The Body & Blood?

[searching1234]

Why do some parishes not serve both the Body and Blood? (The priest took both the Body and Blood but only the Body was administered to the rest of the Church.) Also why are people not obligated to take both?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why do some parishes not serve both the Body and Blood? (The priest took both the Body and Blood but only the Body was administered to the rest of the Church.) Also why are people not obligated to take both?

Up until Vatican II, the Cup was withheld from the laity because there was a growing heresy in the past that the Host only contained the Body of Jesus, and the Cup only has the Blood of Jesus. Since Jesus is whole and cannot be separated, we believe that in each species of the Eucharist contains Jesus in whole, body, blood, soul and divinity, even in the smallest crumb or a tiny drop.

Once you have received one form of the Eucharist, you have received Jesus fully.

Most parishes around the world doesn’t even offer the cup at all to this day.

to add: Only the priest celebrating the Mass is required to receive under both species. If he doesn’t, then the Mass is invalid.

 

[kamaan]

Just to add to what Constantine said, it is only in the Ordinary Form that the laity will occasionally be able to receive both species. This does not occur in the Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form).

 

[MarkThompson]

If he doesn’t, then the Mass is invalid.

Just to be clear, if the priest neglects to take either the Body or the Blood, the Sacrament is still valid – the bread and wine have actually become Jesus – but you haven’t had what could authentically be called a “Mass.”

 

[searching1234]

Up until Vatican II, the Cup was withheld from the laity because there was a growing heresy in the past that the Host only contained the Body of Jesus, and the Cup only has the Blood of Jesus. Since Jesus is whole and cannot be separated, we believe that in each species of the Eucharist contains Jesus in whole, body, blood, soul and divinity, even in the smallest crumb or a tiny drop.

Once you have received one form of the Eucharist, you have received Jesus fully.

Most parishes around the world doesn’t even offer the cup at all to this day.

to add: Only the priest celebrating the Mass is required to receive under both species. If he doesn’t, then the Mass is invalid.

So how was it done in the Early Church (like right after Jesus ascended)?

And isn’t there something to be said for Jesus himself distinguishing between the two at the Last Supper?

I just don’t understand how there are discrepancies on such a huge, foundational teaching of the Church…

 

[ConstantineTG]

So how was it done in the Early Church (like right after Jesus ascended)?

As I said, it was taught early on that each of the Sacred Species contained the entirety of Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity. At some point in time a heresy grew that the Host only contained the Body, and the Cup only carries the Blood. This is against Church teaching and to reinforce this teaching, the Latin Church instituted a discipline amongst its members wherein the laity are not allowed to receive from the Cup.

And isn’t there something to be said for Jesus himself distinguishing between the two at the Last Supper?

That is why for the sacrifice to be complete, and thus the Mass to be full and valid, the priest who extends the sacrifice of Christ must receive both Body and Blood of Jesus.

I just don’t understand how there are discrepancies on such a huge, foundational teaching of the Church…

There is no discrepancy. The Church did what it did to reinforce its teaching. We are not being shortchanged by receiving only the Host. Jesus is God, He cannot be divided. By receiving the Host alone, we receive Jesus fully. That is the foundational teaching of the Church from the beginning.

 

[tbtcom1213]

Just to add to what Constantine said, it is only in the Ordinary Form that the laity will occasionally be able to receive both species. This does not occur in the Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form).

When I served as MC at a TLM Sunday High Mass a gentleman went into the sacristy to tell the priest that his daughter was intolerant to gluten. The priest offered the Precious Blood to the gluten intolerant communicant even though it was an EF Mass. Therefore in very rare occasions and circumstances the Precious Blood will be offered on the basis that you cannot receive Our Lord in the form of consecrated unleavened Bread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

When I served as MC at a TLM Sunday High Mass a gentleman went into the sacristy to tell the priest that his daughter was intolerant to gluten. The priest offered the Precious Blood to the gluten intolerant communicant even though it was an EF Mass. Therefore in very rare occasions and circumstances the Precious Blood will be offered on the basis that you cannot receive Our Lord in the form of consecrated unleavened Bread.

There is also the option of the low gluten hosts. But that would have to be pre-arranged with the parish so they can order it

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am confused now!

I know and accept that Jesus is received whole: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the smallest quantity of either the host or the wine.

A poster asked why did our Lord distinguish between the two at the Last Supper. To which the reply was that’s why the priest receives both.

If Jesus is received whole: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the smallest quantity of either the host or the wine, why does the priest need to consume both species?

 

[benedictgal]

I am confused now!

I know and accept that Jesus is received whole: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the smallest quantity of either the host or the wine.

A poster asked why did our Lord distinguish between the two at the Last Supper. To which the reply was that’s why the priest receives both.

If Jesus is received whole: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the smallest quantity of either the host or the wine, why does the priest need to consume both species?

Actually, the priest completes the sacrifice when he consumes both species. In the OT, the priest had to consume his portion of the sacrifice in order to complete it. This foreshadowed the priestly action in the New Covenant.

 

[jpjd]

Because Jesus consumed both and the priest is in persona Christi, then the priest must consume both.

The people however, are not standing in the person of Christ, so we are not required to consume both. And because we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in just one species, it is acceptable for us to consume just one.

 

[searching1234]

There is no discrepancy. The Church did what it did to reinforce its teaching. We are not being shortchanged by receiving only the Host. Jesus is God, He cannot be divided. By receiving the Host alone, we receive Jesus fully. That is the foundational teaching of the Church from the beginning.

By discrepancy I meant the differences in how parishes distribute or do not distribute the Blood. I have actually never been to a parish (until this last Sunday) where the Blood was not offered. I am surprised that there are discrepancies among the different parishes today about how this is done, when, as I said, it is such a fundamental aspect of the Faith.
Did some parishes just decide that the point had been proven against that heresy and from then on it was okay to have both at Mass for the laity?

I still think it is a bit strange that the anecdote to the problem of the heresy going around was to alter the method Jesus Himself instituted. But I’ll definitely keep looking into the issue.

 

[Ray_Lafleur]

Why do some parishes not serve both the Body and Blood? (The priest took both the Body and Blood but only the Body was administered to the rest of the Church.) Also why are people not obligated to take both?

In reading the responses, which are all very good, one reason the church pre-vatican 2 did not distribute the precious Blood was the risk of the Blood falling on the floor and being trampled on. There was no easy way to ensure this would not happen. Jesus is in both species in his entirety, Body, Soul and Divinity., and therefore recieving the Host is all that is required.

 

[ConstantineTG]

By discrepancy I meant the differences in how parishes distribute or do not distribute the Blood. I have actually never been to a parish (until this last Sunday) where the Blood was not offered. I am surprised that there are discrepancies among the different parishes today about how this is done, when, as I said, it is such a fundamental aspect of the Faith.
Did some parishes just decide that the point had been proven against that heresy and from then on it was okay to have both at Mass for the laity?

I still think it is a bit strange that the anecdote to the problem of the heresy going around was to alter the method Jesus Himself instituted. But I’ll definitely keep looking into the issue.

When the Cup was again allowed to be received by the laity, there is not directive that all parishes in all masses must offer the Cup. What is only said is that now the Cup can be offered. I find that in the US the Cup is offered more than anywhere else in the world. Here in Canada, at least the parishes I have attended, the Cup is only offered to all during Easter Vigil. In fact, only in the US did I find that the Cup was offered frequently. But I am not aware of the rules nor have I been everywhere in the world, just my personal observation from my travels in some parts of the world.

 

[Phemie]

When the Cup was again allowed to be received by the laity, there is not directive that all parishes in all masses must offer the Cup. What is only said is that now the Cup can be offered. I find that in the US the Cup is offered more than anywhere else in the world. Here in Canada, at least the parishes I have attended, the Cup is only offered to all during Easter Vigil. In fact, only in the US did I find that the Cup was offered frequently. But I am not aware of the rules nor have I been everywhere in the world, just my personal observation from my travels in some parts of the world.

In the last couple of parishes of which I’ve been a member, the Precious Blood was offered at all Masses. When I go back to the parish of my childhood and to all the parishes around there I’m always taken aback that the Precious Blood is never offered.

I was also surprised to find that it wasn’t offered at the Cathedral of our Archdiocese, although as a historical site it would probably be a logistical nightmare to figure out just how much wine to consecrate, one of the reasons given by the Church for not offering Communion under both species.