The Eucharist without the Wine Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coder

Guest
The Bread of Life Discourse is used as one of the main evidences for Catholic belief in the Real Presence. In John 6:53-56 Jesus explicitly refers to His Blood (including in regard to His emphasis, “Amen, Amen”).

The priest always drinks the Blood yet in many Churches the Blood is not given to the faithful. If it is not necessary for the faithful to consume the Blood form, then is it not necessary for the priest to consume the Blood form also?
 
It is necessary for the priest to consume both the Host and the Precious Blood when he says Mass. He is bound by divine law to do so.
 
Yes, it is necessary for the priest to consume the Precious Blood, even though it’s not necessary for any of the laity to consume either one or the other form.

Remember that a lay person (or for that matter, a priest who is not celebrating or concelebrating) may attend Mass without receiving Communion in either form. It’s not necessary.
 
Perhaps communion in the form of Wine should always be offered to all at mass, given John 6:53-56?
 
Coder said:
Perhaps communion in the form of Wine should always be offered to all at Church, given John 6:23-26?
Click to expand...
You wrote “perhaps” and “should.” That’s different from “must.”

The celebrating priest must consume both the Body and the Blood.

When speaking of the laity, there is no “must.” As I wrote earlier, someone might attend Mass and not receive Communion at all (indeed this happens all the time).
 
Not “Protestant”, maybe just “protesting” as a Catholic. 🙂

Actually Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence so I sincerely seek to understand regarding the availability of both forms for all at mass given John 6:53-56. If the precept is to receive at least once a year then one might think we might have both forms at least during Easter season including Triduum.
 
Coder said:
Not “Protestant”, maybe just “protesting” as a Catholic. 🙂

Actually Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence so I sincerely seek to understand regarding the availability of both forms for all at mass given John 6:53-56. If the precept is to receive at least once a year then one might think we might have both forms at least during Easter season including Triduum.
Click to expand...
Many or even most Protestants do believe in the real presence but define it as a mystery like the Eastern Orthodox do. (Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, liturgical and semi-liturgical churches etc.)

However, the more low church traditions coming from Calvin or Zwingli (Reformed, Anabaptism or Zwinglism, Baptists, etc.) and modern traditions (Pentecostalism, Armstrongism, etc.) do not view Christ as present whatsoever, but the Eucharist entirely as symbolic.

Some have more vague beliefs that point to the real presence, but it is defined even less than the other two (most of Adventism, for instance, including the Christadelphians).
 
That’s a lot of “churches”. Clearly one God and one Church are believable and biblical and so by definition it must be “catholic” i.e. universal. To me these concepts are a given just as belief in the one God was revealed and reasonable to Abraham.

So, all these other churches should really view themselves as part (if not fully and to the extent the Church views them) of the “catholic” church (again, granted, not fully).

Returning to my question regarding both forms in light of John 6:53-56, any thoughts welcome (by anyone).
 
Coder said:
Perhaps communion in the form of Wine should always be offered to all at mass, given John 6:53-56?
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent dealt with this and it’s explained in the Roman Catechism:
Christ the Lord, it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent, instituted and delivered to His Apostles at His Last Supper this most sublime Sacrament under the species of bread and wine; but it does not follow that by doing so our Lord and Saviour established a law ordering its administration to all the faithful under both species. For speaking of this Sacrament, He Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only, as, for instance, when He says: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:51)
Click to expand...
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the Blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people. …
Click to expand...
Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the Body is contained under the species of bread without the Blood, and the Blood under the species of wine without the Body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic Faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.
Click to expand...
The Council also gave the following canons:
CANON I.–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.
CANON II.-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.
Click to expand...
Of course, nowadays the Church has permitted the Precious Blood to be given to the faithful, but there were many reasons that the practice of giving Communion under only one species was mandated by the Church for centuries. In the end, we know that it is not necessary that Communion be given to the faithful under both species.
 
OK, but what are we saying about John 6:53-56?

Are the Council of Trent pronouncements (i.e. with anathemas) considered ex cathedra (infallible) and/or on the same level as the teaching of the Real Presence itself (for example)?
 
Coder said:
Thank you. Then I’ll just ask in regards to receiving His Blood as Jesus says (emphatically?) four times repeatedly in the scriptures referred to.

Why must consecrating priests receive His Blood but not others at mass?
Click to expand...
Try having a look at The Precious Blood of Christ; Father John Hardon, S.J.. It’s not very long. The segment entitled The Role of the Precious Blood in the Life of a Priest would be most pertinent. It gets to the root of your question . . .very deep.

I believe, theologically, the teaching is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not completed, until the priest has consumed the Precious Blood.
 
Coder said:
OK, but what are we saying about John 6:53-56?

Are the Council of Trent pronouncements (i.e. with anathemas) considered ex cathedra (infallible) and/or on the same level as the teaching of the Real Presence itself (for example)?
Click to expand...
Here’s what the Haydock commentary says about St. John vi. 54:
Ver. 54. Unless you eat … and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind…
Click to expand...
So, by receiving the Host alone, we are receiving both the Body and the Blood of Our Lord, thereby fulfilling Our Lord’s precept given in St. John vi. 53-56. As for the canons, I assume they are infallible since it gives a sentence of excommunication with the anathema, but I don’t know for sure. It certainly didn’t prohibit Communion from ever being given under both species to the faithful since the Church is doing it today.
 
Yes thank you. The article seems to strengthen even more that the Precious Blood should be offered to the faithful.
…but I really believe that one of the symptoms of modern society (and I would even include, sadly, modern Catholic society) one of the symptoms of a growing, gnawing secularism is the lessening and the weakening of devotion to the Precious Blood…
Click to expand...
Is there any greater “devotion” than “drinking” it as Jesus so strongly and repeatedly teaches us to do?

(Interesting that it may also relate to my other post about absolution by a priest in confession in reference the the priest’s own sacrificial life.)
 
Coder said:
Yes thank you. The article seems to strengthen even more that the Precious Blood should be offered to the faithful.

Is there any greater “devotion” than “drinking” it as Jesus so strongly and repeatedly teaches us to do?

(Interesting that it may also relate to my other post about absolution by a priest in confession in reference the the priest’s own sacrificial life.)
Click to expand...
It’s not always practical for the people to receive the blood also. eg. at a large church, in a hospital, for the homebound.
 
Is it possible that that approach relative to what Jesus says is an example that illustrates the point of the article that I quoted?
 
Coder said:
Thank you. Then I’ll just ask in regards to receiving His Blood as Jesus says (emphatically?) four times repeatedly in the scriptures referred to.

Why must consecrating priests receive His Blood but not others at mass?
Click to expand...
I haven’t read through any of the posts so if this is repetitive or missing the point please forgive me.

Cannon law requires the two species for a valid consecration. The bread (body) and wine (blood). The congregation is NOT required to partake and in fact should not unless they reasonably believe themselves to be in a state of grace.

The double consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord represents the death of Christ by the separation of his body and blood.

Once consecrated it must (exception under extreme conditions) be consumed. Since Jesus becomes fully present body blood soul and divinity in the host leaving only the appearance of bread there is no need for the consuming of both species by the congregation.
 
Makes sense but why then does Jesus refer so specifically and apparently emphatically to drinking His Blood in John 6:53-56?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top