Receiving the Eucharist and or the Precious Blood

[blaskoman]

If receiving either the Eucharist or drinking the Precious Blood from the chalise results in receiving the full benefit of the Sacrament, why do many receive both? Is not this superfluous?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

For some people, it helps recall the full sign that Jesus used at the Last Supper. Unfortunately, regular availability of Communion under both species has led some people to erroneously think that they are being “deprived” of something when the chalice is not offered to them.

 

[japhy]

If receiving either the Eucharist or drinking the Precious Blood from the chalise results in receiving the full benefit of the Sacrament, why do many receive both? Is not this superfluous?

Strictly speaking, the Eucharist is the Sacrament under both species (bread and wine) that is offered to God the Father during the Eucharistic Prayer. We are receiving Holy Communion. Whether we receive under one form only – the Host or the Chalice – we are receiving the whole Jesus Christ. It is not redundant or superfluous to receive both; it is, in fact, necessary for the celebrating priest to do so. Receiving under both kinds is not required for the rest of us, although it is a “fuller sign” of the heavenly banquet.

 

[blaskoman]

Thanks for clarifying the definition of Eucharist…you are implying that by receiving both, the recipient is receiving a greater benefit as opposed to receiving in one form only. Please clarify in what context you mean “fuller sign”?

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Precious Blood IS the Eucharist as well, not only the Holy Body.

 

[japhy]

you are implying that by receiving both, the recipient is receiving a greater benefit as opposed to receiving in one form only.

No, I’m not.

Please clarify in what context you mean “fuller sign”?

Just like baptism by immersion is a fuller sign of being baptized into Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, so receiving Communion under both kinds is a fuller sign of a) the Last Supper and b) the heavenly banquet, the “marriage supper of the Lamb”.

 

[benedictgal]

Let’s let the great Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, answer this one:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

…Nor a single doubt retain,
when they break the Host in twain,
but that in each part remain
what was in the whole before;
For the outward sign alone
may some change have undergone,
while the Signified stays one,
and the same forevermore.

This comes from the Sequence for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. It’s the best answer I can think of for questions such as the one submitted by the OP.

 

[Brendan]

Please clarify in what context you mean “fuller sign”?

A sign is something that points towards something other than itself.

A road sign, for example, points towards, or identifies, a road.

A stop sign signifies an ordinance that requires the drive to stop at that point.

A sign, then points towards, or identifies something other than itself.

This is true of the reception of both species. Each species, by itself, is sign, symbol and reality of the True Presence of Christ. So each species, by itself, fully IS and fully points towards Christ. This is all a Catholic really needs, in fact, there can be nothing more that CAN be recieved if one has recieved Christ Himself.

The reception of both species, then, points towards, but does not offer, something else.

This, as stated above, are signs towards the Last Supper, or more specifically, the Resurrection itself. It points towards these, but does not offer them. One does not recieve the Resurrection by the reception of both species, for example. It merely points towards it, and reminds us of it.

But, no, you do not recieve anything addition by partaking of both species ( you cannot).

The best analogy is back to the street sign. If you are on the Street, you might see an additional street sign saying “This way to ResurrectionVille”

But it the sign itself is not the road, and should not be confused with being the road.

Also, if one is has sufficent faith that one is on the road, the additional road sign won’t provide any new information.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Unfortunately, regular availability of Communion under both species has led some people to erroneously think that they are being “deprived” of something when the chalice is not offered to them.

I do believe it should be the aim of every parish to offer under both species. The Eucharist, as was mentioned, is both the wine and the bread. Christ instituted them together as one sacrament.

I understand that I receive the fullness of Christ under one species. We have to come to this conclusion because it would reduce the Eucharist to an absurdity if we divided him as 50% in the bread and 50% in the wine. However, this is not an excuse to refuse the laity the cup! The Church, IMO, should never have withdrawn the cup from the laity,

 

[pnewton]

Consider the words of Christ, that if we had the faith of a mustard seed,we could say to this mountain, “Be moved” and it would be moved. If we were open to God’s grace as we should be and properly disposed to receive it, we would need no more than the smallest morsel of the Blessed Sacrament. In it is all the grace we need. The “fuller sign” is for our benefit; because of our weakness. It is easier for many of us to see, touch and taste under both species to understand that we receive all of Christ; the same “all of Christ” we could receive in the crumb. If then we find it easier to be disposed to God’s grace under both species, then we can thank God that he condescended (once again) to our weakness.

 

[benedictgal]

I do believe it should be the aim of every parish to offer under both species. The Eucharist, as was mentioned, is both the wine and the bread. Christ instituted them together as one sacrament.

I understand that I receive the fullness of Christ under one species. We have to come to this conclusion because it would reduce the Eucharist to an absurdity if we divided him as 50% in the bread and 50% in the wine. However, this is not an excuse to refuse the laity the cup! The Church, IMO, should never have withdrawn the cup from the laity,

Jordan, what part of St. Thomas Aquainas’ great hymn O Laud Sion did you not understand? Inasmuch as it is truly wonderful to receive Our Lord under both species, there are some cases where it is impossible. A venue like WYD, for example, would not be conducive.

Furthermore, your notion of 50% does not equate. It is erroneous and against what the Church teaches. Jesus is comopletely present, whether you receive His Body or drink His Blood. He doesn’t separate. If your reasoning held true, would you say that those who attend large-scale Masses like WYD, the ones at St. Peter’s Basilica and Square and other large venues are cheated because they don’t, as you seem to claim, receive the entire Christ?

Please re-read what St. Thomas wrote:

***Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be. ***

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

…Nor a single doubt retain,
when they break the Host in twain,
but that in each part remain
what was in the whole before;
For the outward sign alone
may some change have undergone,
while the Signified stays one,
and the same forevermore.

This is the teaching of the Church. Notice here that the Angelic doctor refutes those who would think that they are only receiving a 50/50 share and not the complete Christ.

 

[Digitonomy]

I understand that I receive the fullness of Christ under one species. We have to come to this conclusion because it would reduce the Eucharist to an absurdity if we divided him as 50% in the bread and 50% in the wine.

You are absolutely right, although there are other ways to reach this conclusion as well.
Jordan Francis:

However, this is not an excuse to refuse the laity the cup!

This is not the excuse used. The “excuse” was that some improperly believed their reception of the sacrament was incomplete unless they received both species.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Benedictgal

Jordan, what part of St. Thomas Aquainas’ great hymn O Laud Sion did you not understand?

Benedictgal, if you read my post again, you will see that my understanding of the Eucharist is proper. I do realize that Christ is fully present in either species of the Eucharist.

there are some cases where it is impossible. A venue like WYD, for example, would not be conducive.

I understand that there are extraordinary circumstances in which a denial of the cup to the laity is necessary. But to deny the laity the cup as a matter of regular practice throughout the entire Church, as was done since the Middle Ages until the Second Vatican Council?

I understand that the cup was removed to combat a heresy. But was effective catechesis not enough?

The fact is that, in the course of history, it became built into the Catholic mind that the regular denial of the cup was an acceptable practice, irrespective of questions of heretical interpretation. I do not believe this is right. At the Last Supper Christ gave his Apostles both bread and wine, said both eat and drink, and commanded we take both his flesh and blood.

It is most appropriate that both species be offered, and I think every parish should be striving for this unless exceptional circumstances and events make this impossible. (ie. WYD)

 

[Brendan]

The fact is that, in the course of history, it became built into the Catholic mind that the regular denial of the cup was an acceptable practice, irrespective of questions of heretical interpretation. I do not believe this is right. At the Last Supper Christ gave his Apostles both bread and wine,

Yes, Christ told his Bishops to recieve both species, and that is what Bishops have always done.

said both eat and drink, and commanded we take both his flesh and blood.

Which is exactly what happens when we recieve a single species. His Precious Blood is present in either species, and we drink that, even though the Accidents appear otherwise.

We eat His Flesh and drink His Blood even if our mouths feel nothing but solid bread. We know this because His Blood is living, flowing Blood, it cannot be otherwise, again even if our eyes see bread, our tounges taste bread and our thoats feel bread. Yet we drink.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Yes, Christ told his Bishops to recieve both species, and that is what Bishops have always done.

Regardless of the fact that it is the bishops who hold the Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist in both species was entrusted into their care for the nourishment and life of the entire Church, both laity and priesthood alike.

The above is an attempt to offer an ecclessiastical interpretation of the Last Supper that justifies the denial of the cup to the laity, one that I don’t believe has any real basis in Revelation.

St. Paul writes to more than bishops when he commands us to eat the bread and drink the cup in a worthy manner.

Acknowledging that Christ is fully present in both species, that in certain situations it is acceptable to offer the laity only the bread for reasons of practicality, I think it is most proper that we be offered both species under ordinary circumstances.

 

[Walking_Home]

Regardless of the fact that it is the bishops who hold the Apostolic Succession, the** Eucharist in both species was**** entrusted into their care for the nourishment and life of the entire Church, both laity and priesthood alike.**

The above is an attempt to offer an ecclessiastical interpretation of the Last Supper that justifies the denial of the cup to the laity, one that I don’t believe has any real basis in Revelation.

St. Paul writes to more than bishops when he commands us to eat the bread and drink the cup in a worthy manner.

Acknowledging that Christ is fully present in both species, that in certain situations it is acceptable to offer the laity only the bread for reasons of practicality, I think it is most proper that we be offered both species under ordinary circumstances.

---

Just by the fuss you are putting forth --it seems the circumstances may warrant for the Church to reconsider whether the Chalice should be allowed to the laity. As was explained prior —we are nourished to the** fullest** with the reception of one species.

 

[benedictgal]

---

Just by the fuss you are putting forth --it seems the circumstances may warrant for the Church to reconsider whether the Chalice should be allowed to the laity. As was explained prior —we are nourished to the** fullest** with the reception of one species.

There is also something that we didn’t mention: the high risk of profaning the Precious Blood, especially during large-scale Masses.

Read what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:

101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

Therefore, if Redemptionis Sacramentum notes the possible dangers of profaning the Precious Blood, then, it is prudential to forego administering the chalice.

 

[Brendan]

Regardless of the fact that it is the bishops who hold the Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist in both species was entrusted into their care for the nourishment and life of the entire Church, both laity and priesthood alike.

Correct, and there is no less nourishment and Life for the Church in one species that in both.

And you are quite correct that it is entrusted to THEIR care (not ours).

Therefore, we cannot claim to know better than the Church, but yet, you claim that the Church was wrong to continue offering a single species to the faithful substantially after (no pun ) the Ultraquist heresy died down.

Why is that? If one recieves a gift ( the Eucharist) that is full and complete, what need exactly does it fulfil?

 

[blaskoman]

Very informative responses! I particularly like the theological explanations…however, I still cannot get a proper handle around why both species are offered at some masses. (my church usually just offers the bread). I’ve attended many masses in which both species were offered. In such situations, I would estimate that 100% of those receiving communion receive the bread, while maybe 25% drink the wine. I never notice someone shunning the bread and only receiving the precious blood.

If I receive the full effect from eating the bread, I still feel that to also receive the wine would be superfluous. Previous posts have mentioned that Jesus is completely present in the species of the bread (body, blood, sould and divinity). I neglect to drink the wine due to hygenic reasons and I do not feel that I am missing out. Help me here. Am I missing something by not drinking the wine?

 

[japhy]

In such situations, I would estimate that 100% of those receiving communion receive the bread, while maybe 25% drink the wine.

I’m sure you don’t mean anything by it, but a passing observer might mistakenly think your use of the words “bread” and “wine” mean that Catholics believe the Host and the contents of the Chalice are simply bread and wine, and not actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

Am I missing something by not drinking the [Precious Blood]?

No, you are not “missing” anything. The only difference between receiving under one species and receiving under two is that receiving under two species is a “fuller sign” of the heavenly banquet; but don’t let that bog you down and confuse you, it’s simply a way of saying that “eating and drinking” is a fuller sign of a banquet than “eating” on its own. It doesn’t change anything though.

(Oh, and you have to say “Amen” and bow your head twice. That’s the other difference.)