Taking the Body AND Blood?

[hn160]

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.

That is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics, we believe that the bread contains only Christ’s Body because Christ said “This is My Body…” and when He took the cup, He said “This is My Blood…”.

 

[wsxyz]

I’ve relayed this experience so many times in these forums. I saw a kid play with the Eucharist in his mouth at a TLM in a FSSP parish. The host was halfway outside his mouth as he passed me by my pew. I was seated 3/4 of the way to the back.

What is the point of this anecdote? Obviously individuals can treat the sacrament without respect no matter how they receive. I said as much.

On the other hand, how common is such disrespect in FSSP parishes compared to “regular” parishes?

And who’s to say that there are no fragments that fall on our chin or from the priest’s hand?

That’s what the paten is for. But when Holy Communion is being distributed in the hand, then even if a paten is used (which, as we both know, it very rarely is) particles can (and do) remain in the hand to be brushed off onto the floor.

 

[wsxyz]

That is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics, we believe that the bread contains only Christ’s Body because Christ said “This is My Body…” and when He took the cup, He said “This is My Blood…”.

And if Christ pointed to his living human body and said “This is my body” would you then argue that his living human body contained no blood?

 

[dje101]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I haven’t been apart of the discussion since I posted the thread, I’ve been very busy with work. Thank you all for explaining this to me. I thought I had been seeing things when I saw that some people weren’t getting both species. I come from a protestant church where we we accepted both species and brought it back to our seat for private reflection and prayer before partaking with everyone at the same time.

But why does the church say that it is ok to accept one and not both? Jesus gave the disciples both during the last supper and made a clear distinction that THIS is my BLOOD and THIS is my BODY.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What is the point of this anecdote? Obviously individuals can treat the sacrament without respect no matter how they receive. I said as much.

As I said, disrespect can happen no matter how the Eucharist is received. People should stop pointing to CITH as the disrespectful one because there’s nothing preventing people from being disrespectful even if they receive on the tongue.

On the other hand, how common is such disrespect in FSSP parishes compared to “regular” parishes?

How many people attend FSSP parishes compared to OF parishes? Given the number that attend OF parishes, to say that 5% are disrespectful is a large number. My point again is that it doesn’t matter the form of Mass or the mode of reception. Disrespect can happen anywhere, anytime. Some people think that “running to the nearest TLM” is the solution. It hardly is because reverence and respect comes from the person, not the form of Mass.

That’s what the paten is for. But when Holy Communion is being distributed in the hand, then even if a paten is used (which, as we both know, it very rarely is) particles can (and do) remain in the hand to be brushed off onto the floor.

While the paten may catch most particles, realistically it won’t catch all. I have received CITH and the particles that sometimes end up in my hands are so tiny it would be easy to inadvertently fling it off from the fingertips of the priest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I haven’t been apart of the discussion since I posted the thread, I’ve been very busy with work. Thank you all for explaining this to me. I thought I had been seeing things when I saw that some people weren’t getting both species. I come from a protestant church where we we accepted both species and brought it back to our seat for private reflection and prayer before partaking with everyone at the same time.

But why does the church say that it is ok to accept one and not both? Jesus gave the disciples both during the last supper and made a clear distinction that THIS is my BLOOD and THIS is my BODY.

The reality is one is enough because you already receive the fullness of Christ. Christ is alive and you cannot be alive if your body and blood are separated. Therefore we believe that in each Eucharistic Species, Christ is whole, from the tiniest drop of His Precious Blood, to the tiniest crumb of his Precious Body. That is why we can receive under only kind only.

 

[TrueLight]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I haven’t been apart of the discussion since I posted the thread, I’ve been very busy with work. Thank you all for explaining this to me. I thought I had been seeing things when I saw that some people weren’t getting both species. I come from a protestant church where we we accepted both species and brought it back to our seat for private reflection and prayer before partaking with everyone at the same time.

But why does the church say that it is ok to accept one and not both? Jesus gave the disciples both during the last supper and made a clear distinction that THIS is my BLOOD and THIS is my BODY.

I think it is done this way for practicality.
– it would cost too much money to give the blood several times a day
– the possibility of spilling is too great

I have heard others also say that Jesus told the Apostles to take both, not necessarily the laity. Well… okay.

I don’t feel completely comfortable with the idea and the rationalization that the blood is part of the body and the body contains blood, although technically that’s true. However, the Church teaches that it is okay so that makes it okay.

Oh my goodness! I’m advocating obedience to the Church.

 

[MikeDunphy]

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.

Another possibility would be to ask your priest if you could receive just a small piece of a Consecrated Host.

 

[pablope]

That is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics, we believe that the bread contains only Christ’s Body because Christ said “This is My Body…” and when He took the cup, He said “This is My Blood…”.

Hi, HN…so for Lutherans, both species are offered? And you are required to take both?

 

[pablope]

I think it is done this way for practicality.

– it would cost too much money to give the blood several times a day
– the possibility of spilling is too great

 

[wsxyz]

I have heard others also say that Jesus told the Apostles to take both, not necessarily the laity. Well… okay.

If you receive the species of bread, you receive both the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Our Lord. So you receive the whole Christ no matter if you receive one species, or the other, or both.

I don’t feel completely comfortable with the idea and the rationalization that the blood is part of the body and the body contains blood, although technically that’s true.

That’s a simplification. The truth is that in Holy Communion we receive Christ, whole and entire, not a piece of Him. We don’t receive just a few drops of His blood, or a slice of His flesh. We receive all of Him. And all of Him includes both His whole body and all of His blood.

 

[TrueLight]

If you receive the species of bread, you receive both the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Our Lord. So you receive the whole Christ no matter if you receive one species, or the other, or both.

That’s a simplification. The truth is that in Holy Communion we receive Christ, whole and entire, not a piece of Him. We don’t receive just a few drops of His blood, or a slice of His flesh. We receive all of Him. And all of Him includes both His whole body and all of His blood.

I see that as essentially the same. Jesus did say “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. He could have given them the bread and said this is my body and blood if he wanted to.

I am almost sure that the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles gave both, so at some point a decision was made for various reasons to give one. I’m fine with that, but I do think it is a moving away from tradition.

 

[wsxyz]

As I said, disrespect can happen no matter how the Eucharist is received. People should stop pointing to CITH as the disrespectful one because there’s nothing preventing people from being disrespectful even if they receive on the tongue.

There is no point continuing this debate. It is immediately obvious to any neutral observer, that in parishes where Holy Communion is received in the Hand, the Blessed Sacrament is more often treated with disrespect than in parishes where Holy Communion is received only on the tongue.

The traditional rules for the reception of Holy Communion required that every reasonable precaution be taken to protect the Sacrament from profanation. The current rules do not. That is an incontrovertible fact.

You want to go on complaining that someone could receive Holy Communion on the tongue and then spit it out, and that it is possible to imagine a fantasyland church in which all receive in the hand with great reverence and devotion and every precaution is taken to prevent profanation of the Sacrament.

In the real world, however, things are different.

 

[John_oxios]

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

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

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

Hello WSxyz,
Let’s put Trent canon in the context it was written in, until the 11th century the dispensed both bread and wine @ Holy Communion in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” he distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

Until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.

1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

see more here : http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

The Canon was written against Protestant theology against eating of the Bread alone. Which was under attack by the Protestants.
Using Canon against The Church and its members is kind of backwards, it was written to protect the Church and its members against teachings outside and against the Church.
Interesting though thanks for brining it up.

God bless,
John

 

[TrueLight]

Hello WSxyz,
Let’s put Trent canon in the context it was written in, until the 11th century the dispensed both bread and wine @ Holy Communion in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” he distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

Until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.

1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

see more here : http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

The Canon was written against Protestant theology against eating of the Bread alone. Which was under attack by the Protestants.
Using Canon against The Church and its members is kind of backwards, it was written to protect the Church and its members against teachings outside and against the Church.
Interesting though thanks for brining it up.

God bless,
John

Excellent. I needed these references. Thanks.

 

[wsxyz]

I am almost sure that the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles gave both, so at some point a decision was made for various reasons to give one. I’m fine with that, but I do think it is a moving away from tradition.

Well you aren’t wrong that the decision to offer only the species of bread was made for practical purposes. In particular, accidental profanation of the Precious Blood was a problem.

As for tradition – tradition is not what happened 2000 years ago, but instead is what has been handed down to us by our ancestors (in the faith, or otherwise). It is not wrong to go back to an ancient practice, but to do so on the justification of “tradition” is misleading. We should not abandon the justified concerns of our ancestors merely for the sake of restoring ancient practice, and much less for the purpose of “modernization”. There is absolutely nothing wrong, however, with solving the problems of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds in a different way than withholding the chalice. Eastern Catholics, for example, regularly receive Holy Communion under both kinds with a spoon.

youtube.com/watch?v=3NwDYCZgEag

(the Communion of the faithful in this video begins at the 3:55 mark)

 

[wsxyz]

Let’s put Trent canon in the context it was written in…

John, I didn’t post those canons for the purpose of arguing that Holy Communion should only be given under one kind, rather I posted them for the purpose of arguing that the reception of Holy Communion under only one kind is “complete” – That is, you have received the whole Christ and you don’t get “more” of Christ or a “better” communion by receiving both species.

I am not in favor of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds the way it is done in typical American parishes, but my objections are practical, not theological.

 

[TrueLight]

There is absolutely nothing wrong, however, with solving the problems of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds in a different way than withholding the chalice. Eastern Catholics, for example, regularly receive Holy Communion under both kinds with a spoon.

youtube.com/watch?v=3NwDYCZgEag

(the Communion of the faithful in this video begins at the 3:55 mark)

True. I got to see this up close and personal.

 

[BVM_1221]

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!!

In the local Latin rite churches I go to, very few take ONLY the cup, mostly those who have that allergy to Glutin. Just about everyone else takes the bread first, and some go on to take the wine. As a recovered alcoholic, I skip the wine.

In the Eastern Catholic Church I goto, the Priest usually serves a bit of bread, dipped in wine, on a spoon. One can ask the Priest beforehand for bread only, or wine only. But most are happy with both.:yup:

In any of the cases, one gets full communion, even if one has the bread only or the wine only.:getholy:

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is no point continuing this debate.

And yet…

It is immediately obvious to any neutral observer, that in parishes where Holy Communion is received in the Hand, the Blessed Sacrament is more often treated with disrespect than in parishes where Holy Communion is received only on the tongue.

Maybe the neutral observer needs to mind his own piety and concentrate on Communion rather than nitpicking most other people on how they receive. Believe me, most people actually concentrate on God and pray and thank Jesus for accepting them and making them worthy to come into communion with them. I’ve been that way for all my life until I came to CAF, only then was I tempted to observe and become judgmental of other people. Not really the worthy exercise after receiving Him.

The traditional rules for the reception of Holy Communion required that every reasonable precaution be taken to protect the Sacrament from profanation. The current rules do not. That is an incontrovertible fact.

No, the current rules are very clear. It some cases its just a lack of proper Catechisis. But the rules are indeed clear.

You want to go on complaining that someone could receive Holy Communion on the tongue and then spit it out, and that it is possible to imagine a fantasyland church in which all receive in the hand with great reverence and devotion and every precaution is taken to prevent profanation of the Sacrament.

In the real world, however, things are different.

With proper Catechisis it is indeed possible. Instead of being a naysayer, why not help in the catechisis and be supportive? How can we make something positive if people are being so negative about it.