…you guys will understand your Catholic brethrens.

For us Catholics, it is ideal that we partake in both the host and the win, but under certain circumstances, sometimes we cannot. But again, we are still both receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Coptic:

When and why did the practice change

It’s DEFINITELY NOT A CONCEPT NEITHER A THEORY (Are you nuts?), it’s a church teaching…from the magisterium…from the collective wisdom of the bishops…the successors of the Holy Apostles.

Now I hope some ignorant people here stop using this thread as opportunity to bait Catholics. You asked questions, you would be answered…but NO ridiculing please ( I’ve read bacteria and stuff like that on this thread.). Show some lil RESPECT please.

Coptic:

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

 

[Ahimsa]

NewCatholicGirl:

I recently went to a day Mass where the body was dipped in the blood and then placed in your mouth.

Some Episcopal parishes (don’t know what percentage) allow parishioners to dip the body in the blood. I personally prefer to do it that way.

 

[jimmy]

Everyone should recieve under both species. The entire body of Christ is present under a single drop of the blood and entirely under a single crumb of the body. But, that is no reason to not recieve both. No one has been given a “Right” to refuse either one of them.

All churches consecrate both the wine and the bread. I have been to many churches, and very few of them did not serve both. Almost all of them serve both the blood and the wine to the congregation.

 

[Coptic]

Everyone should recieve under both species. The entire body of Christ is present under a single drop of the blood and entirely under a single crumb of the body. But, that is no reason to not recieve both. No one has been given a “Right” to refuse either one of them.

I like this approach a little better. If you have no illness preventing you from receiving both then why wouldn’t you??? I see no reason to refuse one of them either.

Now I hope some ignorant people here stop using this thread as opportunity to bait Catholics. You asked questions, you would be answered…but NO ridiculing please ( I’ve read bacteria and stuff like that on this thread.). Show some lil RESPECT please.

I hope the above statement was not directed towards me. Granted I disagree with the Catholic approach, but I had no intentions of being disrespectful. I was just looking for an understanding of why things are done the way they are done.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[jimmy]

Coptic:

I like this approach a little better. If you have no illness preventing you from receiving both then why wouldn’t you??? I see no reason to refuse one of them either.

I think the main reason why people do not recieve both is because they do not want to get sick. They have a lack of faith in Christ and his Church.

 

[Intrigued_Latin]

I brought this question up with my parish priest a while back and his response was… “Time”.

A poor excuse if you ask me.

With the amount of parishoners going up to receive the Blessed Mysteries, the Communion Rite would take an addtional 20 minutes.

My parish has 3 Sunday Masses (9:00, 10:30, 12:15)

During daily masses at 8:00am, all are welcome to receive from the Chalice.

In Christ,

Brad

 

[Coptic]

jimmy:

I think the main reason why people do not recieve both is because they do not want to get sick. They have a lack of faith in Christ and his Church.

That’s a shame.

In my church we are all served the Blood by spoon and I’ve never heard anyone complain of getting sick. Although I haven’t gone around asking but nevertheless, I just don’t see how one would think the Blood of Christ would make you sick.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[mikev]

Coptic:

That’s a shame.

In my church we are all served the Blood by spoon and I’ve never heard anyone complain of getting sick. Although I haven’t gone around asking but nevertheless, I just don’t see how one would think the Blood of Christ would make you sick.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

Christ as man, was a man in all ways except sin, right? This implies that He was subject to viruses, bacteria, etc., just like the rest of us. Is this true?

If so, why couldn’t something be transmitted by the blood? Would that make Him less God if it were? I wouldn’t think catching a cold drinking out of the same cup diminishes God.

 

[JimG]

As long as the priest consecrates and consumes under both species, the Mass is perfectly valid–even if communion is not offered to the congregation under either species.

So while it is mandatory for the priest to receive under both species, it is optional for the congregation.

 

[JimG]

Intrigued Latin:

I brought this question up with my parish priest a while back and his response was… “Time”.

I would add: time, and money, and logistics.

If there are 10,000 communicants in a weekend, that is a lot of communion wine that needs to be purchased every week. Also, while excess consecrated hosts may be stored in the tabernacle, the consecrated precious blood cannot. Whatever is consecrated must be completely consumed at every Mass. That can lead to problems in planning for the right amount to be consecrated.

 

[jimmy]

mikev:

Christ as man, was a man in all ways except sin, right? This implies that He was subject to viruses, bacteria, etc., just like the rest of us. Is this true?

If so, why couldn’t something be transmitted by the blood? Would that make Him less God if it were? I wouldn’t think catching a cold drinking out of the same cup diminishes God.

It would not make it any less God, but the thing is that this idea that you will get sick stems from a lack of faith. If God was worried about people getting sick from the Eucharist, he would not offer it.

 

[LittleDeb]

So to add some levity to this I will point out my current and hopefully short-lived dilemma for trying to receive the precious blood. Have you ever tried to juggle a baby and the Cup?

My sister has had to refrain from receiving the precious blood in recent months because my over-active nephew tries to help himself to it. (Her daughter never did.)

Also, I used to receive under both species when I sat closer to the front. Now as I sit nearer to the cry room it doesn’t always last to the end.

Yes, there has always been a small piece of bread placed in the chalice. I cannot remember off-hand if it is done right at consecration or right after. Both are consumed by the priest. I asked a Monsignor about it years ago because I have a wheat allergy but I still consume the precious body anyway. He said it could be an impediment to someone becoming a priest if you suffered an allergy to either because they have to consume both. (I’m female so it didn’t matter but it was interesting.)

I have no qualms missing the precious blood when I cannot partake because I don’t like the emphasis on the symbolic side that many non-Catholics have. I was at one wedding where the “minister” said “This is my body” and did a symbolic “communion” with the couple. He later told us, (for the benefit of we poor misguided Catholic relatives of the groom) “this isn’t the real body of Christ it is just a symbol. We don’t actually eat Christ.”

My very Catholic father said later, “When he said THIS wasn’t the real body of Christ…that was the one thing he said all day that I agreed with!”

 

[mikev]

jimmy:

It would not make it any less God, but the thing is that this idea that you will get sick stems from a lack of faith. If God was worried about people getting sick from the Eucharist, he would not offer it.

I don’t think God would worry about someone getting sick from the Eucharist. Why couldn’t this be part of His plan; to serve some greater purpose.

It could be more an unwillingness to accept His will (that you get sick), than a lack of faith that you won’t get sick.

 

[jimmy]

mikev:

I don’t think God would worry about someone getting sick from the Eucharist. Why couldn’t this be part of His plan; to serve some greater purpose.

It could be more an unwillingness to accept His will (that you get sick), than a lack of faith that you won’t get sick.

I guess you could say that it might be not accepting his will. When I say a lack of faith, I mean that it is a lack of faith in what the Eucharist actually is, not a faith in God protecting your health.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that Faith has anything to do with germs.
The consecrated species is just as capable of carrying germs as the unconsecrated species.

 

[Anima_Christi]

My parish, in the diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, only offers the Precious Blood to the laity on high solemnities such as Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Of course, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus are fully present under both species. The Precious Blood is much more likely to be spilled (and what a disaster that would be!) if it is administered to the laity at every Mass, so it is prudent to only offer the Sacred Host at most masses.

 

[jco2004]

JimG:

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 Apostles had not been ordained at the Last Supper. The words “Drink, all of you” were addressed to all Catholics, not just clergy.

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.

Communion in one species under exceptional circumstances is quite a different thing than making it the ordinary practice. No doubt God can and does confer grace when only one species is given; that doesn’t mean the Church should make it a practice. Joe