Receiving the body but not the blood?

[Malcolm]

At my little church they offer the body of Christ in the normal manner and the blood of Christ separately from the chalice . I never take the chalice because I see many others not doing so and I don’t want to hold up the line or drop it or worse …

I’m wondering if both body and blood is present in the eucharist or only the body ? Am I missing out on the blood by not taking the chalice ? Am I actually disobeying Christ’s commands by not receiving His blood like this ?

 

[Fauken]

I’m wondering if both body and blood is present in the eucharist or only the body ? Am I missing out on the blood by not taking the chalice ? Am I actually disobeying Christ’s commands by not receiving His blood like this ?

You’re fine. Christ is fully present in both the body and the blood.

 

[CRV]

I’m wondering if both body and blood is present in the eucharist

Yes.

Am I missing out on the blood by not taking the chalice ?

No.

Am I actually disobeying Christ’s commands by not receiving His blood like this ?

No.

Edited to add:-
Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, scroll down to point #10 and continue to read or go to the section starting at point #17 Holy Communion under Both Kinds

 

[Prodigal1984]

See this is something I don’t like about them giving both kinds, is people assume they aren’t getting " it all" if they don’t take the precious blood as well.
For most of Church history laity only received the eucharist in the form of bread. Actually it was one of Luthers problems among many he had with the Church.
Christ is completely present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in both species. It isn’t like if you only have one species you are getting only “half” of the Eucharist. Actually the GIRM states priests are supposed to catechize and make this point completely clear, but I never have heard them say a word about it unless someone asks.
Many Churches to this day only offer it in one species especially larger churches.
Laity didn’t receive the blood until after the Second Vatican Council, mainly to symbolically make communicants feel more like they are taking more fully in the mystery if the priest chooses.
However only the priest needs to consume both species to consummate the sacrifice.
You are under no obligation to ever feel you need to take both species and you maybe should voice this to your priest because if you didn’t know this I can assure you that others in your church don’t either.

 

[steph03]

you will be fine wether you take only the host or the host and wine. I do prefer the later to be faitfull to Jesus’ words take and eat/take and drink.But that’s just me.

 

[InThePew]

Actually the GIRM states priests are supposed to catechize and make this point completely clear, but I never have heard them say a word about it unless someone asks.
Many Churches to this day only offer it in one species especially larger churches.
Laity didn’t receive the blood until after the Second Vatican Council, mainly to symbolically make communicants feel more like they are taking more fully in the mystery if the priest chooses.

The GIRM also states that Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. This goes beyond mere sentiment or feeling: “For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom”.

That doesn’t of course mean that we’re obliged to receive under both kinds (in fact the GIRM specifically makes this point) or that there’s something lacking when reception is under one species only. Nonetheless, it does mean that reception under both kinds, where appropriate and permitted by the pastor / bishop should be encouraged.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Thank you for that.
Yes that was basically what I meant, I just didn’t feel like getting up and quoting the GIRM exactly, but I appreciate you clarifying what it says exactly.
I have no issue with receiving under both kinds. I go to both the OF and EF a couple towns over equally and you don’t see it in the EF except some woman who does receive the precious blood after everyone else at the altar rail, I assume maybe she has some gluten allergy but thats none of my business, but yes in the OF it is much more promoted and is more of a normal thing to see.
My only issue is that I think priests should make it more known if a Church decides to introduce it and even after that you are not receiving any less of the graces of the Lord by only receiving under one species.
Sometimes at the OF church I go too they will suspend the precious blood for laity when the flu is bad and I’ve heard people question whether they are receiving the same amount of the Lord. This is the problem I am expressing more than anything.

 

[InThePew]

Sometimes at the OF church I go too they will suspend the precious blood for laity when the flu is bad and I’ve heard people question whether they are receiving the same amount of the Lord. This is the problem I am expressing more than anything.

Still the same Jesus!

 

[TomH1]

No, you are missing out on nothing and are not being disobedient. Whichever of the two consecrated species you receive you receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

As noted above, you receive the sacrament completely under one species, however, as a sign, it is more full when both are received. Personally, I appreciate both (it is more akin to the Last Supper where Jesus used both), I find it of greatest importance, in that, for some people even the low gluten hosts have too much gluten, and so the chalice is the only way they can receive, as such, I find its presence all the better in that all who morally can, are physically able to recieve.