Receiving the Body and Blood

[Guyonthestreet]

In the gospel accounts, Jesus took the bread, and said this is my Body.

He took the cup, and said This is my Blood.

Why do catholics then say that the Eucharist under the form of the Host only say the Host contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Why not receive under both species as ordained by Christ?

I know you cant receive the body, without also receiving the Blood as the Blood is part of the Body - as an idea - But Jesus took Bread and wine and performed two seperate acts.

Did those in the early church always receive under both species?

When did it change for the catholic church,

I know some, a lot, of churchs offer both, but not all, and you certainly dont receive the Blood from the Chalice in the traditional rite of the catholic mass.

 

[ralphinal]

In the gospel accounts, Jesus took the bread, and said this is my Body.

He took the cup, and said This is my Blood.

Correct.

Why do catholics then say that the Eucharist under the form of the Host only say the Host contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Because Jesus cannot be divided into base parts. You cannot have his Body with his Divinity nor his Blood without His soul

Why not receive under both species as ordained by Christ?

The priest must. He is required to. In order for a mass to be valid, the only person who MUST be there is the priest, and he is the only one REQUIRED to receive anything.

I know you cant receive the body, without also receiving the Blood as the Blood is part of the Body - as an idea - But Jesus took Bread and wine and performed two seperate acts.

Correct, but that is connected to the Passover and to the ritual offerings.

Did those in the early church always receive under both species?

Yes, and we still do

When did it change for the catholic church,

There was a heresy that said that if you did not get both, you got nothing (or worse, you sinned). They also said the bigger the piece, the more Jesus. Now, what if they run out of Precious Blood? Is that your fault? No. The Church took the drastic approach of limiting the Blood to force the heretics to listen to Church teaching

I know some, a lot, of churchs offer both, but not all, and you certainly dont receive the Blood from the Chalice in the traditional rite of the catholic mass.

That is not correct. In most masses, both are offered. Watch a mass on EWTN and you will see a very traditional mass with both offered. Granted, it is by intinction, but both Body and Blood are offered.

 

[puzzleannie]

the forum where you will find much fuller information on Catholic sacraments and liturgy, including understanding of Catholic teaching on Eucharist, is the liturgy and sacraments forum. this forum generally discusses practices of various non-Catholic relgions or denominations.

Catholics do believe because the Catholic Church teaches that what Christ declared is true, He is fully, truly, really, sacramentally present in His whole entire undivided Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under both the form of the consecrated bread, the host, and of the consecrated wine, the Precious Blood. The direction to “take and eat” and “take and drink” was given by Christ to the apostles specifically at the Last Supper, so it is essential for the Eucharistic sacrifice to be valid that the priest consume both. The laity may receive under both or either forms, depending on local practice. There have been times where discipline about reception, including frequency, which form, etc. have been different, but laity have always been able to receive the host. Even when reception of the precious Blood was not the general practice every Sunday, it was offered for occasions such as weddings or first communions.

Now the manner of reception is that prescribed by the local bishop. At present because of the flu crisis drinking from the common cup has been discouraged in some places, but as a general practice in most dioceses of the US, the cup is offered in most places unless there is some reason–lack of ministers for instance–that makes this unwise.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I wondered about this same issue. It turns out that it’s largely because of 1 Corinthians 11:27: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

As for Christ’s words, the Bread **is **His Body, but also His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity; the Wine is His Blood, but also His Body, His Soul and His Divinity.

The Eucharistic Host is all of these things, but also represents His Body particularly (since it appears vaguely fleshlike), and the species of Wine represents His Blood because it appears vaguely bloody. By separating them, we recall His Passion.

At every Mass, communicants receive under both species either directly or indirectly. Directly, by receiving both, or indirectly, because the priest receives both, and we’re bound together through either. And the celebrant does receive under both species at every Mass.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

That is not correct. In most masses, both are offered. Watch a mass on EWTN and you will see a very traditional mass with both offered. Granted, it is by intinction, but both Body and Blood are offered.

Ok Im prepared to be wrong here as I was sitting aways back, but I was at a Latin Mass and Im almost certain the host only was given. I was certain, until you said that.

Im prepared to be wrong on this one as I wasnt close to the alter.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Ok Im prepared to be wrong here as I was sitting aways back, but I was at a Latin Mass and Im almost certain the host only was given. I was certain, until you said that.

Im prepared to be wrong on this one as I wasnt close to the alter.

I believe what you think you saw, you actually saw. In the full Latin Mass it is traditional for the priest to only distribute the Body and not the Blood of Jesus. They claim that the Body is in the Blood and the Blood is in the Body, so only 1, as they call it, Species is necessary for the Sacrament to be affected. There are Roman Catholic N.O. Masses said locally where also only the Body is distributed to the people, but the priest only partakes of both.

I agree with you that giving only the Body or only the Blood goes against what Jesus Himself did and the Consecration Prayers Jesus said (which are not recorded in the Bible) over the bread and wine as well as action He took by distributing both His True Body and His True Blood is what the Orthodox Christian Priests have continued to do through out history. He gave instructions to the Apostles to ““Do this” in memory of Me” not “Do “part of this” in memory of Me”. Why mess with something when it doesn’t need fixing. God established it the way He wanted it…who are we to change it?

 

[agiosotheos]

Did those in the early church always receive under both species?

As far as I know. All of the ancient Christian churches which broke from the Church of Rome before the Protestant Reformation (EOC, OOC, ACE) never had a period where they discontinued partaking of both species.

 

[ralphinal]

Ok Im prepared to be wrong here as I was sitting aways back, but I was at a Latin Mass and Im almost certain the host only was given. I was certain, until you said that.

Im prepared to be wrong on this one as I wasnt close to the alter.

Oops. If it was a Tridentine mass, you may be right. IF it was a Latin N.O. you may be wrong.

 

[agiosotheos]

There was a heresy that said that if you did not get both, you got nothing (or worse, you sinned).

Choosing to receive one of the elements of Communion and not the other is certainly an abuse of the Sacred Mystery and a sin.

 

[ralphinal]

Choosing to receive one of the elements of Communion and not the other is certainly an abuse of the Sacred Mystery and a sin.

That was not the particular issue. It stemmed from running out of one or having to divide Hosts to make sure you had enough. The people in the back were accused of “getting less Jesus.”

 

[TheosisM]

As far as I know. All of the ancient Christian churches which broke from the Church of Rome before the Protestant Reformation (EOC, OOC, ACE) never had a period where they discontinued partaking of both species.

Do all Eastern churches give the Eucharist from a spoon?

 

[ralphinal]

As far as I know. All of the ancient Christian churches which broke from the Church of Rome before the Protestant Reformation (EOC, OOC, ACE) never had a period where they discontinued partaking of both species.

As far as I know, you are correct.

Is self-communication by the hand allowed?

 

[agiosotheos]

That was not the particular issue. It stemmed from running out of one or having to divide Hosts to make sure you had enough. The people in the back were accused of “getting less Jesus.”

Yet it has long been an accepted practice in the RCC to allow the laity to choose not to receive the consecrated wine.

 

[agiosotheos]

Do all Eastern churches give the Eucharist from a spoon?

No. I have been going to Coptic churches a fair amount lately. The Coptic priest places the consecrated bread in the mouth of the communicant with his hands, and then serves only the wine to them with a spoon. I believe it is only those of the Byzantine rite who mix the consecrated bread and wine together in the chalice and serve them together with a spoon.

 

[ralphinal]

Yet it has long been an accepted practice in the RCC to allow the laity to choose not to receive the consecrated wine.

That is a result of removing the option altogether. The specifics of the mass dictate that the priest MUST reveive both. As pointed out earlier, Paul indicates that the two can be received separately.

 

[agiosotheos]

Is self-communication by the hand allowed?

I’ve never seen it. It appears to be always the priest (or sometimes a deacon) serving the elements directly to the laity in some form or another.

 

[agiosotheos]

That is a result of removing the option altogether. The specifics of the mass dictate that the priest MUST reveive both. As pointed out earlier, Paul indicates that the two can be received separately.

I don’t buy it. You’re stretching the meaning of an English translation, the original form of which was written in a culture where only taking one species was not considered, to fit your agenda.

 

[raffo]

The Holy Eucharist is the Living Body of Jesus Christ. Since a living body has blood, there is no need for the wine.

There have been proofs for centuries and throughout the world that a consecrated host has become flesh and blood.

 

[agiosotheos]

The Holy Eucharist is the Living Body of Jesus Christ. Since a living body has blood, there is no need for the wine.

That is speculation, not revelation. All Jesus revealed to us is that the consecrated bread is His Body (and by that He might have simply meant flesh) and that the consecrated wine is His Blood. Further, even if you are right in what you say, Jesus still commanded us to partake of the consecrated wine as well.

 

[josie_L]

That is speculation, not revelation. All Jesus revealed to us is that the consecrated bread is His Body (and by that He might have simply meant flesh) and that the consecrated wine is His Blood. Further, even if you are right in what you say, Jesus still commanded us to partake of the consecrated wine as well.

It is not speculation as the Lanciano miracle attests to the fact that there is flesh and blood in the species of bread consecrated at mass.