Why do we receive only the Body of Christ at Mass?

[CastillianRose]

Hello friends,

1. Is there a theological reason why only the Body of Christ, but not the Blood of Christ, is distributed in Western Rite communion? My assumption is that this is a historical development. I understand that each piece of the Eucharist contains the fullness of Jesus Christ. I am asking because several Orthodox Christians I know do not understand this practice, since this is not what Jesus did - he gave both His Body and Blood to His disciples.
2. Would someone be considered out of line if they were to request the Blood of Christ in addition to the Body of Christ at Mass? Thank you!

 

[Laura15]

Hello friends,

1. Is there a theological reason why only the Body of Christ, but not the Blood of Christ, is distributed in Western Rite communion? My assumption is that this is a historical development. I understand that each piece of the Eucharist contains the fullness of Jesus Christ. I am asking because several Orthodox Christians I know do not understand this practice, since this is not what Jesus did - he gave both His Body and Blood to His disciples.
2. Would someone be considered out of line if they were to request the Blood of Christ in addition to the Body of Christ at Mass? Thank you!

1. Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church i.e. to Western Rite? Well if that’s the case the Roman Catholic Church does distribute the Blood of Christ in the Mass. Either way, the Blood or the Bread is the fullness of Jesus Christ as I have learned in Catholic Apolegetics by Father Laux.
2. NO!

God Bless,
and hoped this helped.
Laura

 

[bcra]

but in america some churches do give the body and blood (wine) at mass i know as i have often recieved both the body and blood(bread host and wine) this is in most catholic parishes in new york state :getholy:

 

[TimothyH]

As a Roman Catholic, I am taught that the entire substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity is present under both species - bread or wine. You cannot recieve only the body or only the blood. It is not possible to recieve only one. When you recieve one, you recieve the other.

The wine is consecrated and consumed in accordance with the Last Supper in the Latin Rite. In some parishes, only the priest and deacons recieve under the species of wine however. Parishes where the laity do not recieve under the species of wine often do not for very practical reasons. My parish can have upwards of 1000 people at 9:00 AM and Noon Mass and the logistics behind consecration and distribution of so many chalices makes it impractical. Our priest is rightly concerned about having people bump into each other as they try to recieve the cup or try to get around those that are in line to do so. He feels that such disorder would not be reverent and there is too great a risk of profanation, spillage, etc.

-Tim-

 

[PJM]

=CastillianRose;8241747]Hello friends,

1. Is there a theological reason why only the Body of Christ, but not the Blood of Christ, is distributed in Western Rite communion? My assumption is that this is a historical development. I understand that each piece of the Eucharist contains the fullness of Jesus Christ. I am asking because several Orthodox Christians I know do not understand this practice, since this is not what Jesus did - he gave both His Body and Blood to His disciples.

1. Would someone be considered out of line if they were to request the Blood of Christ in addition to the Body of Christ at Mass? Thank you!

One ought to take the next logical step and ask “WHY” the change. Certainly the Early Church used Both Species.

Before responding to my own question I would point out that the very Keys [access to heaven] were given by Christ and the Roman Catholic Church, and that BOTH The Holy Spirit [John 14:16-17 and Christ Himself, John 17:15-19] act, and are PRESENT in the RCC to Protect Her [Mother Church] Teaching from even the slightest possibility of Error.

This is a necessary and CRITAL factor in responding.

Even the Eary Fathers accepted the reality of Christ TOTAL and Complete Presence being available in either and in BOTH Species.

One of the early Church practices [still commnerated today in the “fracture” was to send a “host” [Consecrated piece of UL Bread] to a neihboring Church each week as a sing of unity.

Many Martyrs were caught "smuggling "holy bread to the sick or family menbers. So right from the beggining this fact was understood.

Mother Church changed the policy to the sacred Host alone knowing full well that is was NOT a matter of GRACE, but a matter of “perceptopn.” that was being changed. Various abuses led to this decision. .

The answer to the OP is that: .1. It is STILL NOT a matter of GRACE 2. It remains a further opportunity for abuse or sacriledge. 3. It was brought back in ORDER to “require” more Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist; further nutering the ROLE and special dignity of the PREISTHOOD. The reason given does not have a Theological footing, and is a matter one ones “perception” not a matter of real Spiritual benefit. [IMO].

The “fruit” of this practice has been devestating. The numer who now "believe in the REAL Presence is at an all time low [due largely to Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist. […“If everyone and anyone can touch and hold God” it CAN"T be God! ].

And YES [IMO] one would error by requesting the “theorized right” to receive under Both species. FYI: This Issue was discussed and VOTED DOWN by the Fathers of Vatican II, by a sizeable majority.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Suslar]

The answer to the OP is that: .1. It is STILL NOT a matter of GRACE 2. It remains a further opportunity for abuse or sacriledge. 3. It was brought back in ORDER to “require” more*** Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist***; further nutering the ROLE and special dignity of the PREISTHOOD. The reason given does not have a Theological footing, and is a matter one ones “perception” not a matter of real Spiritual benefit. [IMO].

The “fruit” of this practice has been devestating. The numer who now "believe in the REAL Presence is at an all time low [due largely to Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist. […“If everyone and anyone can touch and hold God” it CAN"T be God! ].

God Bless,
Pat

I’m easily confused. Pat, did you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? I don’t know of many parishes who have enough ordinary (i.e. ordained) ministers to distribute under both species.

At my parish, in addition to the celebrating priest and deacon, we use 10 or 11 addition lay people - Extraordinary ministers - to distribute the Body & Blood of Jesus and I completely agree that abuse and sacriledge abound . . . . . .

 

[CastillianRose]

1. It is STILL NOT a matter of GRACE 2. It remains a further opportunity for abuse or sacriledge. 3. It was brought back in ORDER to “require” more Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist; further nutering the ROLE and special dignity of the PREISTHOOD. The reason given does not have a Theological footing, and is a matter one ones “perception” not a matter of real Spiritual benefit. [IMO].

The “fruit” of this practice has been devestating. The numer who now "believe in the REAL Presence is at an all time low [due largely to Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist. […“If everyone and anyone can touch and hold God” it CAN"T be God! ].

And YES [IMO] one would error by requesting the “theorized right” to receive under Both species. FYI: This Issue was discussed and VOTED DOWN by the Fathers of Vatican II, by a sizeable majority.

.

Hello Pat,

Thank you for the information! The information about sending consecrated Hosts to neighboring churches and about smuggling blessed bread to martyrs was particularly helpful.

I understood everything in your post until the passage quoted above. Let me try to paraphrase what you said - please let me know if I am incorrect. The Catholic Church changed the policy to distributing only the sacred Host to lower the possibility of sacrilege. Then, the Church changed the policy again to distribute both species in order to have more Ordinary Ministers. However, the fact that there were more Eucharistic Ministers translated into decreased belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of this, Vatican II decided to change the practice again to distributing only the sacred Host, not both species. As such, it is wrong to request both species.

Since I am only learning about the Catholic faith and come from an Orthodox background, I would like to reconfirm the last point especially. It seems that this point is not consistent with what other people wrote earlier about both species still being distributed in Catholic churches. If Vatican II had discontinued this practice, certainly that would not be allowed? I agree that demanding a “right” in any church is not tactful,especially when it comes to the grace of God - but is it acceptable to request with a spirit of humility, and would priests be able to grant this request? Thank you again!

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Communion under both species is encouraged, but it seems that many people have fallen into the heresy that says one has not received the whole Christ unless he has received both species.

Both species are comparable to ice and water. One is solid and the other is liquid, but both are H2O. If you take one or both, you get water either way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello friends,

1. Is there a theological reason why only the Body of Christ, but not the Blood of Christ, is distributed in Western Rite communion? My assumption is that this is a historical development. I understand that each piece of the Eucharist contains the fullness of Jesus Christ. I am asking because several Orthodox Christians I know do not understand this practice, since this is not what Jesus did - he gave both His Body and Blood to His disciples.
2. Would someone be considered out of line if they were to request the Blood of Christ in addition to the Body of Christ at Mass? Thank you!

1. There was a growing heresy in the Middle Ages where people started believing that Communion is not complete unless both Sacred Species were received. To combat this, catechesis plus a strict discipline of receiving the Precious Body only was enforced. The catechesis of course is that Christ is God undivided. Therefore in each of the Sacred Species is the fullness of Christ.
2. It will depend from priest to priest. Some parishes readily make the chalice available for all. Many still do not. They would offer the cup to those who request it for good reason, such as those who suffer from celiac disease. You can ask the parish you are attending if the priest would do that for you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The answer to the OP is that: .1. It is STILL NOT a matter of GRACE 2. It remains a further opportunity for abuse or sacriledge. 3. It was brought back in ORDER to “require” more Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist; further nutering the ROLE and special dignity of the PREISTHOOD. The reason given does not have a Theological footing, and is a matter one ones “perception” not a matter of real Spiritual benefit. [IMO].

God Bless,
Pat

You’re right, if by “a matter of GRACE,” you mean that no more nor no less grace is conveyed by the reception of only one of the Sacred Species. You are entirely and factually wrong when you say that it was brought back to require more “Ordinary Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist; (sic) further nutering (sic) the ROLE and special dignity of the PREISTHOOD.” (sic). In the history of the Church, the laity was free to receive from the Chalice for far longer than they were forbidden to do so. Further, it has always been the practice of most (if not all, I can’t recall any who do not, though I would welcome correction on that point) of the sui juris Churches (ie, the Eastern Rite Churches) in union with Rome to administer the Most Precious Blood to the faithful belonging to their rites. Their priesthood seems not to be neutered nor its dignity diminished thereby and as their Churches and rites are reckoned to be Apostolic in origin, what is holy for them would be equally holy for us. Also, the “ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion do not include the laity (I assume you meant “extraordinary”).

Pope John Paul II stated that the “sign” (the outward appearence) was fuller when the laity received both of the Sacred Species. This is not essential, however, since the Most Sacred Body is comprised of the Most Sacred Body AND the Most Precious Blood (and vice versa) and there are times when it is simply impractical and a hazard to the Sacred Species for the Chalice to be administered to the laity.

To the OP: it would not be proper for you to ask to recieve the Chalice unless it was a matter of health, ie, if you were a celiac and could not receive the Host.

 

[TrueLight]

I know one doesn’t receive less grace to receive the body and not the chalice, but I wish we could one day go back to receiving both, just the way Jesus told us to and the way the Eastern churches still do it.

 

[Neildown]

Both species are comparable to ice and water. One is solid and the other is liquid, but both are H2O. If you take one or both, you get water either way.

That was probably the best description I’ve ever heard.

 

[PJM]

=Suslar;8241897]I’m easily confused. Pat, did you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? I don’t know of many parishes who have enough ordinary (i.e. ordained) ministers to distribute under both species.

At my parish, in addition to the celebrating priest and deacon, we use 10 or 11 addition lay people - Extraordinary ministers - to distribute the Body & Blood of Jesus and I completely agree that abuse and sacriledge abound . . . . . .

No:blush: I said what is ctually the case. Every day, and nearly every where is certainly not “Extrodinary” which violates the meaning of the Indult.

I have been at daily mass with 50 or so souls and SIX ministers. That is NOT what the Indult calls for.

It’a NOT a personal issue with me, but what I see as a Primary [not only] cause of unbeleif in the Real Presence, and fallen away Catholics. MAY God forgive those who are responsible.

Matt.5: 19 “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; …”

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[PerfectTiming]

In my parish most people receive both.
I only take the Body of Christ, purely out of habit: I took First Communion in Saudi Arabia, where wine was unavailable so only the Body of Christ was offered.

 

[paperwight66]

In my parish most people receive both.
I only take the Body of Christ, purely out of habit: I took First Communion in Saudi Arabia, where wine was unavailable so only the Body of Christ was offered.

SOME wine must have been available. otherwise the Mass wasn’t valid.

 

[PerfectTiming]

SOME wine must have been available. otherwise the Mass wasn’t valid.

Wine is illegal in the country, no exceptions.

 

[PJM]

=CastillianRose;8241955]Hello Pat,

Thank you for the information! The information about sending consecrated Hosts to neighboring churches and about smuggling blessed bread to martyrs was particularly helpful.

I understood everything in your post until the passage quoted above. Let me try to paraphrase what you said - please let me know if I am incorrect. The Catholic Church changed the policy to distributing only the sacred Host to lower the possibility of sacrilege. Then, the Church changed the policy again to distribute both species in order to have more Ordinary Ministers. However, the fact that there were more Eucharistic Ministers translated into decreased belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of this, Vatican II decided to change the practice again to distributing only the sacred Host, not both species. As such, it is wrong to request both species.

Since I am only learning about the Catholic faith and come from an Orthodox background, I would like to reconfirm the last point especially. It seems that this point is not consistent with what other people wrote earlier about both species still being distributed in Catholic churches. If Vatican II had discontinued this practice, certainly that would not be allowed? I agree that demanding a “right” in any church is not tactful,especially when it comes to the grace of God - but is it acceptable to request with a spirit of humility, and would priests be able to grant this request? Thank you again!

Re: Why do we receive only the Body of Christ at Mass?

=CastillianRose;8241955]Hello Pat,

Thank you for the information! The information about sending consecrated Hosts to neighboring churches and about smuggling blessed bread to martyrs was particularly helpful.

I understood everything in your post until the passage quoted above. Let me try to paraphrase what you said - please let me know if I am incorrect. The Catholic Church changed the policy to distributing only the sacred Host to lower the possibility of sacrilege. Then, the Church changed the policy again to distribute both species in order to have more Ordinary Ministers. However, the fact that there were more Eucharistic Ministers translated into decreased belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of this, Vatican II decided to change the practice again to distributing only the sacred Host, not both species. As such, it is wrong to request both species.

Since I am only learning about the Catholic faith and come from an Orthodox background, I would like to reconfirm the last point especially. It seems that this point is not consistent with what other people wrote earlier about both species still being distributed in Catholic churches. If Vatican II had discontinued this practice, certainly that would not be allowed? I agree that demanding a “right” in any church is not tactful, especially when it comes to the grace of God - but is it acceptable to request with a spirit of humility, and would priests be able to grant this request? Thank you again!

***I’m going to have to confuse you a bit more. In order to understand what has taken place one must at least briefly review “RECENT” Church History, [Post Vatican II] that reveals 1. Not all are aware of. 2. The foundation of my remarks stem from the fact that “Both Species” is 1. Unnecessary to receive the ENTIRE Christ 2. Is NOT the norm for the Universal RCC. 3. Is not desired by Rome. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal Issued in 1970 as part of the Post Concilar Documents of VII, #283 list 14 precise times that Communion under both species can be used. Every day and every where is not one of them. This has now been changed to what the Local Bishop permits, making it ligament practice. As a FYI, The Universal Norm for the RCC continues to be: 1Under Bread alone 2. Kneeling 3. On the tongue, not on the hand. [which was voted down in Vatican II with nearly 65% of the Fathers not in favor of it.]

The Church authorized distributors of Holy Communion are Bishops, priest, deacons, and when NECESSARY acolytes. ALL of which are MALE gender. WHY? Because Christ is Male gender and His directive is to “do this in memory of ME.”

There remains a significant and highly motivated clerical force in the CC that desires equality of the two separate priesthoods [consecrated and non-consecrated [us] ], women priest, and more lay participation, non of which is approved by Rome. They continue to push and force there agenda, trying to accomplish as they have with “communion in the hand” a situation where these practices become so common place as to not be the exceptions, but the norm, forcing ROME to accept there way.

As this is a heart felt request; make an appointment with your pastor and discuss it with Him. He’ll have to make the decision.

God Bless you, SORRY if I confused you!
Pat***

 

[centurionguard]

Wine is illegal in the country, no exceptions.

Then how does the priest make the Consecration at the Mass valid?

Impossible! Both species of bread (Host) and (Wine) are needed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wine is illegal in the country, no exceptions.

If there is no wine, there is no Mass. The priest must have a very little amount somewhere. I know Masses in Saudi Arabia are not done in public churches, but within the confines of an embassy or something usually protected from the religious police. I know the Philippine Embassy has a weekly Mass for the Filipinos who are foreign workers there. And of course being the Embassy, they have wine there.

 

[CastillianRose]

In order to understand what has taken place one must at least briefly review “RECENT” Church History, [Post Vatican II] that reveals 1. Not all are aware of. 2. The foundation of my remarks stem from the fact that “Both Species” is 1. Unnecessary to receive the ENTIRE Christ 2. Is NOT the norm for the Universal RCC. 3. Is not desired by Rome. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal Issued in 1970 as part of the Post Concilar Documents of VII, #283 list 14 precise times that Communion under both species can be used. Every day and every where is not one of them. This has now been changed to what the Local Bishop permits, making it ligament practice. As a FYI, The Universal Norm for the RCC continues to be: 1Under Bread alone 2. Kneeling 3. On the tongue, not on the hand. [which was voted down in Vatican II with nearly 65% of the Fathers not in favor of it.

Thank you! I think I understand now. Based on earlier posts, I am guessing that reception of both Species is not desired by Rome because (1) it gives occasion to sacrilege and (2) it encourages the heresy that the entire Christ is not present in bread alone. Am I correct?
[/quote]