Why is 'The Host' enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clint_Ellis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clint_Ellis

Guest
My wife, who came into the church several years ago comes from a very ‘bible-centric’ background.

She admitted a few days ago that The Eucharist was a stumbling block for her but she’s very much past that now.

BUT… she pointed to the John 6 quote where Jesus says that you must eat His Body and drink His Blood or you have no life in you… then she asked - why does The Church allow people to only take the host?

I could recourse to the traditional ‘Tradition’ arguments - but she wants to see the answer founded on scripture directly. Comments?
 
Because Christ is not divisible, and Communion received under one form is a complete Communion – body, blood, soul, and divinity.
 
The Magisterial teaching doesn’t go against Scripture, however you may have better luck with getting Biblical quotes in the Sacred Scripture forum. Just a thought.🤷
 
When we receive and consume the Sacred Host, we are, in essence, receiving and consuming the Glorified Body of Jesus. It’s not as though we are paceling out a toe, a finger or a knee. We are eating the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

When a person dies, the blood separates from the body; in essence, it stops flowing. In John Chapter 6, Jesus calls Himself the Living Bread come down from heaven.
 
It’s not really a Theology issue that you’re only allowed to have the Body and not the Blood. It’s just safer because it’s very easy for the Precious Blood to spill and you can’t clean it up adequately. At our church, we have both on Sundays and only the Body of Christ on weekdays. Since both are the whole Christ, it really is fine either way. I just like it better with both because it’s more like the Last Supper.🙂
 
Our parish does it in a similar way - but my wife’s objection is that Jesus said both must be consumed.
 
Good question! It was taught to me that during the consecration, the bread turns into both the body and the blood.

God bless everyone!
 
When we receive Communion, we are receiving the risen, living Christ. His Body is no longer separated from His Blood as was the case when He died on the Cross, pouring out all His Blood for us. His Body and Blood are now inseparable.

When we receive Communion under the form of bread alone, we are receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. When we receive under the form of wine alone, we are receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. So either way we receive, we **are **eating His Body **and **drinking His Blood.

Receiving under both forms adds nothing to what we receive; we receive the whole Christ either way. Receiving under both forms just helps some people visualize it better.
 
She would consider your reasoning inadequate. She’s looking for a scriptural basis upon which the Church’s position is founded.

It’s not a problem for me - I still remember serving as an alter boy when it was ‘Host Only’; I went to Catholic School and they at least managed to teach me that much. “Body Blood Soul and Divinity” as you say.

I have never encountered a Catholic Tradition which was not ultimately based on evidence found in The Bible. This is the first time I was unable to quickly point out 4 or 5 places to make the case. Now I think I have that scriptural basis. Thanks to all of you.
 
Clint_Ellis said:
She would consider your reasoning inadequate. She’s looking for a scriptural basis upon which the Church’s position is founded.

It’s not a problem for me - I still remember serving as an alter boy when it was ‘Host Only’; I went to Catholic School and they at least managed to teach me that much. “Body Blood Soul and Divinity” as you say.

I have never encountered a Catholic Tradition which was not ultimately based on evidence found in The Bible. This is the first time I was unable to quickly point out 4 or 5 places to make the case. Now I think I have that scriptural basis. Thanks to all of you.
Click to expand...
NAB—John 6
So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35
17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
3
The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven,"
42
and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43
Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.
44

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
 
Like others have said, if one eats the Body, one IS taking the Blood as well.

Same thing for Coeliacs; if they only have the Blood, they are also having the Body.

You know the reason for not receiving both, right?
 
Here’s a good article: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701lw.asp

As someone said before, Jesus is the living bread that has come down from Heaven. It is impossible to separate blood from the body if it is still living. It is impossible to separate our Lord.
 
I think what may be more helpful is to challenge her assupmtion of Sola Scriptura. Of course, you know, that nothing that is taught by the Church contridicts Sacred Scripture, but not everything a Christian Catholic must believe needs to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Check out this link from ScriptureCatholic.com, which has just scripture verses to support the Catholic position against Sola Scriptura. Also, here on Catholic Answers, there are some Faith Tracts that go into Scripture and Tradition. I’ve found when talking with most non-Catholics, it is VITAL to talk about and debunk Sola Scriptura before explaining anything else about the Catholic Faith (espeically purgartory and Marian doctrine).
 
Clint_Ellis said:
why does The Church allow people to only take the host?
Click to expand...
The question is not a valid question. The Church does allow people to receive (we say “receive” not “take”, because we are receiving a gift given to us) both the Host and the chalice. In fact, the Church not only allows but encourages reception of both the Precious Body and the Precious Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection.

Some Background Information . . .
" The normal practice in the early Church wasthat all present for the eucharistic celebration shared bread broken from one loaf and drank wine from the common cup: both the Body and Blood of the Lord. It was only under special circumstances that reception of the Eucharist was under one form, such as taking the consecrated bread home for the sick after the celebration. The reception of communion under the forms of both bread and wine continued to be the practice through the High Middle Ages. Between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, communion from the cup was discouraged and finally not permitted except for the priest presiding at Mass. The difficulties entailed in the distribution of the cup and a concern about the possibility of spilling the precious blood are the main reasons for the restriction of the ancient practice of receiving under both forms. The mid-sixteenth century Council of Trent declared that the faithful were not being deprived of any sacramental grace by this new restriction since Christ is present whole and entire under each of the two forms. Thus, by receiving under the form of bread alone, the faithful receive the entirety of Christ’s presence. The Second Vatican Council called for the restoration of communion under both forms. This restoration of the cup to communicants is not meant to contradict the theological teaching of the Council of Trent, but fills it out by noting the importance of eating and drinking as effective signs of God’s grace. The Church’s teaching on this may be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which says: *“Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.” *(#240) In the early years after Vatican II, communion under both forms was permitted in only a few situations. Experience taught us that the fears that brought about the restriction of the cup could be prevented by careful distribution. Encouraged by this experience, the U.S. bishops asked for and received the Vatican’s approval to give communion under both forms at all Masses except those celebrated in very large assemblies in stadiums or arenas. "

Maybe the question your wife means is, Why do some parishes not offer the Precious Blood to the faithful? In which case, if your parish is one of those, I would ask your priest.
 
Clint_Ellis said:
Our parish does it in a similar way - but my wife’s objection is that Jesus said both must be consumed.
Click to expand...
What’s to stop you from going to an Eastern Catholic (note, I did not say Eastern Orthodox) Church where Communion is normally distributed in both kinds–or even a neighboring Latin Church where this is the practice?
 
jpjd said:
The question is not a valid question. The Church does allow people to receive (we say “receive” not “take”, because we are receiving a gift given to us) both the Host and the chalice. In fact, the Church not only allows but encourages reception of both the Precious Body and the Precious Blood as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection…

Maybe the question your wife means is, Why do some parishes not offer the Precious Blood to the faithful? In which case, if your parish is one of those, I would ask your priest.
Click to expand...
Several people here have mis-interpreted my initial comment.

Our parish does offer under both species (at least on Sundays) - she just noted that some people only receive the Host… and was questioning why the Church allowed this ‘option’.
 
Clint_Ellis said:
Our parish does it in a similar way - but my wife’s objection is that Jesus said both must be consumed.
Click to expand...
We are consuming both His Body and His Blood when we receive the Host only. Whether we receive just a crumb of the Host of just a drop of the Wine, we are receiving the entire Jesus, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! This is an awesome mystery!

It is necessary, though, for when the priest to celebrate Mass to use both elements, the bread and the wine.
 
Clint_Ellis said:
My wife, who came into the church several years ago comes from a very ‘bible-centric’ background.

She admitted a few days ago that The Eucharist was a stumbling block for her but she’s very much past that now.

BUT… she pointed to the John 6 quote where Jesus says that you must eat His Body and drink His Blood or you have no life in you… then she asked - why does The Church allow people to only take the host?

I could recourse to the traditional ‘Tradition’ arguments - but she wants to see the answer founded on scripture directly. Comments?
Click to expand...
Don’t we all have blood within our bodies? 🤷 I don’t need to read a scripture to know that…I know I’m coming across as sarcastic…but come on now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top