The idea of the Real Presence makes my Christian dad very uncomfortable

[JimG]

Why then is it necessary to have a separate Consecration of the Wine?

Because that is the way Jesus did the consecration at the Last Supper, and we do it as He did it. The separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. Only the priest Is required to receive under both species. Communicants may receive under one species only. The separate consecration repeats what Jesus did and symbolizes his death. His one sacrifice is made present to us at every Mass, but he is now whole and entire under any part of either species.

 

[AlNg]

Because that is the way Jesus did the consecration at the Last Supper, and we do it as He did it.

Is the Orthodox method of receiving both the Precious Bread and the Precious Wine at the time of Holy communion more in keeping with the words of Jesus: Unless you eat My Body AND drink My Blood you shall not have life in you?

 

[JimG]

Either method of receiving is valid. Some Latin Rite parishes distribute normally only under one species, some normally under two. There are advantages and drawbacks either way. If you have a parish of 6,000 families or more, distributing one species only is efficient and requires fewer EMHC’s. Also, while consecrated hosts can be stored in a tabernacle, the precious blood cannot; it must be consumed at every Mass with none left over.

 

[AlNg]

Either method of receiving is valid.

But Jesus said that Unless you eat My body AND drink my Blood you shall not have life in you. When you take only the Precious Bread, you are not drinking anything. It is true that the Body is alive so perhaps there is blood present implicitly. But did not Jesus say that one necessary condition to have life in you is that you have to DRINK His Blood? Or is this to be taken figuratively? By taking Holy Communion as the Host alone, is it true that you are only eating and you are not drinking anything?

 

[JimG]

By taking holy communion in the host alone you are receiving Jesus Christ whole and entire, body and blood, his humanity and divinity. The same would apply if one were to receive only from the chalice.

 

[AHapka]

Googled the definition, and it’s not in there. In any event, so what? We are doing what the Lord commands us to do. Cannibalism has a bad connotation because it is usually disgusting.

If it is, that’s fine with me as I am following the Lord’s instructions.

It seems to me we are twisting definitions in order to not be associated with a bad word. When, in fact, it does’t matter when it’s the Lord who commands us.

 

[AHapka]

Because it strictly meets the definition of eating human flesh. And we know Christ had a human nature.

We are twisting definitions because the usual definition and act are disgusting. But the Lord commanded us to eat his flesh. So that we will do.

I don’t care if I am a cannibal when I eat the Lord’s flesh, I am following His command.

 

[AlNg]

By taking holy communion in the host alone you are receiving Jesus Christ whole and entire, body and blood, his humanity and divinity.

You are receiving Him whole and entire, but you are not drinking the Blood. You appear to be taking the words of Jesus in a figurative and not literal sense since you are not drinking anything?
Suppose for example you make a cake that requires milk. When you eat the cake, you are eating the milk which was an ingredient of the cake. But you are not drinking anything. You are consuming the milk as an ingredient, but you are not drinking it.
You appear to be taking the words of Jesus in a figurative sense, according to which you do not have to actually drink the Precious Wine in order to have life in you.

 

[Fauken]

You appear to be taking the words of Jesus in a figurative sense, according to which you do not have to actually drink the Precious Wine in order to have life in you.

Are you suggesting that the Saints who for a millennia didn’t consume the Blood (Sts. Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, Dominic Savio, etc.) do not have life in them?

 

[JimG]

There is no way to consume the host without also consuming the precious blood, since Jesus is present whole ane entire therein, even if I just swallow a small particle of the host.

I am interpreting Jesus words as the Church has always understood them. Even in the earliest days of the Church, the consecrated bread was often given to deacons to take to the homebound, but not the chalice. It was a matter of practicality, and no one was being denied any part of Jesus, since He is always present whole and entire in any part of any species of the Eucharist.

 

[FiveLinden]

Can you not tell when one is being tongue in cheek?

Not a preferred dish. Very chewy.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Cannibalism is one species eating the flesh/organs of their own species. Human cannibalism is eating parts of other humans. In order to eat that flesh, it must be dead. You could find someone who would allow you to surgically remove their leg, then you would eat it, however that leg would be dead once removed from the body.