M
mariahloves
Guest
…and not the Blood of Jesus at Communion? I don’t understand this, since Jesus said the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood, why do Catholics only participate in the Body part? 
- Status
B
baltobetsy
Guest
Jesus is present, Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity, fully and entire in both the form of bread and the form of wine.
In years past, there was confusion about this, and the Church directed that Holy Communion only be given under the form of bread, to counteract the error that the bread is the Body and the wine is the Blood and both must be received in order to receive the entire Jesus.
In more recent times, permission has again been given to receive under both forms, because this is what the Church calls, “a fuller sign” of the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. The decision to have Communion under just the form of bread or both forms is made in each parish.
Either way, you receive the entire Jesus in the form of bread.
Betsy
In years past, there was confusion about this, and the Church directed that Holy Communion only be given under the form of bread, to counteract the error that the bread is the Body and the wine is the Blood and both must be received in order to receive the entire Jesus.
In more recent times, permission has again been given to receive under both forms, because this is what the Church calls, “a fuller sign” of the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. The decision to have Communion under just the form of bread or both forms is made in each parish.
Either way, you receive the entire Jesus in the form of bread.
Betsy
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Catholics don’t receive only the Body. Where do you get the idea that we do?…and not the Blood of Jesus at Communion? I don’t understand this, since Jesus said the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood, why do Catholics only participate in the Body part?
C
canne
Guest
Why do you think this?…and not the Blood of Jesus at Communion? I don’t understand this, since Jesus said the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood, why do Catholics only participate in the Body part?
Catholics can and do receive both forms. Christ is present fully in the Eucharist and in the consecrated wine, we may receive either species or both species .Both forms are present at any parish I have attended.
you may find this link helpful from the ask an apologist forum.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5294838&postcount=2
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Thanks for this post. I had been wondering why the Church changed its practice to bread only during the Medieval Ages and then switched it back again in recent times.
P
Phemie
Guest
It might have something to do with where the OP lives. Any non-Catholic who lived in my hometown and had only experienced a Catholic Mass in the surrounding areas would have reason to believe what the OP asserts since at no time is the Precious Blood offered in any of the parishes.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Catholics receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in Holy Communion, there is no bread or wine invloved in the reception of Holy Communion.…and not the Blood of Jesus at Communion? I don’t understand this, since Jesus said the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood, why do Catholics only participate in the Body part?
R
Ralph4454
Guest
C
canne
Guest
I find that interesting. Growing up here in Central California I have never been to a Mass that did not have both forms offered. Not to change the subject but why I wonder would some parishes choose not to offer both?
J
japhy
Guest
There are practical reasons why the Chalice might not be conceded to the congregation:
In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned. With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 101)
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 102)
Offering the Chalice should not be seen as a reason to necessitate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, the USCCB’s norms on Communion under both kinds suggests that “the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.” (Norms 24)
Also, this might not be general knowledge, but the common-place occurrence of Communion under both kinds was not envisioned by the Second Vatican Council Fathers in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It was meant to be something under very specific conditions, but bishops (and bishops’ conferences) started allowing it all the time without regard for the Church’s regulations on the matter. Eventually Rome stopped trying to getting bishops to follow the regulations and changed them so that they were being obeyed. You can read about this here.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you have been misinformed
here is the last discussion of your question
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395915&highlight=body
here is the last discussion of your question
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395915&highlight=body
P
Phemie
Guest
As I recall, at the time that permission was granted to allow Communion under both species, the pastor simply didn’t want to do so. I don’t know if the decision was revisited and the status quo just maintained or if they never bothered to revisit the decision. I don’t have any idea why it isn’t done in the neighboring parishes.
M
mariahloves
Guest
Thank you all very much for your replies. Yes it’s true that at the parish I attend only the priest (and I guess they’re called deacons?) recieve the Body and the Blood, everyone else only recieves the Body. And I didn’t mean to say that it was wine or bread that is present during Communion, I know it’s Jesus 
B
benedictgal
Guest
Actually, only the celebrant (priest) consumes both the Body and Blood of Christ. This ritual completes the Sacrifice. Of course, concelebrants consume both Species, as does the deacon shortly thereafter.Thank you all very much for your replies. Yes it’s true that at the parish I attend only the priest (and I guess they’re called deacons?) recieve the Body and the Blood, everyone else only recieves the Body. And I didn’t mean to say that it was wine or bread that is present during Communion, I know it’s Jesus
During the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel (which prefigured the Sacrifice on Calvary), the priest had to consume a portion of the sacrifice. The other part was offered as a burnt holocaust to the Lord and the person offering the sacrifice also got to eat a portion of it.
T
thomasf
Guest
In our parish during weekday mass the priest only does the eucharist and not the precious blood. He usually doesn’t have help at the daily masses.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Not sure how that relates to this Thread, but I’d caution that it sounds like potential antiquarianism.
B
benedictgal
Guest
I would caution you against leveling a baseless charge, diggerdomer. I was merely explaining that there was a precedent in the Old Testament. The cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel came into being because it was a foreshadowing of the Sacrifice of the True Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Many, many things and actvities in the Old Testament reach their perfect fulfillment in the New Testament.
At the Last Supper, Jesus is both Priest and Victim. The celebrant (because he can eithe be a priest or a bishop) is an Alter-Christus. He acts in persona Christi. That is why Jesus stated specifically to the Apostolic band “Do this in memory of Me.” The celebrant makes Jesus words of institution his words.
J
japhy
Guest
Properly speaking, the “Eucharist” is not simply the consecrated Host, but both the Precious Body and the Precious Blood. Saying “the Eucharist and the Precious Blood” is inaccurate.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I wasn’t leveling a baseless charge. Read what I wrote.
Where in the Old Testament does it claim that the worship of Ancient Israel --which is prescribed in the Old Testament, as directed by God – came into being because it is a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ?
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
It says clearly in the New Testament that the Old Testament sacrifices offered to God for sins foreshadowed the Passion of Christ. See Hebrews 10.
- Status