Only receiving the Body of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coptic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Click here to read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about this topic.

Note especially:
“By virtue of the words of consecration, or ex vi verborum, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of Institution, namely the Body and the Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per concomitantiam), there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, and which must, from a natural connection with them, always be their accompaniment. Now, the glorified Christ, Who “dieth now no more” (Rom, vi, 9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life’s Blood under the vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.”

This seems to help clairfy why the Church teaches what it does. Basically, where it says, “that only is made present which is expressed by the words of Institution,” we believe that at the words of Institution the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. However, and this is where things get complicated, “the glorified Christ, Who “dieth now no more” (Rom, vi, 9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life’s Blood under the vivifying influence of soul.” Therefore, the Body or the Blood of Christ cannot exist independently without having everything, Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity and Divinity – thus remaining alive.
 
As Ben G quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic doctrine is more nuanced than we may at first think.

The Church does indeed believe that the bread is transformed into his Body and the wine into His Blood. Doing as Jesus did, we do both consecrations just as He commanded.

But, and this is quite mysterious, Jesus is not thereby divided.

Where is body is, there is also his blood. Where is blood is, there is also his body. And where either is, there also is his soul and his divinity.

This does not mean that both consecrations are identical. They are not. But the effect is, that we receive Jesus in his entirety under either species.

It would in fact be impossible to receive only his body or only his blood. If we did, Jesus would be dead, and we would also not receive his soul or divinity.
 
Alright, admittingly, I have not read all of this thread, but, here you go:
  1. Some of the times I’ve been to Mass, the blood has been offered, sometimes it has not. Sometives I have taken it, sometimes I have not.
  2. Has anybody ever had Jesus on their upper lip? What did you do? Lick Him off? I feel it is kinda irreverant to do that, but, in the meantime, I don’t want the wine that is THE BLOOD OF JESUS to form a kool-aid-like mustache on my lip. Also, I have accedentally slurped Jesus, which is embarrassing. Has anybody else done this?
  3. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has addressed the Bleeding Host. I mean, at least one of the ones I know of happened in the 700s…which is (duh) before 1054, meaning, at the time, there WAS only one Church…what about the Bleeding Host?
 
MariaG said:
👋 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

Does the Bible or Church Tradition specifiy whether we have to confession in public or private? Not to my knowledge.

Does the Bible and Church Tradition say that we are to eat of his body and drink of his blood (notice not “eat” his blood 😉 ) ? Yes, it does! Jesus specificly mentioned both seperately! This is not a matter of whether one contains the other or a matter of practice, but a matter of what we were instructed to do by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We were instructed to partake of both seperately, and that is what has been established through Holy Tradition.

These are my thoughts.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
 
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.
I have only been to one Catholic Parish that didn’t have the Eucharist under both species (bread and wine) St. Peter’s in Ft. Walton BCH, Florida. The priest consecrated both, but they only had bread. I don’t know why or whether they dipped the host into the wine, although it didn’t taste like they did. I didn’t like this so chose another Catholic parish for membership. I just preferred what I am accustomed to.

When Terri Schiavo received a drop of consecrated wine on her tongue during her forced starvation and dehydration, she received the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and it was complete.

Most of the time when Catholics receive Communion outside the Mass from a Pyx they receive only under the species of bread, but it is complete. I received the Eucharist this way every time I was in the hospital for the deliveries of my children.
 
40.png
JimG:
As Ben G quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic doctrine is more nuanced than we may at first think.

The Church does indeed believe that the bread is transformed into his Body and the wine into His Blood. Doing as Jesus did, we do both consecrations just as He commanded.

But, and this is quite mysterious, Jesus is not thereby divided.

Where is body is, there is also his blood. Where is blood is, there is also his body. And where either is, there also is his soul and his divinity.

This does not mean that both consecrations are identical. They are not. But the effect is, that we receive Jesus in his entirety under either species.

It would in fact be impossible to receive only his body or only his blood. If we did, Jesus would be dead, and we would also not receive his soul or divinity.
This is a very clear and basic explanation and I hope it answers your question.
 
St. Mark: What do you make the Catholic argument presented by other posters on this thread that your view demands a dead Christ? The bread does become the body of Christ, and the wine does become the blood of Christ…but mystically, the other must be present as well (whether the body or blood) otherwise Christ is divided and thus dead).

Coptic: I’m sure the Coptic Catholic Church, ever since is was reconciled with Rome, has offered both species down through the centuries, if it’s any consolation. It may not have been ideal, but as both species were offered on the altar, the sacrifice was certainly still valid. I have always taken Holy Communion under boht species, except on one occasion in which I had a cold. Yes, I realize that the Holy Eucharist could never make someone sick, but it is possible that germs on the edge of the cup’s rim could.

As well, St. Mark, we fully agree that your Eucharist is completely valid…did you think that we questioned this? (You made a point of the fact that no one has ever become sick after receiving the Eucharist as proof of the validity of your sacraments…we never contested the validity of Orthodox sacraments).
 
40.png
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
I always receive the blood of Christ.

you seem to be very angry. I think you should look up the information elsewhere because the posters here aren’t going into very deep theological explanation, maybe it is too late at night, anyhoo, make sure you understand before you fly off the handle in anger. Lutherans have a slightly different theology of the Eucharist, right? Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the meal but the bread and wine still exist. Catholics believe the bread and wine cease to exist, although the wine and bread still keep their appearance and taste, they are fully100% the body and blood of Christ, not both bread *and *body or both blood *and *wine. We believe in transubstantiation, I thought Lutherans believed in consubstantiation, so if you are not a confirmed Catholic, but Lutheran, you do not hold the same theological view of the nature of the Eucharist. The rules are there to protect both *you *and the Eucharist, not to “leave you out” You don’t want to accept and say “amen” when a Catholic priest says “Body of Christ” if you do not hold the exact same theological belief, that would be very wrong.

I will take the risk of a few germs on the edge of the chalice to receive Christ, I will take the risk of my life itself. I don’t want to die for the Eucharist, but would be willing to risk my life and die for the Eucharist.

By the Way, there is usually a piece of consecrated host placed into the chalice
 
40.png
Ben_G:
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.
This is one instance where the Scripture is literal.

Both wine and bread are consecrated upon the altar. After consecration they are *each *completely the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. We are not receiving a dead Christ, but the living glorified Jesus Christ. The physical bread and wine cease to exist, they become Christ *himself *under the appearance of bread and wine, but the bread and wine do not co-exist with Christ, the consecrated Eucharist is only Christ. A *living *Christ is complete in both species.
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
You are quoting Roman Catholic Canons here and it makes your argument. I have to make Eastern Orthodox arguments against the idea that both exist under on species. If this were true then wine would suffice for the bread would not it? I mean if you argue against an Anglican point and the Anglican brings up something Anglican to prove his or her point – what is the point?

StMarkEofE
If I understand the thread properly, the original poster was asking for the Catholic reasoning behind communion in one species. She was given the Catholic explanation, but you appeared to deny it was a valid “Catholic” explanation because it didn’t conform to Orthodox eucharistic theology. We already know it doesn’t. That’s why she posed the question in the first place and this is why your comment was out of place.

This may have been addressed later, as I have not yet scrolled thorugh this whole thread, but the Catholic explanation is essentially analogous to that you used with respect to Orthodox communion for infants. In the Catholic understanding, if the wine and bread are consecrated at the altar together, both “contain” the body and blood (though one “is” the body, and one “is” the blood), physical admixture is not necessary.

Incidentally, how does Orthodoxy deal with severe allergies to alcohol or glutten?

Irenicist
 
40.png
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
If by “fact”, you mean “lie”. Eveyrone in my Parish accepts the Body & Blood of Christ. Now, move along and troll elsewhere.
 
40.png
Coptic:
Also, if both are contained in the Body then precicely why is it necessary to concecrate both?
I suspect because both are not contained in either species unless both the bread and the wine have been concecrated together. I’m not sure about this though. What happens if the priest is permanently interrupted between “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”? Is the bread concecrated but not the wine?

Irenicist
 
You are receiving both.

Within HIS body is HIS Blood.

Within His blood is HIS body.

If you read the Book “Eucharistic Miracles” you’ll read how hosts “bled”.
 
40.png
Peace-bwu:
This is one instance where the Scripture is literal.

Both wine and bread are consecrated upon the altar. After consecration they are *each *completely the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. We are not receiving a dead Christ, but the living glorified Jesus Christ. The physical bread and wine cease to exist, they become Christ *himself *under the appearance of bread and wine, but the bread and wine do not co-exist with Christ, the consecrated Eucharist is only Christ. A *living *Christ is complete in both species.
This is beautiful. I’ve never thought of the Eucharist as a LIVING Christ. How true!

🙂 CM
 
carol marie:
This is beautiful. I’ve never thought of the Eucharist as a LIVING Christ. How true!

🙂 CM
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
 
MariaG said:
👋 StMarkEofE,

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

God Bless,
Maria

Correct.

StMarkEofE
 
I have been to 10 local parishes, and NEVER been offered Jesus under the species of Wine. In fact, even when attending mass in Europe, I was never offered Jesus in the Species of Wine.

I think the reasons give above as far as Jesus being truly present, body and blood under both species is correct. Where there is body, there is blood, and where there is blood, there is body.
 
Originally Posted by MariaG
So it is your belief the the Body of Christ does not also contain the blood of Christ?
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Umm, this needs thinking through a bit more…

Because of the hypostatic union, the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence with soul and divinity, in every particle of the consecrated elements. His Body and Blood, His humanity and divinity are undivided.
 
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? I also went to a hight latin Mass where there was no blood. I personally like to take both and that is how it is most felt by me
 
Fr Ambrose:
Umm, this needs thinking through a bit more…

Because of the hypostatic union, the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence with soul and divinity, in every particle of the consecrated elements. His Body and Blood, His humanity and divinity are undivided.
Abouna,

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

God Bless,
Elizabeth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top