Poll: Do you receive under the species of wine?

[Brendan]

While Christ is fully in both, I’m not sure where you get the idea that eating and drinking are the same functions. Jesus offered both bread and wine, and said “do this.”

You accept that Christ’s Blood is present in a single species, correct? If so, how does one comsume flowing, living Blood?

You drink it, of course. My Websters Collegiate states the definition of the verb ‘to drink’ is to: " consume liquids by swallowing"

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with the living Blood of Christ.

Yes, you mouth does not percieve the accidental properites of drinking, but you still ARE drinking.

The accidental properties of the species remain, our eyes see bread, even though we KNOW we are looking upon the full Body of Christ. Our lips feel bread, even though we KNOW we are consuming divine flesh.

And yes, our mouths percieve solid when we are in fact, drinking.

That is the only thing we can do with flowing Blood, correct?

 

[Brendan]

When I can…I receive under both. It’s just too hard to pass up the Blood of Christ…

I don’t pass up the Blood of Christ either, even when I recieve the Host alone

 

[puzzleannie]

communion under both species is rarely offered to the laity under both species here except on Holy Days.

if I go anywhere else it is usually where communication is on the tongue only and the cup is never offered to the faithful.

 

[Incomplete]

You accept that Christ’s Blood is present in a single species, correct? If so, how does one comsume flowing, living Blood?

You drink it, of course. My Websters Collegiate states the definition of the verb ‘to drink’ is to: " consume liquids by swallowing"

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with the living Blood of Christ.

Yes, you mouth does not percieve the accidental properites of drinking, but you still ARE drinking.

The accidental properties of the species remain, our eyes see bread, even though we KNOW we are looking upon the full Body of Christ. Our lips feel bread, even though we KNOW we are consuming divine flesh.

And yes, our mouths percieve solid when we are in fact, drinking.

That is the only thing we can do with flowing Blood, correct?

I receive the blood of Christ, but sacramentally. So no, I am not drinking when I receive only the consecrated host. The accidents remain, so it is the same mechanism as if I were to consume an unconsecrated host.

Regardless, Jesus offered bread and said “Eat this” (not “Eat and drink this”). Then He offered the wine and said “Drink this” (Not “Eat and Drink this.” He apparently saw a difference. So, since the Church sees fitting to offer the laity to do as He asked, that’s what I do. I’m not saying it’s better, just that this is why I do it.

 

[ajpirc]

I receive the blood of Christ, but sacramentally. So no, I am not drinking when I receive only the consecrated host. The accidents remain, so it is the same mechanism as if I were to consume an unconsecrated host.

Does this mean you’re eating the Precious Blood?

Regardless, Jesus offered bread and said “Eat this” (not “Eat and drink this”). Then He offered the wine and said “Drink this” (Not “Eat and Drink this.” He apparently saw a difference. So, since the Church sees fitting to offer the laity to do as He asked, that’s what I do. I’m not saying it’s better, just that this is why I do it.

It was probably because the Apostles would get even more confused. First, He said eat my Flesh and we know how confused they got about that. Then, if He said drink this bread, wouldn’t that confuse them even more?

 

[Young_Thinker]

When those people “only eat the Body” as you say, **what you mean is they only take the Eucharist under the form of bread. **For it is impossible to eat the Body without drinking the Blood. When we only receive the Eucharist in one form, both Body and Blood are there.

I heard a story once, I think it might have been on here, where a boy was allergic to the wheat in the Eucharist, so the priest told him to receive the Eucharist only under the form of wine. The boy’s mother became upset because she thought the priest was trying to keep the boy from receiving the Body of Christ. The priest then had to tell the mother that both species contain both the Body and Blood of Christ.

Indeed. As for your story, do you know the boy had tried the bread before and had had a adverse reaction or whether the priest was just trying to be cautious? I am not denying that susceptible people can have bad chemical reactions to either of the Species, but I feel that one should take both if if it is at all possible.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I don’t pass up the Blood of Christ either, even when I recieve the Host alone

But when you do that, you do not get to taste it or feel the liquid going down your throat!

 

[benedictgal]

But when you do that, you do not get to taste it or feel the liquid going down your throat!

With all due respect, that is not a good way at looking at the consumption of the Precious Blood.

 

[Incomplete]

Does this mean you’re eating the Precious Blood?

It was probably because the Apostles would get even more confused. First, He said eat my Flesh and we know how confused they got about that. Then, if He said drink this bread, wouldn’t that confuse them even more?

I’m not eating blood, I’m eating the Communion host, which is under the form of solid food, not liquid. Just as I am not eating, say, a finger, or a bone, or anything of that nature. If you put the Eucharist under a microscope, you will see that. We receive Christ sacramentally, under the form of bread and wine. This is Church teaching. So when we receive bread we are eating, when we receive wine we are drinking.

I’m not sure I’m getting your point about confusing the Apostles. If they were already confused, why add to the confusion by adding the wine? Why not just give them bread? I think he said “eat” and “drink” because you eat bread and drink wine. That’s the most logical explanation.

 

[Young_Thinker]

With all due respect, that is not a good way at looking at the consumption of the Precious Blood.

Thank you for your courtesy. But remember that we are physical beings, too. If we are to think that we are drinking the Blood of Jesus, it only makes sense for your body to perceive liquid. Not to mention that (though much less importantly) the wine can wash the bread down your throat.

 

[ajpirc]

I’m not eating blood, I’m eating the Communion host, which is under the form of solid food, not liquid. Just as I am not eating, say, a finger, or a bone, or anything of that nature. If you put the Eucharist under a microscope, you will see that. We receive Christ sacramentally, under the form of bread and wine. This is Church teaching. So when we receive bread we are eating, when we receive wine we are drinking.

As you eat the communion host, wouldn’t you say you are eating the Flesh AND Blood of Christ? For ALL of Him is under the species of bread and ALL of Him is under the species of wine.

 

[john_aurelius]

It’s my preference to receive Jesus under both species and feel as if I’ve missed out if only the host is offered to the laity.

The Priest always has both.

 

[ajpirc]

It’s my preference to receive Jesus under both species and feel as if I’ve missed out if only the host is offered to the laity.

The Priest always has both.

Why do people feel like they’re missing out? You don’t have to receive the Eucharist under the species of wine to receive the blood. Both you and the priest receive the same Body and the same Blood.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s my preference to receive Jesus under both species and feel as if I’ve missed out if only the host is offered to the laity.

The Priest always has both.

The priest consumes both the Sacred Body and Precious Blood because the ritual requires it. The Sacrifice is complete only when the celebrant consumes both.

 

[Brendan]

But when you do that, you do not get to taste it or feel the liquid going down your throat!

Neither, those are accidental properties. I want, I desire, the SUBSTANCE!!!

 

[Brendan]

Thank you for your courtesy. But remember that we are physical beings, too…

Yes we are physical beings, but Christ left none of the physical accidental properties of Himself in the Eucharist. Zero, not a single one.

Why is that?

 

[Brendan]

I’m not eating blood, I’m eating the Communion host, which is under the form of solid food, not liquid. Just as I am not eating, say, a finger, or a bone, or anything of that nature. If you put the Eucharist under a microscope, you will see that. We receive Christ sacramentally, under the form of bread and wine. This is Church teaching. So when we receive bread we are eating, when we receive wine we are drinking.
.

You ARE drinking the Blood, even in the species of bread. You mouth is conveying the accidental properties of eating, but those are just the accidental properties of the actio. An actio has substantial properties as well.

 

[Incomplete]

As you eat the communion host, wouldn’t you say you are eating the Flesh AND Blood of Christ? For ALL of Him is under the species of bread and ALL of Him is under the species of wine.

There are physical laws here. I am consuming all of Christ under either species. But when it comes to bread, I eat. I drink wine. Remember, we receive him sacramentally. We really and truly receive Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. But it’s in sacramental form. The accidents remain the same. Just as when the apostles at the bread and drank the wine, Jesus was still there among them. They received Him, but they did not literally eat Him. Yet they really and truly received body, blood, soul, and divinity.

And once again, Jesus said "Eat’ when He gave them bread. He said “Drink” when He gave them wine. He could’ve just gave them bread and said, “You are receiving me when you receive this” or words to that effect. But you eat bread, you drink wine.

There are no blood veins in the consecrated host. It is all solid. Because we receive sacramentally.

 

[Incomplete]

You ARE drinking the Blood, even in the species of bread. You mouth is conveying the accidental properties of eating, but those are just the accidental properties of the actio. An actio has substantial properties as well.

The accidents stay the same. I am consuming Christ sacramentally, just as the Apostles did. That is Church teachings. I don’t drink bread.

Having said that, if you can find where the Church teaches that we both eat and drink the consecrated host, I will stand corrected. At this point, though, I think you are confusing “real presence” with “literal presence.” There is a difference.

 

[Brendan]

The accidents stay the same. I am consuming Christ sacramentally, just as the Apostles did. That is Church teachings. I don’t drink bread…

Correct, you drink blood. Christ didn’t tell us to drink His wine, He told us to drink His Blood.

So we drink the Substance of His Blood under the guise of bread. The accidents are bread and eating, the Substance is Blood and Drink