Why is 'The Host' enough?

[Clint_Ellis]

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?

(repeated from Liturgy… on their suggestion)

 

[terrysa]

This is what I was taught:

Isn’t blood always encapsulated within the living body? There is no place in our bodies that is without blood to nourish it. Also, how can God, who is perfect unity, be divided, half within the bread, half within the wine? He must be present under both species.

He does this in the same way He is able to be perfectly in each person who receives the host at the same time all around the world. Think of a mirror, when smashed into a thousand pieces…each piece still perfectly reflects the same whole image.

I don’t know if you will find a scriptural basis for this, but then, that is the beauty of our Church: it is not confined to the scriptures. It is a living Church, founded in tradition, as much as in the scriptures.

Hope this helps!

Peace and Blessings,
Terrysa

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, in the Eucharist we are receiving His Risen and Glorified Body. To separate the Body and Blood would mean we are receiving His dead flesh (prior to His Resurrection), and thus would be re-sacrificing Christ :tsktsk:

 

[JJ59]

Hi, Clint!

Yes, like others have said, the body and blood are both there. In the Host, you’re fully receiving both the body and blood of Jesus. Same goes for the wine.

For scriptural proof, show her 1 Corinthians 11:27:

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”

Essentially, what the verse says is that if you eat the bread unworthily, you’re sinning against Jesus’ body and blood, and if you drink the wine unworthily, you’re also sinning agianst Jesus’ body and blood.

Therefore, when you and your wife receive the Host, you’re receiving Jesus’ body and His blood.

I hope this helps!

God bless,

 

[Clint_Ellis]

Well, I was trying to avoid Church Tradition - as I say she comes from a very bible-centric perspective - and I think your citation is as close as we’re going to come to purely scriptural evidence. Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, I was trying to avoid Church Tradition - as I say she comes from a very bible-centric perspective - and I think your citation is as close as we’re going to come to purely scriptural evidence. Thanks.

I always laugh when I hear, “I follow the Bible, not Tradition”.

That’s an oxymoron, for the Bible professes Tradition! How can you claim to follow the bible and then deny the very teachings of the bible?

 

[Clint_Ellis]

I always laugh when I hear, “I follow the Bible, not Tradition”.

I know. But there are places (like Mary’s perpetual virginity) where Tradition teaches things which are not directly expressed in scripture. More interesting is where those same ‘Bible Only’ people accept the Trinity - another product of Tradition. Or even better, the existence of The Bible itself.

Even so, I am deeply sympathetic to protestants who feel that way - Their traditions discount the Catholic one. My wife comes from that background and while she now generally accepts the basics of the Catholic Church, certain issues of Tradition (be they scripture interpretation or practices) are, shall we say, “uncomfortable” for her. I accept her where she is, and overall she’s a better Catholic with all her reservations than many of our thoughtless brothers IN the Church. She keeps prayerfully thinking about these issues…

…and, by the way, she will NOT miss taking the Eucharist - she sees it for what it is, though the specifics of the theology of it are yet unresolved completely.

 

[NotWorthy]

I know. But there are places (like Mary’s perpetual virginity) where Tradition teaches things which are not directly expressed in scripture. More interesting is where those same ‘Bible Only’ people accept the Trinity - another product of Tradition. Or even better, the existence of The Bible itself.

Even so, I am deeply sympathetic to protestants who feel that way - Their traditions discount the Catholic one. My wife comes from that background and while she now generally accepts the basics of the Catholic Church, certain issues of Tradition (be they scripture interpretation or practices) are, shall we say, “uncomfortable” for her. I accept her where she is, and overall she’s a better Catholic with all her reservations than many of our thoughtless brothers IN the Church. She keeps prayerfully thinking about these issues…

…and, by the way, she will NOT miss taking the Eucharist - she sees it for what it is, though the specifics of the theology of it are yet unresolved completely.

Maybe I should change my words to, “I laugh on the inside when I hear, 'I follow the Bible, not Tradition’.”

One great way I hear it explained is, “Sacred Tradition is a democracy of the dead”. Our Church teachings aren’t strictly what today’s Church feels is necessary. Our Church teachings are the combined deposit of 2000 years of Sacred Tradition.

 

[ahollars]

Try this one then:

Next time she is at Mass, point out the priest’s actions after the Consecration. When we are praying “Lamb of God”, notice how the priest takes a part of the host and drops it into the chalice. Ask her what she thinks that means. The Body and the Blood are not separate, they are united, because Jesus lives. When you take one, you are taking both, physically and spiritually.