Precious Blood distribution suspended to Coronavirus

[babochka]

You don’t just receive ‘the Body’ when you receive the Host; you don’t just receive “the Blood’ when you receive from the Chalice.

A slightly clearer way to state it might be; ‘we cannot receive the Eucharist from the Cup at this point while we may still receive the Eucharist in the Sacred Host so we are still receiving the ‘Complete Lord in the Eucharist’.

It can be confusing to non=Catholics as well as some Catholics, because even here on the forums there are plenty of threads, even RECENT ones, where the people believe that they ‘only’ get the body if they receive the Host, or they think that they have to receive both species to get a complete Jesus.

I wonder if the church doesn’t unintentionally exacerbate the problem by saying, “The body of Christ” when one receives the host and “The blood of Christ” when one receives from the chalice.

 

[stpurl]

I do not believe you are correct here. Would you link to the relevant paragraph in the catechism that states what you claim?

Because what I found in the catechism stated this:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

If only the body were sacramentally present in the Host, and the blood in the wine, then one could not receive Christ completely without receiving both, although the Catechism clearly states receiving the Host is sufficient to receive Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity (of course, receiving from the chalice alone would do the same thing).

 

[John_Martin]

I do not believe you are correct here. Would you link to the relevant paragraph in the catechism that states what you claim?

Finding ref in the ccc is not always easy - here is a start from the Catholic dictionary: Dictionary : CONCOMITANCE | Catholic Culture
When I find the refs I will add further, from the ccc, from Thomas Aquinas, from others also seen in past.
Here is info I shared previously per Thomas Aquinas:

Jesus’ Body is sacramentally present when the bread is transubstantiated into his Body. His Blood is sacramentally present when the wine is transubstantiated into his Blood. This is His “sacramental presence”. And since he is alive, wherever his Body and Blood are, there is his Soul. This is the concomitant presence of His Soul. And where his Body, Blood and Soul are, there is his Divinity, also concomitantly present.
You can read about this in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q76_A1.html

Also, note that where the Body of Christ is, since he is living, by concomitance His Blood is also present. and where the Blood of Christ is, his Body is also present by concomitance, all because He is the living Christ. You cannot have a “part” of Christ, but only the complete Christ, as Thomas explains here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q76_A2.html

So, when Catholics eat His Body, they are also receiving his Blood, Soul, Divinity. And when they drink His Blood, they are also receiving his Body, Soul, Divinity.
And they have life in them, because they are feeding on His Flesh and drinking His Blood.

But all this was known from the time of the apostles, from Jesus himself. Thomas, Trent, and Faustina were only elaborating on what was true and known from the beginning.

 

[stpurl]

But what I pointed out from 1390 said “Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species” and "communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace’.

So that seems to refute the idea that Christ’s body is ‘only’ present sacramentally in the Host and His blood ‘only’ present sacramentally in the Chalice, right?

I know that we say “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ” but since at consecration we have the RISEN Lord with us, the “Body of Christ” offered under the sign of bread contains Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity’ and the “Blood of Christ” offered under the sign of wine contains Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity’ together.

If I receive the Body of Christ under the sign of bread I am receiving Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
If I receive the Blood of Christ under the sign of wine I am receiving Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

If I receive only one species, I receive the full Christ.

If I receive both species, the sign appears fuller but it is not ‘better’, and I don’t get ‘more Jesus’ or a ‘complete Jesus’ whereas receiving one is ‘less Jesus’ or ‘partial Jesus’.

 

[gracepoole]

There is not a high enough alcohol content in wine to kill anything.
You need something 60% alcohol or higher. Even your average vodka is only 40% alcohol.
It is very prudent to suspend the common cup, it happens in my diocese every flu season. While I also like the fuller sign value of receiving both species, it is not necessary.

That’s interesting. I’m part of the same diocese but my parish has never suspended the cup – instead we get a notice in the bulletin to use our best discretion. Does the diocese mandate suspension or does it give parishes the option?

 

[John_Martin]

seems to refute the idea that Christ’s body is ‘only’ present sacramentally in the Host and His blood ‘only’ present sacramentally in the Chalice, right?

“Sacramentally” present means “what material was changed to what material”
The bread became the body, matter cannot be a soul, which is spiritual, as divinity is spiritual. A body cannot be blood and blood is not a body.
But blood can be (and is) with a living body, as a soul is even though the soul is not the body.
Take a host and try to say:
This is a soul.
Or say about the wafer:
This is blood.
Or say:
This is divinity.
No, the sacrament is the body, and the other wholeness of Christ is found with his body, “concomitantly”.

 

[stpurl]

I regret that what you say does not make sense to me.

I’m simply reporting what the catechism says. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and certainly what you’re saying about bodies and souls and matter and spirituality seem to directly contradict Catholic teaching.

 

[maryjk]

That’s interesting. I’m part of the same diocese but my parish has never suspended the cup – instead we get a notice in the bulletin to use our best discretion. Does the diocese mandate suspension or does it give parishes the option

Ours gave the option.

Our Cup had already been suspended because of the flu.

 

[John_Martin]

I’m simply reporting what the catechism says. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and certainly what you’re saying about bodies and souls and matter and spirituality seem to directly contradict Catholic teaching

CCC 1376 last two sentences specifically
The bread changes into the substance of the body of Christ and the wine into the substance of his blood.
Both the body and blood, individually, not mixed, are the sacramental elements and then contained within the sacramental elements is the whole presence of Christ, as stated in paragraph 1374.

The sacramental elements or species contain the real presence. The sacramental species are not themselves the real presence but only body and blood, just like your body contains you, contains your soul. The body, the blood, both contain the full real presence.

 

[stpurl]

I’m still not getting you.

Do you believe that a person who receives only the Host at Mass is receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[CilladeRoma]

Not mandated by the diocese, although our Bishop is not a big fan of offering the cup to the laity, he allows the pastors to use their discretion.
The parish I grew up in, and sometimes attend with my mom suspends the cup for the laity during “flu season” roughly November to April. My own parish does not, but my Pastor puts it out there, if you are sick, do not partake, and better yet, stay home.

 

[gracepoole]

Thank you!

 

[CRV]

Not sure if I’m on the right wavelength here, but I’m hoping the following may help.

The whole of Christ - Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity is sacramentally present in each of the accidents of the bread and wine after consecration. The consecrated hosts are called the Blessed Sacrament, and the Precious Blood is also a sacrament.

As they’ve been changed from bread and wine (elements) to the Body (host which also contains all of Christ) and the Precious Blood we say He is sacramentally present in them.

CCC 1353 … … …

In the institution narrative , the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

Our senses perceive the accidents ie the appearances of bread and wine, though our eyes of Faith perceive the Body and Blood of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity).

 

[John_Martin]

Yes, you are receiving the literal body, as the priest declares, “the Body of Christ” and you reply, “Amen.” And you are receiving the real presence of the whole Christ who cannot be apart from his body that was handed to me by the priest.
(No one would challenge the priest and try to correct him: “you should not say, ‘the body of Christ’ but you ought to say, ‘the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ’ when you hand me the wafer and repeat the exact same worlds when you hand me the chalice”. )
The “thing” you are touching is a material body. It is not a soul. But you can have a whole person if you have his body and he is living.

 

[stpurl]

Yes, the two species are separate but they each contain ‘all’ of Christ. I don’t know why you talked about ‘correcting the priest’ when I never made any mention of such a thing.