Why is receiving the Body of Christ sufficient alone?

[MeOnly]

Hello.

Please excuse me, I’m having trouble putting the words together for this question.

I read another post saying that receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient enough at communion.

Why is the Body of Christ both the body, blood, soul and divinity and the Blood of Christ both body, blood, sould and divinity?

Why isn’t the Body of Christ just the body, soul and divinity and the Blood of Christ just the blood, soul and divinity?

Hope I’m making sense.

Thanks in advance!

 

[atsheeran]

If the body and the blood were separated, Christ would be dead. But Christ is not dead! He lives! Thus, His body and blood cannot be separated.

 

[otm]

Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist under either the form of bread or the form of wine. Thus it is “sufficient” to receive either; you have received Christ.

The issue comes from the time of Trent, which was reacting to the Protestant revolution, and the idea was afoot that one had to receive both. Trent, as a means of insuring the integrity of the Faith, reacted, and we thus ended up as laity receiving only the Eucharist under the form of bread, in the Roman or Latin rite. The eastern rites continued to receive as they had, many, if not all, under both forms.

The Church, having seen that the issue was one in the past, and not the present, has returned to allowing us to receive under both species, as Christ originally presented it and as the Church received it after the Ascension. It was not for a number of centuries that it became more the custom to receive only under one species.

The Church still acknowledges the teaching of Trent, but says that it is a fuller sign of the Eucahristic Meal to receive under both.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, the short answer is simply “because it is”. . .but think about it. Is Jesus alive? Is He fully Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?

He is, of course.

Now. . .the bread and the wine are consecrated and yes, the bread is the body and the wine is the blood BUT. . .because Jesus is NOT a dead person, because He IS alive, then His body and His blood are not separate, are they? A live person is body and blood, soul and divinity. If you have a body, but there is no blood in it, take it from me, that is a dead body. If you have 8 pints of blood but no body to put it in. . .you get the point.

IMO, THAT is the reason that both parts–bread and wine, consecrated into Body and Blood–are each all in all–Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Because Jesus is all in all. And He lives.

 

[MeOnly]

OH! That makes sense!!

THANKS!!

 

[Dropper]

MeOnly:

Hello.

Please excuse me, I’m having trouble putting the words together for this question.

I read another post saying that receiving the Body of Christ is sufficient enough at communion.

Why is the Body of Christ both the body, blood, soul and divinity and the Blood of Christ both body, blood, sould and divinity?

Why isn’t the Body of Christ just the body, soul and divinity and the Blood of Christ just the blood, soul and divinity?

Hope I’m making sense.

Thanks in advance!

You need to think about what we are actually doing when we receive the Eucharist in the form of the Host alone. We are acutally consuming the flesh of Christ. We are consuming His body. Everything comes with that.

Think about it this way (and no I am not trying to minimize the Eucharist). When we eat a steak we are eating everything that the bull contains. We are eating its flesh and its blood.

Here’s a quote from Ludwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 384 (in my version at least):

The Body and the Blood of Christ together with His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly presnet in the Eucharist. (De Fide)

The Council of Trent defines the totality of the Real Presense together with the fact of the Real Presense: Si quis negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sacramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanquinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum, . . . A.S. D 883

The body of Christ is present under the form of bread and the blood of Christ under the form of the wine ex vi verborum, that is, by the power of the words of consecration. Per concomitantiam (by concomitance), that is, on account of the real connection between the body and the blood of Christ, His blood and His soul are also present with the body of Christ under the form of bread, as He is a living body (Rom, 6,9) (Concomitantia naturalis), and on the grounds of the Hypostatic Union His Divinity is also present (concomitantia supernatualis). Similarly, under the form of wine besides His blood Christ’s body and soul and Divinity are also present by concomitance. Cf. D 876 S. th. III 76, I.

In the Eucharistic promissory speech we find the words: “He that eateth my fleshg and drinketh my blood” (John 6, 54, 56) parrallel to the words: “He that eateth me” (V. 57), that is, the whole person of Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is present with the flesh and blood of Christ. Cf. I Cor. II, 27.

 

[Mike_Dye]

To put it more simply, when you go to commuion, you receive Jesus . Body Blood Soul and Divinity under either speices bread or wine.

 

[TNT]

1 Corinthians 11
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

 

[Mark_Danich]

Receiving only the bread and not the cup of wine at Communion: at the Last Supper Christ offered both the bread and the cup of wine. And thus if at the Last Supper both the bread and the cup of wine were distributed then that is the way it should be done in Catholic Churches at Holy Communion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Many churches do offer both the host and the chalice, but–they do not HAVE to do so.

Jesus offered the bread and the wine at the Last Supper FOR THE FIRST TIME. AT that first time, even though He had not yet died on the cross, the bread because not just His Body ALONE, and the wine His Blood ALONE, but each became Body AND Blood, Soul AND Divinity–BEFORE the actual bloody sacrifice on Calvary.

At the consecration, we do EXACTLY as Jesus did, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine–and, once again, now and forever, they become, EACH, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Because of people over the centuries becoming CONFUSED, and making the same honest mistake you appear to be doing, that somehow you have to have BOTH together, as if by taking ONLY the host or ONLY the cup, you are only getting, forgive the term, “HALF OF GOD”, the Church formally defined the ALREADY GIVEN DOCTRINE that BOTH host and chalice contain the TOTAL God–Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Now, IF you live in a diocese, like most, which offers the chalice and host, not because “TWO GODS ARE BETTER THAN ONE”, but because they wish to allow for choice (there are many with celiac sprue who cannot take the host, but can take the cup, and many with cirrhosis, for example, who can take the host but NOT the cup) in order to allow as many as possible to receive ONE OR THE OTHER, that is fine. And there are those who receive Body and Blood not thinking that they are getting “more” but who do so in a spirit of piety and love, just rejoicing in being able to receive Christ.

I have to say that I honestly hope that one thing that changes in the U.S. IS the “both species” proliferation. . .entirely because of the attitude of those who inaccurately and unfairly conclude that unless they get “both” they just are getting only “half a loaf”. . .and that is totally wrong.

It is rather a pity that because there are so many who cling like death to their childish “we want it all” error, they spoil it for the rest who DO understand just what communion is all about.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Mark Danich:

Receiving only the bread and not the cup of wine at Communion: at the Last Supper Christ offered both the bread and the cup of wine. And thus if at the Last Supper both the bread and the cup of wine were distributed then that is the way it should be done in Catholic Churches at Holy Communion.

Please read all the posts especially post 10.

 

[otm]

Tantum ergo:

I have to say that I honestly hope that one thing that changes in the U.S. IS the “both species” proliferation. . .entirely because of the attitude of those who inaccurately and unfairly conclude that unless they get “both” they just are getting only “half a loaf”. . .and that is totally wrong.

It is rather a pity that because there are so many who cling like death to their childish “we want it all” error, they spoil it for the rest who DO understand just what communion is all about.

I am not sure what you mean by the “want it all” error; if you are saying that it is wrong to wish to receive under both species, you are running contrary to how Christ gave it to us, and to the Apostles, who presented it to the Church that way, and how it was received in the Church for quite some time.

It would seem that instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, the better decision would be to properly catechize people.

 

[otm]

Ann Cheryl:

Please read all the posts especially post 10.

From what I read of his post, he had read the other posts, and was only speaking to the issue of the discipline; I don’t see anything that indicates he believes he has to receive under both species; rather, that is how Christ gave it to us, follows what He said to do, and follows the tradition of the early Church.