In the Roman Catholic Church usually ONLY the Body (bread) is served to the believers at each mass. Only to some certain (Catholics please help?), also the Blood (wine) is served.Last night I attended the Exorcist Speaks lecture by Fr. Jose Fortea. (On a side note, it was a very, very exceptional experience. I would recommend it to anyone.) Before the lecture, Mass was celebrated. When celebrating the Eucharist, only the Body was served to the congregation. I noticed the Priests consumed the Blood but did not offer it to the congregation. What is the reason for this?
Catholic Churches have bread an wine at every Mass as well. Why the wine was not given to the community might have been since it wasnt a Mass, but a lecture, only the bread was used to save time?In the Roman Catholic Church usually ONLY the Body (bread) is served to the believers at each mass. Only to some certain (Catholics please help?), also the Blood (wine) is served.
The priest and the deacon always consume both.
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches it’s normal that at every mass both, the Blood and the Body of Christ are offered. - Even to children! - So it is in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Also in the PNCC and the Old Catholic Churches in communion with Utrecht both are served at mass.
So, it’s a matter of the Rite you attend.
Hope I could help.
In Christ,
It is up to the priest in each parish as to whether to serve both the Body and Blood. At a minimum the Priest must consecrate and consume both Body and Blood as part of the Eucharistic prayer and ceremony. Since Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in both species, taking communion with the Body only, you are still receiving all of Him.Last night I attended the Exorcist Speaks lecture by Fr. Jose Fortea. (On a side note, it was a very, very exceptional experience. I would recommend it to anyone.) Before the lecture, Mass was celebrated. When celebrating the Eucharist, only the Body was served to the congregation. I noticed the Priests consumed the Blood but did not offer it to the congregation. What is the reason for this?
Thanks for your answers. I believe it was a Mass because that is what they called it. Other then that, I don’t have anything in my background to say it was or was not. I understand that it is up to the priest to serve both or only one, but I am curious as to reason the priest would choose to only serve one. Is it a time consideration?It is up to the priest in each parish as to whether to serve both the Body and Blood. At a minimum the Priest must consecrate and consume both Body and Blood as part of the Eucharistic prayer and ceremony. Since Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in both species, taking communion with the Body only, you are still receiving all of Him.
I hope this helps. Peace.
Sometimes time consideration, sometimes a cost consideration. Sometimes cultural norms (i.e. they’ve very rarely offered both). Was it held in a lecture hall and not in the Church building? May have been a convenience issue as well in not having to bring over the chalices and wine.Thanks for your answers. I believe it was a Mass because that is what they called it. Other then that, I don’t have anything in my background to say it was or was not. I understand that it is up to the priest to serve both or only one, but I am curious as to reason the priest would choose to only serve one. Is it a time consideration?
This is not accurate nor true. Both species are and can be served at the discretion of the priest. One can have merely the host or the precious blood or both. Are not both species part of Jesus Body?In the Roman Catholic Church usually ONLY the Body (bread) is served to the believers at each mass. Only to some certain (Catholics please help?), also the Blood (wine) is served.The priest and the deacon always consume both.
Until fairly recently in the U.S., normally only the Body (host) was given to the congregation.This is not accurate nor true. Both species are and can be served at the discretion of the priest. One can have merely the host or the precious blood or both. Are not both species part of Jesus Body?
Indeed you are correct. But Vatican II, if I am correct,changed those practices-correct?Until fairly recently in the U.S., normally only the Body (host) was given to the congregation.
Both the Body and Blood are present in the Body alone. Both the Body and Blood are present in the Blood alone. One need only receive ONE of the two species to receive the COMPLETE Christ. It is not necessary to receive both. Receiving both does not give you ‘more’ Christ.
It was held at a Portuguese Social Hall. I can see the point about Jesus being present in one. I guess where this is different for me is I always saw the commandment from Jesus was to “Take and eat…” “Take and drink…”. I know the sacrament of absolution and confession is based on the commandment to confess one’s sins to another, so it just seems odd to veer away from what I thought was a clear commandment. Is this way off base? I am interested in hearing different points of view.Until fairly recently in the U.S., normally only the Body (host) was given to the congregation.
Both the Body and Blood are present in the Body alone. Both the Body and Blood are present in the Blood alone. One need only receive ONE of the two species to receive the COMPLETE Christ. It is not necessary to receive both. Receiving both does not give you ‘more’ Christ.
I only know in western and central Europe that it’s really VERY seldom that both species are offered at a mass.Thanks for your answers. I believe it was a Mass because that is what they called it. Other then that, I don’t have anything in my background to say it was or was not. I understand that it is up to the priest to serve both or only one, but I am curious as to reason the priest would choose to only serve one. Is it a time consideration?
Of course one can receive the Blood alone-why not? Is Jesus’ Body greater than His Blood? Both have been consecrated and both are the complete Jesus.I only know in western and central Europe that it’s really VERY seldom that both species are offered at a mass.
I think, so far, I’ve only consumed both 4-5 times in my life.
I’ve never heard and seen that one can only recieve the blood alone also.
I do believe you that it’s possible…Of course one can receive the Blood alone-why not? Is Jesus’ Body greater than His Blood? Both have been consecrated and both are the complete Jesus.
Not quite. When the congregation takes the bread or the wine, they are consuming both the body and blood of Jesus. The church teaches that the body, blood, soul, and divinity are contained in both the bread AND the wine.So when the priest consumes both they are consuming for the congregation?
What changes to make it necessary that the priest consumes both? When Jesus come and becomes one with the hosts so it is not necessary to consume both to receive him, why is the priest required to consume both then? I think a poster said the priest is required to consume both. Forgive me if this is not the case.No. When the congregation takes the bread or the wine, they are consuming both the body and blood of Jesus. The church teaches that the body, blood, soul, and divinity are contained in both the body AND the blood.
In other words, the body and the blood of Christ are in the Eucharistic wafer. They are also both in the wine. There is not a need to take both, but you can, and its nice to.
I think this is the case, and I’m not sure why. If there was some catastrophe and wine was no longer available, I’m sure the priest can still say a valid mass. It might just be tradition, or in the rules on how a mass is to be preformed. Just like there has to be 3 readings…I can’t say why though, sorry! Maybe someone else knows why…What changes to make it necessary that the priest consumes both? When Jesus come and becomes one with the hosts so it is not necessary to consume both to receive him, why is the priest required to consume both then? I think a poster said the priest is required to consume both. Forgive me if this is not the case.