Why do you, or don't you recieve Christ's blood at Holy Communion?

[Podo2004]

JKirkLVNV:

I do receive the Most Precious Blood, because that’s the way Christ instituted the Sacrament at the Last Supper. Don’t anyone flame me, I know the fullness of the Scarament is contained in either Species.

agreeed!
and it is more complete too with both species(from somewhere in a GIRM)
Podo

 

[Podo2004]

7S,

We recieve the risen Jesus in the Eucharist. His body and Blood are united and are one single substance. There is no ‘more’. You have already recieved His Blood, but for some reason, you are thinking you are getting more of his blood. That cannot be, you already have the complete Christ within you. You cannot get ‘more’ of Christ’s blood anymore than you get more ‘Christ’ by having 2 hosts.

The Body and Blood of Christ can never be seperated again, as Jesus has conquered death and can never die, which is exactly happens when body and blood are seperated.

Christ consecrated both species as a symbol of his death, as the sacrifice. But look at this words. “THIS IS MY BODY”. Was Jesus dead? Were His Body and Blood seperated?

NO!

And, yes I will be Theological, because this is the most theological issue I know of, it’s the Source and Summit of the Church.

The Priest consecrates them seperatly as a representation of the Death of Christ. But when the Words of Institution are finshed, it is the Resurrected, complete and whole Jesus that is present in front of us. In both paten and chalice. In every particle or drop. United in one God, one Divine Substance. There is NO seperate Substance for Body and Substance for Blood.

I accept the gift Jesus gave me, His Body and Blood united in one single substance. WE RECIEVE HIS BLOOD WHEN WE RECIEVE CONSECRATED BREAD. I am not deluded into thinking I am getting something ‘more’ in the chalice than I have already recieved from the ciborium, so no excuses need be made.

But Jesus didn’t go up to his disciples and say," This is body( in the form of bread)" and then " This is my blood, but since body and blood aren’t separated right now and you get all in one, you don’t have to drink the blood even if im offering it to you now." He said" TAKE AND EAT and TAKE AND DRINK and do this in remembrance of me"
Podo

 

[KCT]

Seven Sorrows:

I think it is totally sick the excuses people are giving for not receiving the blood. Maybe Jesus will reject those people when they get to heaven as they reject him. I know I am going to take flack…but it is disgusting!!! !

Where does that leave cultures that don’t offer both?
—KCT

 

[otm]

shannon e:

Since Jesus is fully present in the bread, I do not partake of the wine.

This is in part due to the fact that I want to return to my seat and give quiet thanks for what I have received, and in part due to the fact that I don’t like associating Jesus with alcohol.

Peace.

So you feel that Jesus didn’t know what he was doing when he instituted the Eucharist? Or do you feel that He made a mistake?

If you don’t associate Jesus with alcohol, what do you make of the wedding feast at Cana (do you have any idea how big those jars were?) and with the comments in the Gospels about His being associated with drunks?

 

[otm]

Brendan:

The only difference between the Consecrated Bread and the Consecrated Wine is how it appears to our humanly senses. That is the ONLY difference.

If the ONLY difference is the appearance, then pray, tell why Jesus instituted the Eucharist under both species?

7Sorrows, If there was a priest with a ciborium next to the priest you just received the Host from, would you stop for a second host?

If not, why not? It is the exact same thing as receiving from the cup. The only difference is in how it feels in your mouth, and how it tastes.

Why not go to every priest, deacon, and EMHC and receive as many Hosts as you can? Do you not love Jesus enough to want more?
Even if all you physically recieved was last crumb on the paten, You have recieved the Complete, Resurrected Jesus; Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. There is no ‘more’ that one could possibly have.There is no ‘rest of Jesus’ that you haven’t already recieved.

How about, he was trying to explain that it is a fuller sign of the Eucharist, and he prefers to participate as fully as possible? I suspect that was what he was trying to say.

 

[shannon_e]

otm:

So you feel that Jesus didn’t know what he was doing when he instituted the Eucharist? Or do you feel that He made a mistake?

So, you’re saying I should live my faith as stated by scripture alone, or is it alright with you if I also live by the teachings of the Magesterium, our Holy Father, and Tradition?

If you don’t associate Jesus with alcohol, what do you make of the wedding feast at Cana (do you have any idea how big those jars were?) and with the comments in the Gospels about His being associated with drunks?

oh come on.

Peace.

 

[shannon_e]

otm,

From the Catechism:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. /quote]

How about you concentrate on the first part, and I’ll concentrate on the second part.
Peace.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

If the ONLY difference is the appearance, then pray, tell why Jesus instituted the Eucharist under both species?

I already addressed that, to symbolize His death. But, as I mentioned before, we receive the resurrected Jesus. His Body and Blood will never be separated again.

How about, he was trying to explain that it is a fuller sign of the Eucharist, and he prefers to participate as fully as possible? I suspect that was what he was trying to say.

And there is nothing ‘fuller’, there can BE nothing ‘fuller’ to participate IN; if he was trying to say that, he was wrong.

I don’t have a problem is the Precious Blood is offered intintced by the Priest, or in the Eastern Fashion, together in the same chalice

But, as I said above, the most common practice of a separate chalice give the wrong theological symbolism, had a greater danger of the sacrilege of spillage, and promotes an excess of EMHC’s.

 

[whosebob]

You might think about discussing this with Karl Keating of Catholic Answers: see his earlier post.

 

[otm]

shannon e:

So, you’re saying I should live my faith as stated by scripture alone, or is it alright with you if I also live by the teachings of the Magesterium, our Holy Father, and Tradition?

oh come on.

Peace.

No, I am saying that you should live your faith by all three. I also suggest that one does not play a game of pick and choose as to which elements of the three one lives by. I do not suggest that you do. I do, however, see people getting stuck on the Council of Trent as if it was the final word on all issues before the Church, and treating disciplinary decisions as if they were doctrinal, and therefore immutable. Trent answered issues of that day. There has been more than a little water under the bridge since then, and numerous issues that Trent was not facing at the time.

As to your last comment, you were the one who stated that it was “in part due to the fact that I don’t like associating Jesus with alcohol”. I am not sure what you mean by that, but my references were associations of Jesus with alcohol. If you mean the accident of alcohol in the Eucharist, then the same question applies: Do you think He made a mistake, since He chose that as His means of making His presence available to us?

 

[otm]

shannon e:

otm,

From the Catechism:
1390

Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. /quote]

How about you concentrate on the first part, and I’ll concentrate on the second part.
Peace.

I don’t need to concentrate on the first part; I had that figured out many years ago, never forgot it, and never denied it. But I certainly rejoiced when the Cup was made available to everyone.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

I already addressed that, to symbolize His death. But, as I mentioned before, we receive the resurrected Jesus. His Body and Blood will never be separated again.

So are you saying He made a mistake in saying “Take and drink”?

Brendan:

And there is nothing ‘fuller’, there can BE nothing ‘fuller’ to participate IN; if he was trying to say that, he was wrong.

Either you don’t read all of the posts or you are obtuse. The Church has specifically said that reception under both species is a fuller sign. See, e.g. the Catechism. I think that was what he tried to say, however inarticulately.

Brendan:

I don’t have a problem is the Precious Blood is offered intintced by the Priest, or in the Eastern Fashion, together in the same chalice

But, as I said above, the most common practice of a separate chalice give the wrong theological symbolism, had a greater danger of the sacrilege of spillage, and promotes an excess of EMHC’s.

And the Church says that it is a proper symbolism, and I submit they know whereof they speak. Further, the command Christ gave was “Take and drink”. That is plain on its face.

Accidental spillage is not a sacrilige. It is an accident. For all the years I have received under both species, and prior to that under one species, I have seen more cases of the Host being dropped; in fact, I have not yet seen accidetnal spillage.

As to an excess of EMHCs, that is a personal opinion, and you are welcome to yours. But that is a different thread.

 

[Edwin1961]

In the Eastern Catholic Church, there is no option to take one or the other. The only option is to accept or reject it. The precious body and the life-giving blood is presented both on a spoon and the priest drops it on your tongue. (It’s an ideal was especially with the cold and flu season here).

However, if I am attending a Latin Mass, I will take both species whenever possible. I do understand that if the Body is taken seperately, it still represents the whole Christ. But for me, I’ll take both forms simply because Christ presented it that was to his Apostles.

Go with God!
Edwin

 

[shannon_e]

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

otm:

I don’t need to concentrate on the first part; I had that figured out many years ago, never forgot it, and never denied it.

Then why are you bugging me about it?

But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

otm:

The Church has specifically said that reception under both species is a fuller sign.

Don’t confuse the sign of completeness that the two provides to us sense-addicted humans with the real presence that is present in any one species.

otm:

you were the one who stated that it was “in part due to the fact that I don’t like associating Jesus with alcohol”… I am not sure what you mean by that…

Then “I am not sure what you mean by that” is what you ought to have said in the first place. You’re right, you don’t know, and I don’t wish to clarify.

Peace.

 

[khkhk]

Podo2004:

But Jesus didn’t go up to his disciples and say," This is body( in the form of bread)" and then " This is my blood, but since body and blood aren’t separated right now and you get all in one, you don’t have to drink the blood even if im offering it to you now." He said" TAKE AND EAT and TAKE AND DRINK and do this in remembrance of me"
Podo

But if you’re like me, I can’t take the Precious Blood…allergic to alcohol…

 

[JCPhoenix]

I recieve the precious blood when I can…I suffer from cold sores, and if I have any kind suspicion I may be getting one, I refrain. Or if I am getting a cold…etc.

I saw a comment somewhere above about the concern about DUI or a false positive reading as a result of the wine. This is a concern without any kind of foundation…those “false pos’s” are a complete myth.

The amount of precious blood one takes in at communion is less than, say, using a mouthwash like Listerine just before you leave the house.

Cops may use pbt’s, but they are not admissible in court, and other tests add to any kind of probable cause for arrest. Don’t anyone trouble yourselves about DUI and use that fear as a reson to abstain from the cup.

I have a background in law enforcement, so please understand I am speaking about this from a degree of authority in the subject.

NOW! If you fear a traffic stop…then might I suggest you pay more attention to your driving?

 

[JGC]

Both - see bold below

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. **But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” **This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

(My Bold)

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1390.htm

 

[Brendan]

Edwin1961:

In the Eastern Catholic Church, there is no option to take one or the other. The only option is to accept or reject it. The precious body and the life-giving blood is presented both on a spoon and the priest drops it on your tongue. (It’s an ideal was especially with the cold and flu season here).

Edwin,

And the Liturgy of the PreSanctified Gifts offers what…?

Is the Eucharist then any less valid or complete because the Blessed Mystery is offered with unconsecrated wine?

 

[Brendan]

otm:

And the Church says that it is a proper symbolism, and I submit they know whereof they speak. .

The Church says it does this for “pastoral reasons” NOT for theological symbolism.

If anything, the CCC agrees with me, saying in only APPEARS to be more complete.

I, for, one, don’t need to fall for appearances when the Eucharist is presented.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

KCT:

Originally Posted by Seven Sorrows
I think it is totally sick the excuses people are giving for not receiving the blood. Maybe Jesus will reject those people when they get to heaven as they reject him. I know I am going to take flack…but it is disgusting!!! !

Where does that leave cultures that don’t offer both?
—KCT

Well it wouldn’t apply. It is not the people’s choice if their diocese offers it. I (as you can see from the post) was talking about people who “choose” to not receive and then give weak excuses for not receiving.