Taking the Body AND Blood?

[dje101]

Hi all,

I was wondering, when you go up for the Eucharist, do you take only one of the two? I’m not sure if I’ve seen things right (I might not have been paying the best attention), but at the church that I go to, people go up and get either the Blood OR the Body, not both (I think). Is this right? And how come its this way? Just wondering,

Thanks!!

 

[obliviuossquire]

Hi all,

I was wondering, when you go up for the Eucharist, do you take only one of the two? I’m not sure if I’ve seen things right (I might not have been paying the best attention), but at the church that I go to, people go up and get either the Blood OR the Body, not both (I think). Is this right? And how come its this way? Just wondering,

Thanks!!

Reference John chapter 6 for the importance of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church says we are to receive both if possible but receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient if for some legitimate reason the person is not able to accept the Blood of Christ. Some don’t take the Blood because they fear germs or don’t like wine…this concept is kind of silly because if someone truly believes in the Consecration and Trans-substantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would gladly receive the Gifts of God in this most holy sacrament. A woman touched the garments of Christ as he was in a crowd and she was instantly healed, how would some human germ overcome the most powerful and holy Body and Blood of Christ.

May the Lord bless you and keep you all the days of your life!

 

[wsxyz]

The Catholic Church says we are to receive both if possible…

Really? You’d better go inform the German bishops conference. I lived in Germany for 4 years and never saw the chalice offered to the faithful (except once when a groups of American tourists and their American priest all tried to share the tiny priest’s chalice.)

“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.” – Trent 21, Canon 1

“If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.” – Trent 21, Canon 2

but receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient if for some legitimate reason the person is not able to accept the Blood of Christ.

If you receive the body, then you also receive the blood, whether you receive from the chalice or not.

“If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.” – Trent 13, Canon 3

"If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema. – Trent 21, Canon 3

Some don’t take the Blood because they fear germs or don’t like wine … how would some human germ overcome the most powerful and holy Body and Blood of Christ.

It is possible to transmit communicable disease through the shared chalice.

 

[wsxyz]

I was wondering, when you go up for the Eucharist, do you take only one of the two? I’m not sure if I’ve seen things right (I might not have been paying the best attention), but at the church that I go to, people go up and get either the Blood OR the Body, not both (I think). Is this right?

You may receive one, or the other, or both, if both are being offered. Most people who only plan on receiving one species receive only the species of bread.

People who have some allergy to bread (such as gluten intolerance) may receive only the species of wine.

In any case, whether you receive only the species of bread, or only the species of wine, or both, you have received the whole Christ. Your Holy Communion is no less complete when you receive only one species.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I eat the bread (the body), which the Church says is sufficient. I do not drink the wine because I just can’t bring myself to drink out of a cup that other people drank from especially during the months when colds and flues are circulating…I just can’t get passed that most days. Once in awhile I can do it, but only on holy days and during the warmer months when the cold and flu isn’t circulating through the church. My take is that if the Church says it’s sufficient to eat just the body (and she knows best), then I’m just fine doing that.

 

[pablope]

Hi all,

I was wondering, when you go up for the Eucharist, do you take only one of the two? I’m not sure if I’ve seen things right (I might not have been paying the best attention), but at the church that I go to, people go up and get either the Blood OR the Body, not both (I think). Is this right? And how come its this way? Just wondering,

Thanks!!

Hopefully someone will cite the section of the CCC for this.

But in a nutshell, the body, blood, soul and divinity is, once consecrated, present in both the bread or wine. You receive the whole of Christ in either form.

In my parish, the wine is not offered, only the bread. In another parish I usually attend sometimes, both are offered during communion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi all,

I was wondering, when you go up for the Eucharist, do you take only one of the two? I’m not sure if I’ve seen things right (I might not have been paying the best attention), but at the church that I go to, people go up and get either the Blood OR the Body, not both (I think). Is this right? And how come its this way? Just wondering,

Thanks!!

Each Eucharistic species contains the fullness of Christ. Receiving both grants you the fullness of the sign, although receiving only one already gives you the fullness of Christ. You may receive either the Precious Body or the Precious Blood only, or both.

 

[archangel04]

Reference John chapter 6 for the importance of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church says we are to receive both if possible but receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient if for some legitimate reason the person is not able to accept the Blood of Christ. **Some don’t take the Blood because they fear germs or don’t like wine…this concept is kind of silly because if someone truly believes in the Consecration and Trans-substantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would gladly receive the Gifts of God in this most holy sacrament. ** A woman touched the garments of Christ as he was in a crowd and she was instantly healed, how would some human germ overcome the most powerful and holy Body and Blood of Christ.

May the Lord bless you and keep you all the days of your life!

The bold is mine. These are perfectly legitamate reasons to not receive the blood. Even thought the wine transforms into body& blood, the accidents, that is the apperance and taste of wine, still remain, this also would include germs from those who have already recevied from the same cup. To say that is one truly believes in the consecration they should have no problem recevining is to call into question the faith of someone which you really have no authority to do so.

 

[nickybr38]

This was a good thread for me to read. I just recently found out I am allergic to both the Blood and the Body. The Blood causes my throat to swell almost immediately, the Body makes my stomach sore. After some thought I’ve decided to receive the Body alone (it gives me the less alarming reaction).

It was very comforting to learn that BOTH are present in either and it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Don’t know why I didn’t think about it before!

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Both is offered in my parish. I take both.

 

[svid2]

The one time I was an EMHC (it was an emergency; the regular EMHC didn’t show and it was Easter - packed house) I noticed that none of the immigrants from Mexico partook of the Chalice.

Also, after Communion, the Chalice was 2/3 full, and I had to consume it on a very empty stomach (I had been fasting).

Went home with a slight buzz…

 

[ConstantineTG]

This was a good thread for me to read. I just recently found out I am allergic to both the Blood and the Body. The Blood causes my throat to swell almost immediately, the Body makes my stomach sore. After some thought I’ve decided to receive the Body alone (it gives me the less alarming reaction).

It was very comforting to learn that BOTH are present in either and it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Don’t know why I didn’t think about it before!

Do you have celiac disease? Maybe you can try and get “gluten-free” hosts and at least it won’t give you much discomfort.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I don’t take the Blood of Christ at Communion because I was never taught to - I did my First Communion in Saudi Arabia and we couldn’t get hold of wine for Communion so it obviously wasn’t offered and then at my next parish we didn’t have it either because the parish was so huge that they couldn’t afford to. So I only take the Body, just out of habit.

 

[wsxyz]

Do you have celiac disease? Maybe you can try and get “gluten-free” hosts and at least it won’t give you much discomfort.

As a digression, gluten-free hosts are invalid matter and may not be used. Low-gluten hosts, however, are acceptable.

 

[Monica4316]

In the Latin Mass, only the Host is offered. Christ is fully present under both species. In the Novus Ordo, some parishes offer both…

either way: He is present there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

God bless

 

[TrueLight]

Really? You’d better go inform the German bishops conference. I lived in Germany for 4 years and never saw the chalice offered to the faithful (except once when a groups of American tourists and their American priest all tried to share the tiny priest’s chalice.)

“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.” – Trent 21, Canon 1

“If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.” – Trent 21, Canon 2

I actually have a similar thread running where I posted the following from the CC:

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.

So I take this to mean that taking under both species is preferable but not necessary.

 

[angelic06]

Reference John chapter 6 for the importance of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church says we are to receive both if possible but receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient if for some legitimate reason the person is not able to accept the Blood of Christ. Some don’t take the Blood because they fear germs or don’t like wine…this concept is kind of silly because if someone truly believes in the Consecration and Trans-substantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would gladly receive the Gifts of God in this most holy sacrament. A woman touched the garments of Christ as he was in a crowd and she was instantly healed, how would some human germ overcome the most powerful and holy Body and Blood of Christ.

May the Lord bless you and keep you all the days of your life!

While I do not necessarily agree with the fear of receiving germs from the sacred Chalice, the fear itself is not silly—it sounds perfectly legit to me, just like you said that people can receive the Host alone for any legit reason they are not able to drink from the Chalice, or for that matter, any reason at all. The accidents of bread and wine still remain, so it is possible for germs to be transmitted from the chalice, if it is possible for germs to be likewise transmitted from an ordinary drinking cup----I do not know, I’ll let the medical/public health authorities pronounce on that. We should not call these ideas silly even if we do not agree with their reasoning. On a related note, some people are unable to receive the Host because they cannot have gluten. Others are alcoholics who cannot receive from the Chalice. For those who are unable to receive either, the Church permits either the use of low gluten (it cannot be absolutely no gluten since it needs to be true bread in order to be valid material for the Mass) or mustum for the altar wine with the consent of the ordinary. According to your bolded reasoning above, if what we receive is true Body and Blood (which I believe with my whole heart), then these people also should be able to receive both without ill effects (which is not the case, since the Church makes provision for these people).

Your use of silly in this context is not appropriate.

Save your people, O Lord. And bless your inheritance.

(Spoken by the priest at Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, holding the sacred Chalice before the people, after all who desire have received Holy Communion)

(I’m sorry, I did not see archangel04’s post before posting, which pretty much covered the same topics in mine. However, I’ll leave mine up to drive home the point.)

 

[rotlex]

I prefer to take both, however, I seldom actually get to. In my diocese, Allentown area of PA, I have never gone to, or been a member of, a parish where both were offered. It is almost always only the bread. I realize both species are present under either; I just enjoy doing both when the opportunity presents itself. For me, that is generally only at special occasions, or retreats.

 

[SanctaMommy]

I am a public health nurse, and I am always horrified to see elderly taking of the Precious Blood at our Mass. Rest assured that the chalice is teeming with germs during cold and flu season - any number of which could spell “the end” for an immune-compromised communicant. If one truly believes that the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ, then one should also realize that human blood is a perfect conduit for myriad bacteria and viruses. There is no reason to believe that Christ’s blood is impervious to influenza. Taking of the Most Holy Host is sufficient and offers the fullness of the sacrament in a much more hygienic capacity. I believe it is time that we end the filthy, dangerous practice of sharing all from the same (beautiful) chalice to partake of the Blood. There has got to be a better, safer way!

In fact, during the H1N1 outbreak last year, I had a stern discussion with the local pastor about temporarily stopping service of The Blood due to the fact that so many pregnant women, children and elderly were succumbing to that particular flu. He decided to continue to offer it, but did put a note in the bulletin that those who were immune-compromised or who wished to avoid the flu should not partake of the Blood and should use hand sanitizer after the sign of peace, or refrain from shaking hands entirely.

 

[nickybr38]

Do you have celiac disease? Maybe you can try and get “gluten-free” hosts and at least it won’t give you much discomfort.

It was my understanding that should one decide to go the gluten-free host route they’d have to pay for it themselves. At least at my parish this is the case.

To me it’s not worth the hassle but people with more severe issues with gluten would probably want the gluten-free host.