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

[miguel]

WhiteDove:

LOL, yes I don’t think that receiving the blood or not would be a big issue at the pearly gates. That sort of statement sounds, well, a bit preposterous.

Basically, we have a choice. Different strokes for different folks, don’t ya think? We all have different personalities, which is maybe why the Church gives us a choice! So, lets not get all hung up on this one, okay???

Thank you WhiteDove. Whew! One less thing to worry about at the pearly gates.

 

[shannon_e]

WhiteDove:

LOL, yes I don’t think that receiving the blood or not would be a big issue at the pearly gates. That sort of statement sounds, well, a bit preposterous.

Basically, we have a choice. Different strokes for different folks, don’t ya think? We all have different personalities, which is maybe why the Church gives us a choice! So, lets not get all hung up on this one, okay???

Excellent answer!

 

[otm]

Brendan:

Otm,

I can assure you, I most assuradly view the Eucharist as a Sacred Meal. And I recieve the Sacred Meal in it’s entirety in any single species.

It might appear to you to be more clear, but I take great offense when you make claims that I am some how ‘passing up’ something. All you seem to be saying is that I ‘pass up’ a chance to make clear what is already perfectly clear.

Well, if it is so perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal by receiving only under one species, then the Church is wrong in saying that it is more clear when received under both species.

You are confusing two issues. There was an issue, at the time of Trent, that one had to receive under both species (or, to state the reverse, that Christ was not present completely, Body Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species). Trent issued a definition, and decided that the Roman rite would receive only under one species, the Host, to reinforce their teaching.

As we are well beyond that heresy, the Church has relaxed the rule and returned to the practice of the early Church, allowing us, with some encouragement, to receive under both species. And the Church has seen fit to say that reception, although not required, is a fuller sign of the Sacred Meal when done with both species than when done under one alone.

Understanding the Eucharist not only through the Gospels, but also through the Old Testament, and in particular (but not isolated to) the Passover Meal, only reinforces that.

Sadly, however, many of us are stuck in being technically right and technically minimalists. I disagree with you that by receivingf under one species, you are making (for yourself or anyone else) it perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal. I am not trying to offend you. However, were I to invite you to Sunday dinner, with hors d’oeuvres, a shrimp cocktail, roast leg of lamb and roasted red-skinned potatoes, fresh green beans with balsamic vinegar, a three bean salad, one of Oregon’s better Pinots, and Baked Alaska and espresso for dessert, and you ate nothing but the lamb, passing on the rest, you might say that you have had a meal at my house, and I would say that you have ignored what I served, and have a rather narrow view of what a meal is. In addition, I would say that you have been rude to your host, and I would be offended. and if you told others that you had a meal at my house, I would think that you have a rather odd idea of what a meal consists of. I would agree that you had eaten at my house, but I would not agree that you had a meal there. It would not be “perfectly clear” to me.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I’d prefer to have EMs limited but quite frankly, I dont care if sharing the cup increased Ems by the hundreds…I couldnt fathom ignoring the blood of Jesus Christ and passing up the opportunity to physically possess Jesus in EVERY form for that brief moment in time…its a selfish reason of which I have no apologies for.

 

[thomasaquinas]

I recieve from the Chalice for several reasons.

I realized that there is hardly any devotion to the precious blood ( even though it is still God made present ), the sacrament was originally recieved under both species, and because it reminds me of the blood Jesus shed for our sake.

Thomas Aquinas

 

[Brendan]

otm:

Well, if it is so perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal by receiving only under one species, then the Church is wrong in saying that it is more clear when received under both species.

It’s perfectly clear as seen through the eyes of Faith. What my human eyes see is unimportant. Why should I care more about what my eyes see that what my heart sees?

You are confusing two issues. There was an issue, at the time of Trent, that one had to receive under both species (or, to state the reverse, that Christ was not present completely, Body Blood, Soul and Divinity in either species). Trent issued a definition, and decided that the Roman rite would receive only under one species, the Host, to reinforce their teaching.

it wasn’t Trent that issued those decrees, the only reinforced an existing practice. The condemations of the Ultraquist Heresy happened in , over a hundred years before Trent. It was in 1433 that the practice of offering the chalice to the laity was surpressed, and it was not all that common anyway prior.

Remember, there were no EMHC’s at Mass prior to Vatican II. Even in it’s earliest days, when both species were offered, they were offered either Intinced or in the Eastern Fashion.

I don’t object to either one of those, in fact I would like to see more of that.

As we are well beyond that heresy, the Church has relaxed the rule and returned to the practice of the early Church, allowing us, with some encouragement, to receive under both species. And the Church has seen fit to say that reception, although not required, is a fuller sign of the Sacred Meal when done with both species than when done under one alone.

Well beyond it?? I see it creeping up more and more. There are so many Catholics who think that they are some how actually getting more of Christ. And that is 100% heresy!!

Sadly, however, many of us are stuck in being technically right and technically minimalists. I disagree with you that by receivingf under one species, you are making (for yourself or anyone else) it perfectly clear that it is a Sacred Meal.

If it is not perfectly clear, it means the receipient is not as well Catechized as they could be. I’m all for instructing the faithful more.

I am not trying to offend you. However, were I to invite you to Sunday dinner, with hors d’oeuvres, a shrimp cocktail, roast leg of lamb and roasted red-skinned potatoes, fresh green beans with balsamic vinegar, a three bean salad, one of Oregon’s better Pinots, and Baked Alaska and espresso for dessert, and you ate nothing but the lamb, passing on the rest, you might say that you have had a meal at my house, and I would say that you have ignored what I served, and have a rather narrow view of what a meal is. In addition, I would say that you have been rude to your host, and I would be offended. and if you told others that you had a meal at my house, I would think that you have a rather odd idea of what a meal consists of. I would agree that you had eaten at my house, but I would not agree that you had a meal there. It would not be “perfectly clear” to me.

So what part of the meal was I missing pray tell? What was missing from my meal??

What part didn’t I have?

 

[ProudArmyWife]

How about not receiving due to pregnancy

 

[larsont7]

Since Our Lord’s Body and Blood are found within each species, there is no reason for me to receive both. And to me, it has nothing to do with germs, but mainly because of the dangers inherent in spillage of His Precious Blood.

Another poster also brought up the point that receiving from the Cup requires one to chew and swallow the Host quickly. And it also requires an extra number of EME’s, which I don’t feel are necessary.

I have no issues with those that wish to drink from the Precious Cup, but I hope that they do not fall into the heresy thinking that it is necessary to drink from the Cup to receive Our Lord completely. The priest, who is acting as Christ here on earth, MUST receive both the Body and Blood in the form of bread and wine. The laity do not, and I am one who chooses not to.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Jesus EMPHATICALLY stated in the bible…Do BOTH in memory of him… I fully support parishes who do this.and disgree with the Church that only one is needed… this is simantics…of course he is present in both forms…that isnt the question here…but if he only meant to use ONE form he wouldnt have said do BOTH…I dont like when the Church messes with statements in the bible that are indeed LITERAL meanings NOT subjective interpretations… dont re-interpret what doesnt need interpreting at all…it confuses people and only adds fuel to the fire for those who arent Catholic but can plainly interpret that text of the Last Supper.

That being said… I also aint suggesting the Church is in heresy or anything…I support the meaning…what you bind and loose…and if my parish reverted back to one species I wouldnt leave…but that isnt gonna change my feeling on the matter… I can read and comprehend extremely well and I know what the Sacred reads and means.

 

[larsont7]

Faithful 2 Rome:

Jesus EMPHATICALLY stated in the bible…Do BOTH in memory of him… I fully support parishes who do this.and disgree with the Church that only one is needed… this is simantics…of course he is present in both forms…that isnt the question here…but if he only meant to use ONE form he wouldnt have said do BOTH…I dont like when the Church messes with statements in the bible that are indeed LITERAL meanings NOT subjective interpretations… dont re-interpret what doesnt need interpreting at all…it confuses people and only adds fuel to the fire for those who arent Catholic but can plainly interpret that text of the Last Supper.

You are correct in that Jesus stated “Do this in memory of me” for both the bread and wine / Body and Blood. And the Catholic Church does this when the priest consecrates the bread and wine and receives under both species. The priest is ultimately the one who offers the re-presentation of the Mass, and is the one who does these things in memory of Our Lord. The laity have no obligation to receive Holy Communion at all for the Mass to be valid, so while you may think the Church is messing with statements in the Bible, you have a clear misunderstanding of the Church teaching regarding this matter.

And it seems to me that after reading most of the messages on this board, it is not the Catholic Church who is causing confusion over this matter, rather it is those who wish the Catholic Church to adhere to their own personal interpretations of Scripture.
Faithful 2 Rome:

That being said… I also aint suggesting the Church is in heresy or anything…I support the meaning…what you bind and loose…and if my parish reverted back to one species I wouldnt leave…but that isnt gonna change my feeling on the matter… I can read and comprehend extremely well and I know what the Sacred reads and means.

With a user name like Faithful 2 Rome, I would expect that you acknowledge and respect the Church’s teachings in these matters. I’m sure the Church has put more thought into the Sacred Scriptures in the past 2000 years than any one of us lay people could ever do in our lifetimes. I trust the Church to be correct when it states that the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ can be found in the Sacred Body alone as well as in the Precious Blood alone. And unless Our Lord reveals Himself differently to me, I accept the Church authority in this matter.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I dont get your last remark or posting my last statement…as Long as I adhere to what the Church says, I still remain FREE to have a difference of Opinion on this matter…that makes me FAITHFUL… there isnt any rule that says we must LIKE the rules…just that we must FOLLOW them.

 

[otm]

ProudArmyWife:

How about not receiving due to pregnancy

Given the fact that you would be receiving an extrememly small amount of the accident of alcohol, no harm would be created. Fetal Alcohol Syndrom is not caused by a sip of wine (somewhere between a half teaspoon and a tablespoon) once a week; it is caused by excessive daily drinking. I don’t know of any reputable scientist or doctor who would say that there was any possible harm in any way to the developing child.

 

[otm]

larsont7:

You are correct in that Jesus stated “Do this in memory of me” for both the bread and wine / Body and Blood. And the Catholic Church does this when the priest consecrates the bread and wine and receives under both species. The priest is ultimately the one who offers the re-presentation of the Mass, and is the one who does these things in memory of Our Lord. The laity have no obligation to receive Holy Communion at all for the Mass to be valid, so while you may think the Church is messing with statements in the Bible, you have a clear misunderstanding of the Church teaching regarding this matter.

And it seems to me that after reading most of the messages on this board, it is not the Catholic Church who is causing confusion over this matter, rather it is those who wish the Catholic Church to adhere to their own personal interpretations of Scripture.

With a user name like Faithful 2 Rome, I would expect that you acknowledge and respect the Church’s teachings in these matters. I’m sure the Church has put more thought into the Sacred Scriptures in the past 2000 years than any one of us lay people could ever do in our lifetimes. I trust the Church to be correct when it states that the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ can be found in the Sacred Body alone as well as in the Precious Blood alone. And unless Our Lord reveals Himself differently to me, I accept the Church authority in this matter.

And the Church authority says that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of the Sacred Meal. The issue is not whether or not Christ is fully present under either species, and the only ones who keep bringing that up are those who don’t receive form the Cup; no one receiving from the cup is suggesting you receive more of Jesus than if you don’t.

The answer as to why one does not participate more fully keeps going back to the non-issue of full presence, an answer that is minimalist in its response. Minimalism will get you into heaven (see, e.g. the Synoptics treatment of the young man who asks Christ “What must I do to get to heaven?”), but Christ obviously asks us to do more than the minimum. Not demands, asks.

 

[larsont7]

Faithful 2 Rome:

I dont get your last remark or posting my last statement…as Long as I adhere to what the Church says, I still remain FREE to have a difference of Opinion on this matter…that makes me FAITHFUL… there isnt any rule that says we must LIKE the rules…just that we must FOLLOW them.

Point taken. We are all free to have our own personal opinions regarding anything about anything, and I am not one to take away your free will. I could choose to believe that Mary was not immaculately conceived, that transubstantiation does not take place during Consecration, or that the Sacred Host does not contain the complete Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but I would be wrong in doing so.

I don’t think anyone is wrong in receiving Our Lord’s Precious Blood in the Sacred Cup nor do I condemn their actions, but I do think it is wrong for someone to tell me I am receiving less of Our Lord or receiving Him incompletely by not receiving from the chalice. That’s simply not what the Church teaches regarding the matter.

One other question I might pose to you is, if the Catholic Church teaches things that you do not like or differs from your own personal beliefs, what is it about the Church that draws you close to her? I can’t say there is one Church teaching that I do not like or one of which I have a varying opinion. I trust the Holy Spirit in His protection of the Truth and in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

The answer as to why one does not participate more fully …QUOTE]

And you have yet to answer as to how exactly we are not participating fully.

The Church authority says it is only a SIGN of fuller particiation, a symbol only. The Church Authority does not say those who only partake of one species are lacking participation. Only you are saying that.

You’ve talked about ‘minimalizm’ but have made no effort to show what we are being minimal about.

OTM,

Answer this question

How exactly am I not fully participating in any aspect of the Eucharist?

 

[Momsix]

I don’t receive under both species because I know that Christ is fully present under the host, and because it complicates mass, and because I don’t like drinking from a common cup.

 

[larsont7]

otm:

And the Church authority says that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of the Sacred Meal. The issue is not whether or not Christ is fully present under either species, and the only ones who keep bringing that up are those who don’t receive form the Cup; no one receiving from the cup is suggesting you receive more of Jesus than if you don’t.

First of all, which Church “authority” are you referring to, and what does it mean to be a “fuller sign” of the Sacred Meal? If Jesus Christ is fully present (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) in the Sacred Host, how does the laity receiving of the chalice make it a fuller sign? I do believe, and the Church has always taught, that the priest offering the Mass must receive under both species, since it is he who is celebrating the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a representative of Christ on earth, he must Consecrate both the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and receive both. The laity, on the other hand, are under no obligation to receive of both.

And the issue IS whether or not He is fully present in the Sacred Host, because it seems as if some (not all) of those who receive under both species feel that they are not receiving Him completely when they only partake of the Host. They are wrong in feeling this way, because the Church has stated that He is fully present under both species.

To add one other point, it seems as if it is those who receive under both species that are making this an issue, when really there should be none. The Church allows us to receive only the Host or only from the Cup or from both. Like I’ve said before, I have no problem with those who wish to receive under both species. I prefer not to for reasons I’ve previously mentioned, and I am still receiving the fullness of Our Lord.

otm:

The answer as to why one does not participate more fully keeps going back to the non-issue of full presence, an answer that is minimalist in its response. Minimalism will get you into heaven (see, e.g. the Synoptics treatment of the young man who asks Christ “What must I do to get to heaven?”), but Christ obviously asks us to do more than the minimum. Not demands, asks.

There is nothing minimalist about not receiving under both species, and the Church has never said so, nor will it I imagine. The Scripture verse you mention does not even remotely apply in this case. Receiving from the Cup is not a difficult task, so it’s not like those who choose not to do so are living the easy life. We prefer not to receive for personal reasons (many of which are valid), which the Church fully understands and accepts. Many churches don’t even offer Communion under both species.

The Scripture verse refers to how we are living our lives in service of Our Lord. The Minimalist will tell you that all he has to do is go to church every Sunday and he will get to Heaven. Most of the posters on this board who only receive under one species do not sound like those kinds of people. They seem to have a deep, affectionate love for Jesus Christ, and wish only to serve Him and His will. Receiving only the Sacred Host does not diminish that fact, nor does it make them minimalists.

 

[otm]

larsont7:

I don’t think anyone is wrong in receiving Our Lord’s Precious Blood in the Sacred Cup nor do I condemn their actions, but I do think it is wrong for someone to tell me I am receiving less of Our Lord or receiving Him incompletely by not receiving from the chalice. That’s simply not what the Church teaches regarding the matter.

It is also not what anyone is saying in this thread. Can you understand the difference between not receiving Christ completely (which has not been said), and not receiving the Eucharistic Meal completely? The Euchristic Meal as set by Christ is the Host and the Cup.

 

[Podo2004]

Momsix:

I don’t receive under both species because I know that Christ is fully present under the host, and because it complicates mass, and because I don’t like drinking from a common cup.

So you just pass by Jesus’ gifts(blood) when you go to mass? The Church also teaches that it is a more complete sign under both species so why do we all just deny that fact and refuse to recieve that gift that he’s offering us? Sad…
Podo

 

[Brendan]

Podo2004:

So you just pass by Jesus’ gifts(blood) when you go to mass? The Church also teaches that it is a more complete sign under both species so why do we all just deny that fact and refuse to recieve that gift that he’s offering us? Sad…
Podo

No, we receive Jesus’s Blood Completely in the Host. So we ‘pass up’ nothing.

And you are correct, the Church teaches that it is a SIGN to recieve from the Chalice. Nothing more.

No extra Jesus, No extra Grace, no extra Blood. Just more of a symbol, an appearance to our eyes alone.