Only receiving the Body of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coptic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rand Al'Thor:
this is completely true. im not sure if it was considered a “heresy” officially, but people were misunderstanding communion, thinking that they had to recieve both the bread AND the wine to recieve the body and blood of Christ. so, to help make that point, the host was offered at communion but not the wine.
the other reason is a fairly practical one; wine has a good possibility of being spilled, and that’s a big no-no after the consecration.

if you believe in eucharistic miracles, it clearly shows that the blood of Christ is indeed present in the host (bleeding hosts).
Click to expand...
Bleeding hosts?

Why would Jesus say to His Apostles “Take and eat for this is the bread of the new and everlasting covenant…”
AND “Take and drink for for this is My Blood of which will be shed for you and …”? Why would Jesus INCLUDE BOTH if He didn not intend for ALL to partake of His Body AND Blood? Coming out with declarations that one species is equal to the other is condicending of what Our Lord established at the Last Supper. Our Lord didnt do what He did as a symbol He did it for a reason. He coupled both for a reason. That reason is that both MUST be partaken to receive the full Eucharist.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Bleeding hosts?

Why would Jesus say to His Apostles “Take and eat for this is the bread of the new and everlasting covenant…”
AND “Take and drink for for this is My Blood of which will be shed for you and …”? Why would Jesus INCLUDE BOTH if He didn not intend for ALL to partake of His Body AND Blood? Coming out with declarations that one species is equal to the other is condicending of what Our Lord established at the Last Supper. Our Lord didnt do what He did as a symbol He did it for a reason. He coupled both for a reason. That reason is that both MUST be partaken to receive the full Eucharist.

StMarkEofE
Click to expand...
If a person cannot tolerate any gluten at all, and that she receives the Precious Blood only, she doesn’t receive the full Eucharist?
 
In America I have found out that Catholics always accept the body of Christ but not the blood.

It´s because americans are afraid of getting illness from sharing the same cup from where the wine is offered.

I wonder how my personal inqusinator “John_19_59” can explain that.

God bless you ALL

Hadoque:blessyou:
 
40.png
Hadoque:
In America I have found out that Catholics always accept the body of Christ but not the blood.
Click to expand...
I’m Canadian and I always accept the Blood of Christ.
 
40.png
Hadoque:
In America I have found out that Catholics always accept the body of Christ but not the blood.

It´s because americans are afraid of getting illness from sharing the same cup from where the wine is offered.

I wonder how my personal inqusinator “John_19_59” can explain that.

God bless you ALL

Hadoque:blessyou:
Click to expand...
That is a lame excuse. WHY would a FULLY CONSECRATED CHALICE OF OUR LORDS BODY AND BLOOD CONTAIN ANY TRACES OF GERMS OR OTHER ILLNESSES? In my 6 years as a convert to the Orthodox Catholic faith I have recieve on a regular basis and have been behind may folks how I know have had colds and are ill and I still receive out of the cup of deliverance. How can anyone think that the Eucharist be full of germs or bacteria? 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
 
Sarah Jane:
If a person cannot tolerate any gluten at all, and that she receives the Precious Blood only, she doesn’t receive the full Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Something like this is usually an issue discussed between that person and her FOC…know what I mean? Not something that a new rule is made up for. And besides, even the smallest crumb–and I literally mean crumb–of the bread is considered the body of Christ.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
 
AND and this is a BIG AND, our priest of 25 years has been consumming the remains after Liturgy of ALL who have partaken of the Eucharist and to my knowledge has not had any ill effects of this proving our validing of the pure Eucharist.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
That is a lame excuse. WHY would a FULLY CONSECRATED CHALICE OF OUR LORDS BODY AND BLOOD CONTAIN ANY TRACES OF GERMS OR OTHER ILLNESSES? In my 6 years as a convert to the Orthodox Catholic faith I have recieve on a regular basis and have been behind may folks how I know have had colds and are ill and I still receive out of the cup of deliverance. How can anyone think that the Eucharist be full of germs or bacteria? 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
Click to expand...
I could not agree with you more. If we truly believe it is the Blood of Christ, the last concern of yours should be if you are going to get sick from it!!! That is disturbing that people think that.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
 
40.png
Coptic:
Something like this is usually an issue discussed between that person and her FOC…know what I mean? Not something that a new rule is made up for. And besides, even the smallest crumb–and I literally mean crumb–of the bread is considered the body of Christ.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
And if the person cannot tolerate a crumb of the bread?
 
There are two different issues being discussed here:

(1) Whether, theologically, the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present under both species of the Holy Eucharist. The Catholic Church, which has the authority to teach, declares that they are.

(2) Whether it is a sound practice for the faitful to receive only one species. The general consensus is that the fullness of the sign is better conveyed when both species are offered. From what I have seen, this is the general practice at Roman Catholic parishes in the United States. Both species are offered.
 
Again, if for medical reasons the person cannot receive both…
40.png
Coptic:
Something like this is usually an issue discussed between that person and her FOC…know what I mean? Not something that a new rule is made up for.
God Bless,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
 
Sarah Jane:
And if the person cannot tolerate a crumb of the bread?
Click to expand...
I will admit that this situation is special. Rare but it is special. I will have to leave this explanation to those who have dealt with this sort of thing. It is most unfortunate for the one wanting to receive but I confess I dont have an answer for this.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
Ignatius:
I don’t know where you find a Catholic Church that doesn’t have both. Every Church I’ve been to in the last 40 years has both.

What Parish is it that doesn’t? If they can’t give you a specific diocese and parish I’d be a little skeptical.
Click to expand...
The last time I was at the mass in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, the wine/blood was not offered.
 
I said and noone that have been to a Catholic Chuch in USA can deny that this is the truth;
n America I have found out that Catholics always accept the body of Christ but not the blood.

It´s because americans are afraid of getting illness from sharing the same cup from where the wine is offered.
Click to expand...
In my 6 years as a convert to the Orthodox Catholic faith I have recieve on a regular basis and have been behind may folks how I know have had colds and are ill and I still receive out of the cup of deliverance. How can anyone think that the Eucharist be full of germs or bacteria? 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.
Click to expand...
I grew up as a Lutheran and thought that you should accept Christh thorugh both his body and his blood.

But as a Catholic, you have obviously the right to only accept the body of Christ.

If you have the right to change the meaning of the Eucharist that way according to your faith, that you only accept half of Gods blessing, how can you divide on matter of how Lutherans look upon the Eucharist?

Why can you not be as understanding and merciful to accept OTHER Christians to share your supper, as Jesus was?

I am here prepared to eat Christ body and drink his blood, I am Lutheran.My wife is Catholic but she does not drink the wine since she is American.

I hope the new Pope will make some statements for CHRISTIANS. Time is up now when we think about what was made wrong in our history.

I am sure Jesus will be with us soon and HE will not be a DIVIDER.

Anyone that think that THEY were more right that anyone else in their believes, will have to answer to.

HIM
 
But as a Catholic, you have the right to only accept the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
It’s not true. As a Catholic, I accept the Blood of Christ.
 
QUIZ

Which of the following is correct:

A. Then Jesus took the cup, gave thanks and said “Since you have exerienced the fullness of my presence in the bread, you do not need to take the cup.”

or

B. Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.”

For crying out loud, Jesus told us what to do. DO IT! Who cares if the fullness of Christ is present under both species? Not taking the cup is ignoring his direct instructions.

As for the germs issue:

www2.us.elsevierhealth.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=letter&id=aic98538a
 
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
 
40.png
Coptic:
I think my concern is that in the original practice of communion always consisted of receiving both the Body and Blood. I therefore question why it is all of sudden considered okay to just receive one. I mean I’m still not sure who determined this, and when it was determined.

And if the reason is so not to spill the Blood…it just seems like the solution of just not offering it is a little ridiculous. In my church the congregation receives both and it’s not like there are stories about the blood spilling. Or is there another reason behind it?

Also, if both are contained in the Body then precicely why is it necessary to concecrate both?

Thank you for your responses, I really would like to understand this.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
Like I say, I have never been to a Catholic Church which does not have both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top