Why is 'The Host' enough?

[mountainer]

I’m a new convert and I’m not saying anyone is wrong. It just seems right and it makes me feel better to receive both the bread and blood. Jesus made it a point at the last supper to share his body and blood separately. They didn’t just break bread??

 

[Jordan_Francis]

You could point her towards the verse in the Acts of the Apostles, where a link between Eucharist and Apostolic activity is found:

“They devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles, prayers and the breaking of the bread”.

Here the “breaking of the bread”, which the Church has always interpreted as the Eucharist, seems to overshadow the “sharing of the cup”.

Likewise, another key Eucharistic passage in the New Testament is found in Luke 24: 28-35.

Here Jesus, with the disciples on the road to Emaus, only blesses, gives thanks, breaks, and distributes the bread. Here the the Lord is recorded as being “made known to them in the breaking of the bread”- clearly Eucharistic, yet with no mention of the cup,

 

[Jenny_Z]

I’m a new convert and I’m not saying anyone is wrong. It just seems right and it makes me feel better to receive both the bread and blood. Jesus made it a point at the last supper to share his body and blood separately. They didn’t just break bread??

Just because something “feels right” to us doesn’t make it right. Sometimes we have to do alot of research into WHY the Church teaches something to understand it. It’s part of growing spiritually. Keep at it

 

[benedictgal]

I’m a new convert and I’m not saying anyone is wrong. It just seems right and it makes me feel better to receive both the bread and blood. Jesus made it a point at the last supper to share his body and blood separately. They didn’t just break bread??

Actually, the Mass is more than a mere re-enactment of the Last Supper. Were that the case, we would be succumbing to antiquarianism. But, we are not. At the Mass, we are just as present at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as were the Blessed Mother, St. Mary Magdalene and the Apostles. Furthermore, if you note that in the Mass, the only one required to consume both Sacred Species is the celebrant (and concelebrants, if the case may be). At the Last Supper, the Sacrament of Holy Orders was also instituted, as the 11 (I think Judas had left at that point), were about to be ordained so as to perpetuate the new and everlasting Covenant. Thus, they had to consume both the Body and the Precious Blood.

 

[mountainer]

benedictgal, Jenny Z

This forum isn’t unlike any other forum. Did I mention Mass being a re-enactment of the Last Supper? Unless you were reading the wrong thread I said that it “felt better” for me to receive both Bread and Wine because they received both at the Last Supper. I wasn’t looking for a reason or an answer on why it was alright or acceptable to receive only the Bread. If you look back in my thread I never said it was wrong to only receive the Bread. My reference to the Last Supper was directed specifically to receiving the Bread and Wine only, as Jesus and the Disciples did. I look forward to learning more about the Catholic faith but it doesn’t look like this is the place for me.

Peace be with you.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, Jenny Z

This forum isn’t unlike any other forum. Did I mention Mass being a re-enactment of the Last Supper? Unless you were reading the wrong thread I said that it “felt better” for me to receive both Bread and Wine because they received both at the Last Supper. I wasn’t looking for a reason or an answer on why it was alright or acceptable to receive only the Bread. If you look back in my thread I never said it was wrong to only receive the Bread. My reference to the Last Supper was directed specifically to receiving the Bread and Wine only, as Jesus and the Disciples did. I look forward to learning more about the Catholic faith but it doesn’t look like this is the place for me.

Peace be with you.

But, with all due respect, the Church does not refer to the species as bread and wine after they have been consecrated. They are the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood.

When you note that this was how the Apostles received at the Last Supper, it could very well be taken as a “reenactment”. Please understand that. At the Mass, we are receiving the glorified, living Body of Jesus Christ. A living body has both the body and the blood present. At the consecration, the species are consecrated separately because when someone dies, the body and the blood separate. At the Fraction Rite, when the priest mingles the Body and the Blood (dropping a particle of the Host into the Precious Blood), this constitutes the Resurrection, where Jesus’ Body and Blood are reunited.

While communion under both Species constitutes a “fuller sign”; one can and certainly does receive both under either the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood.

Inasmuch as I understand your preference, it is always good to examine how the Church has explained this matter.

 

[pnewton]

Here is my answer on how this issue should be addressed to a non-Catholic.

As many have said, the Host contains both the body and the blood of Christ just like our flesh also contains blood. It is Church teaching. It true of our physical bodies. It is true in several eucharistic miracles.

No, the Bible does not define this, but neither does it deny it. I know that everyone wants a Scripture for every Church teaching, but this simply can not be proven from Scripture alone. I believe it is best to leave it at that. There are so many things the Church teaches which will never be believed until the authority of the Catholic Church to teach is first recognized. Do not focus on the secondary and tertiary doctrines. Just define them, show that they are not excluded and the reasons for those believe, then back off and focus on the primary issues to Catholic apolgetics.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

At the Fraction Rite, when the priest mingles the Body and the Blood (dropping a particle of the Host into the Precious Blood), this constitutes the Resurrection, where Jesus’ Body and Blood are reunited.

I think it’s important to add, in the interest of clarity, that the Fraction Rite doesn’t actually join the Body and Blood together. That happens at the moment of consecration. Christ’s Body and Blood are not reunited in the Fraction in the sense that before the Fraction the Host was only the Body.

VC

 

[Jenny_Z]

benedictgal, Jenny Z

This forum isn’t unlike any other forum. Did I mention Mass being a re-enactment of the Last Supper? Unless you were reading the wrong thread I said that it “felt better” for me to receive both Bread and Wine because they received both at the Last Supper. I wasn’t looking for a reason or an answer on why it was alright or acceptable to receive only the Bread. If you look back in my thread I never said it was wrong to only receive the Bread. My reference to the Last Supper was directed specifically to receiving the Bread and Wine only, as Jesus and the Disciples did. I look forward to learning more about the Catholic faith but it doesn’t look like this is the place for me.

Peace be with you.

I think you misunderstood me… I didn’t say that you said any of those things. You said that you FELT like it was better to receive both, and I said that we should explore and research those type of things to look past our feelings and look at exactly WHY the Church teaches them. Because that’s how we grow spiritually… not only by prayer and faith, but by questioning and research.

I was saying you were doing a good thing by asking about it here, instead of just going with “your feelings”. I tend to be horrible with words, I’m sorry if that’s not the way it came across.