Taking the Body, but not the Blood?

[Christ_is_Risen]

Hypochondriac Catholics sometimes fear getting sick from the Cup.

For me, that is a major reason why I make the choice to receive both. I meditate on the sufferings of Our Lord, and how he willingly faced them. This makes my largely irrational fear seems small and conquerable in comparison.

I guess it is just another way the Sacraments help heal us from the problems we face in this world.

 

[zz912]

Couple small points. The Church only requires us to take Communion once per year, during tee Easter season. And the entirety on Christ is present under BOTH the Body and the Blood. Both contain the Body, Blood, Soul , and Divinity of Christ. So a Catholic only has to receive either the Body or the Blood. And the pastor can choose for pastoral or financial reasons to just offer only the “bread” to the laity.

And treasure the time that you have to wait, I can speak from experience that it can provide great spiritual benefits, and when you finally are able to receive, it makes it that MUCH more incredible. Welcome home!

 

[MJJean]

Hypochondriac Catholics sometimes fear getting sick from the Cup.

**For me, that is a major reason why I make the choice to receive both. I meditate on the sufferings of Our Lord, and how he willingly faced them. This makes my largely irrational fear seems small and conquerable in comparison.

I guess it is just another way the Sacraments help heal us from the problems we face in this world.**

That is a good point! What a wonderful way to look at it!

 

[Joan_M]

Same here. I generally only receive the host without partaking from the cup. For me it’s not a fear of contagions, but rather a reaffirmation of the fullness of the Eucharist under both species.

This is the reason I, too, generally only receive the Host. I’ve realized that many people really do think they have received less of Jesus if the receive only the Host. This is, in fact, a heresy.

 

[Usige]

This is the reason I, too, generally only receive the Host. I’ve realized that many people really do think they have received less of Jesus if the receive only the Host. This is, in fact, a heresy.

Yep. That is basically what the utraquism heresy preached by the Hussites/Calixitines consisted of. In esscence that one needed to receive both the host and the cup for salvation.

A few years ago I was at a parish that lost a couple volunteers and only had 2 EMHCs for a couple months so Father did not distribute the precious blood. People were up in arms that they could not receive “the fullness” of the Eucharist. Father had to explain that we receive fully under either species. There were still people who muttered about him “turning the clock back” to the 50s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I assume this is because they are trying to avoid contagions.

In my Orthodox parish, we all receive from usually two spoons (or one if there is only one priest and no deacons, which happens from time to time), and our parish is growing and not dropping dead from contagious diseases.

Oh, and unlike in some places where the Eucharist is dropped into the mouth, ours, we close our mouths on the spoon.

 

[larsont7]

In my Orthodox parish, we all receive from usually two spoons (or one if there is only one priest and no deacons, which happens from time to time), and our parish is growing and not dropping dead from contagious diseases…

**…yet. ** :bigyikes:

Just kidding. Seriously, I think this was probably an issue during the bubonic plague, but not so much anymore. I receive only the Sacred Host not for fear of contagions, but for fear of spillage. Perhaps it’s the countless times I’ve spilled drinks on the floor or even just onto my chin, but I can’t imagine the horror of spilling Our Lord’s Precious Blood. Besides, I know that I fully receive His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Host, and that is more than enough for me.

 

[MJJean]

**…yet. ** :bigyikes:

Just kidding. Seriously, I think this was probably an issue during the bubonic plague, but not so much anymore. I receive only the Sacred Host not for fear of contagions, but for fear of spillage. ** Perhaps it’s the countless times I’ve spilled drinks on the floor or even just onto my chin, but I can’t imagine the horror of spilling Our Lord’s Precious Blood. :eek**: Besides, I know that I fully receive His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Host, and that is more than enough for me.

I now have a reason to skip the cup! I’ll probably be so excited my first Communion that I’d be in serious danger of dropping and spilling.

 

[zz912]

Yep. That is basically what the utraquism heresy preached by the Hussites/Calixitines consisted of. In esscence that one needed to receive both the host and the cup for salvation.

A few years ago I was at a parish that lost a couple volunteers and only had 2 EMHCs for a couple months so Father did not distribute the precious blood. People were up in arms that they could not receive “the fullness” of the Eucharist. Father had to explain that we receive fully under either species. There were still people who muttered about him “turning the clock back” to the 50s.

Father has no one to blame but himself. It’s quite obvious his flock is wildly uneducated on this matter. He should have been using his homilies to educate them on the faith.

 

[Usige]

Father has no one to blame but himself. It’s quite obvious his flock is wildly uneducated on this matter. He should have been using his homilies to educate them on the faith.

To be fair it was the previous pastor that was at fault. The reason so many quit volunteering was that the new pastor had the nerve to insist that people say ‘for us men and our salvation’ instead of ‘for us and our salvation’ during the creed (how sexist to use the right words); he moved the tabernacle into the sanctuary;finally he talked about sin in his homilies. I guess many parishioners were offended that the new pastor insisted people be Catholic. The previous pastor had the “don’t offend anyone, at least they are here” approach. That is likely where the poor catechisis came from.

 

[zz912]

To be fair it was the previous pastor that was at fault. The reason so many quit volunteering was that the new pastor had the nerve to insist that people say ‘for us men and our salvation’ instead of ‘for us and our salvation’ during the creed (how sexist to use the right words); he moved the tabernacle into the sanctuary;finally he talked about sin in his homilies. I guess many parishioners were offended that the new pastor insisted people be Catholic. The previous pastor had the “don’t offend anyone, at least they are here” approach. That is likely where the poor catechisis came from.

Then my respect and admiration to him for trying to clean up such a mess. It can take a lot of work and effort to actually preach the Catholic faith to those who haven’t heard it in years.

 

[SHoJ]

I am a recent convert, still in Inquiry phase, and have not had Communion. During Mass I have noticed a lot of people take the Body of Christ, but not the Blood. I assume this is because they are trying to avoid contagions.

Is it still Communion if a person takes one, but skips the other?

As others have said, yes.

A good friend of mine will not drink from the chalice because it grosses her out to drink after someone else.

Personally, I became fascinated by the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano. That really spoke to me about receiving under both species. Then there’s John 6:53-56. Jesus seemed to emphasize eating His flesh and drinking His blood - not just for the Apostles (or just for priests), but for everyone.

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

 

[mexolic]

Last Sunday I attended mass at another parish in Los Angeles for the first time. Only the Body was given during communion and not the Blood. There have been times when I’ve received the Body and not the Blood because the chalise would be empty before communion was over.

 

[MJJean]

As others have said, yes.

A good friend of mine will not drink from the chalice because it grosses her out to drink after someone else.

Personally, I became fascinated by the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano. That really spoke to me about receiving under both species. Then there’s John 6:53-56. Jesus seemed to emphasize eating His flesh and drinking His blood - not just for the Apostles (or just for priests), but for everyone.

Thank you! Very useful link and verses.

Last Sunday I attended mass at another parish in Los Angeles for the first time. Only the Body was given during communion and not the Blood. There have been times when I’ve received the Body and not the Blood because the chalise would be empty before communion was over.

Huh. You’d think there’d be a plan in case that happened. I mean, it can’t be the first time either the Body or Blood ran out.

 

[Facite]

By the way, this doctrine concerning the receiving of Christ’s body as not having the ability to be separated from the blood of Christ (i.e. the full presence of Christ in each element fully) is called concomitance.

 

[tafan]

Although all are free to receive in either one kind or both, it is worth recording that the church teaches that communion has a fuller form as a sign when received in both kinds.

The exact quite if the church is :

“Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer 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 connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.” GIRM 281

"The faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it, are made aware by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.

Furthermore, they should teach that the Church, in her administration of the Sacraments, has the power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places" (no. 282).

It is not at all clear to me what “fuller form as a sign” means, even considering the following sentence carefully. And then it almost seems to contradict itself in the following paragraph.

Not a high point in clear teaching by the church, IMO.

 

[liturgyluver]

I see it as a fuller form in that we are more closely obeying Jesus’s command to eat and drink and can be more aligned with His actions, but we can still receive the entirity through one kind.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yep. That is basically what the utraquism heresy preached by the Hussites/Calixitines consisted of. In esscence that one needed to receive both the host and the cup for salvation.

A few years ago I was at a parish that lost a couple volunteers and only had 2 EMHCs for a couple months so Father did not distribute the precious blood. People were up in arms that they could not receive “the fullness” of the Eucharist. Father had to explain that we receive fully under either species. There were still people who muttered about him “turning the clock back” to the 50s.

I just read about it in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. I didn’t know that the ones who insisted that they had to receive it under both forms actually started a war over it. It’s a bit ironic that the ones who accused the priest of turning the clock back to the 1950’s are themselves trying to revive an old heresy that goes back to the year 1414.

 

[thomasf]

I only receive the body, not the blood. For 2 reasons. One, I don’t like alcohol, especially wine. Two, I don’t like drinking after other people. It just creeps me out. Therefore, I only receive the body, skip the cup.