Why recieve the wine?

[reff]

If we can receive both Body and Blood by taking only the bread, than why do we even receive the wine? Is it just for an extra blessing. Also, if both species are in the bread, than why does the priest only say “This is my body” when he consecrates the bread?

 

[Tietjen]

If we can receive both Body and Blood by taking only the bread, than why do we even receive the wine? Is it just for an extra blessing. Also, if both species are in the bread, than why does the priest only say “This is my body” when he consecrates the bread?

Hi Reff,
We don’t take “bread” or receive “wine” if what you are referring to is Holy Communion. We ARE ACTUALLY receiving the body and blood of Christ.

Now, some choose to take part in both the body and the blood. Others only consume the Eucharist. Both are fine. There is no “extra blessing.” God bless.

 

[reff]

Thank you for your answer my friend. But what I’m asking if the bread is both the Body and Blood, than why receive the wine or Blood? And why when the priest consecrates the bread, does he only say “This is my Body” and not also “My Blood.”

 

[Tietjen]

Thank you for your answer my friend. But what I’m asking if the bread is both the Body and Blood, than why receive the wine or Blood?

I understand what you want to say but I again, need to point out that after the consecration, there is no bread. There is ONLY the body and blood of the Lord. To answer your question, it’s simply a personal preference. Some people prefer to receive both species while others prefer to receive only the Holy Eucharist.

And why when the priest consecrates the bread, does he only say “This is my Body” and not also “My Blood.”

It is simply understood. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“This general and fundamental principle, which entirely abstracts from the duality of the species, must, nevertheless, be extended to each of the species of bread and wine. For we do not receive in the Sacred Host one part of Christ and in the Chalice the other, as though our reception of the totality depended upon our partaking of both forms; on the contrary, under the appearance of bread alone, as well as under the appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and entire (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii).”

You can find out more concerning this here.

 

[Ahlman]

reff:

Also, if both species are in the bread, than why does the priest only say “This is my body” when he consecrates the bread?

The following is the best explanation I can give. Hopefully someone else can fill me in. During the consecration, it is most essential that it is done two-fold with the bread first changed into the body of Christ and the wine changed into the blood of Christ. This signifies the separation of the body and blood of Christ at his death on the cross. Consecrating both at the same time would not constitute a valid eucharist. However, since Christ is risen, the bread and the wine are changed into the risen, living Christ. In order for a body to live, it must also contain blood, and similarly in order for blood to live, it must run through a living body. Since the eucharistic species consists of the risen, glorified Christ, every part of either species contains the whole Christ.

However, at the same time as the eucharistic species really are changed into the true body and blood of the risen Christ, they are at the same time signs - signifying exactly those things that they really have become. And in this sense, the accident of bread is only signifying the body of Christ and the accident of bread only signifying the blood of Christ - in order to make clear the meaning of the separation of the body and blood of Christ at his sacrifice on the cross. This is the reason why the accident of bread is only referred to as the body of Christ and the accident of wine only referred to as the blood of Christ.

The separation of the body and blood of Christ is only essential for the sacrificial aspect of the eucharist. Since the communion of the priest is part of the sacrifice, it is also essential that the priest receives communion under both forms. The communion of the laity, however, is not essential for the validity of the sacrificial aspect of the eucharist. Since both accidents consists of the glorified, risen Christ whose body of blood will never separate again, we can just as well receive him under only one kind. But if the circumstances allows it, there is still a point in giving the laity communion under both kinds since it can be a better sign - but it is not essential.

 

[Aramis]

If we can receive both Body and Blood by taking only the bread, than why do we even receive the wine? Is it just for an extra blessing. Also, if both species are in the bread, than why does the priest only say “This is my body” when he consecrates the bread?

WHy receive both? Because Christ commands “Take, eat, This is My Body…” and also commands “Take, drink, This is My Blood…”

While either is adequate, and the Grace is the same either way, we participate most fully in the unbloody sacrifice when we follow both.

 

[drforjc]

WHy receive both? Because Christ commands “Take, eat, This is My Body…” and also commands “Take, drink, This is My Blood…”

While either is adequate, and the Grace is the same either way, we participate most fully in the unbloody sacrifice when we follow both.

I’m not sure “participate more fully” is quite correct theologically either. What is more full is the “sign value” according to the documents which allowed the laity to receive under both forms.

 

[Tietjen]

WHy receive both? Because Christ commands “Take, eat, This is My Body…” and also commands “Take, drink, This is My Blood…”

While either is adequate, and the Grace is the same either way, we participate most fully in the unbloody sacrifice when we follow both.

I agreed all the way up to the last part of the last sentance. I would say, “we particpate most fully in the unbloody sacrifice when we partake in Holy Communion worthily.” Whether that be under both species or under one. Because BOTH species are Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

 

[Brendan]

WHy receive both? Because Christ commands “Take, eat, This is My Body…” and also commands “Take, drink, This is My Blood…”

Christ’s command is fulfilled when we recieve a single species. As each species has both Christ’s living flesh and flowing blood, we both eat His Flesh and drink His Blood when we recieve a single species. Do not confuse how our bodies react to the accidents of the species with the truth of what is happening. Our mouths might feel as though we are eating only, when the reality is that we both eat and drink. How could we do otherwise, since the Blood of Christ is living and flowing within the Eucharist…

While either is adequate, and the Grace is the same either way, we participate most fully in the unbloody sacrifice when we follow both.

No, we participate fully when we recieve in either species. The reception of both species have an additional sign value, but that is not an element of the Sacrament itself.

Just as if your parish had two signs out on the street pointing towards the parish, it has a fuller sign. But the fact of having two signs does not make the church more of a parish, or dimish in any way the Sacrament that is confected there.

All it does is help those who might be more lost than others find the place

 

[bpbasilphx]

Now, some choose to take part in both the body and the blood. Others only consume the Eucharist. Both are fine.

**The Precious Blood in the Chalice is the Eucharist as well.

“Eucharist” does not refer only to the species of Bread.**

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for your answer my friend. But what I’m asking if the bread is both the Body and Blood, than why receive the wine or Blood? And why when the priest consecrates the bread, does he only say “This is my Body” and not also “My Blood.”

The consecration of the species is not together. At the consecration of the host, the priest says, “This is my Body.” At the consecration of the wine, the priest says, “This is my Blood.” When a body dies, the blood ceases to flow. That is why the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord are separate.

Receiving the Precious Blood is optional. especially when the communicants are of a great number that would prohibit the distribution of the Precious Blood without the risk of profaning the sacrament. You will notice that communicants do not receive the Precious Blood during Papal Masses that have tens of thousands in attendance.

Christ is contained whole and completely in either form.

Again, as I’ve noted in another thread, we should make every effort at using the proper terminology. At Communion, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine. We are Catholic. Let’s stick with what we’ve been taught.

 

[mark_a]

Receiving the Precious Blood is optional.

Either the body or the blood are optional. Some folks who are alergic to wheat take only the blood when low gluten hosts are not available.

 

[Philothea53]

Either the body or the blood are optional. Some folks who are alergic to wheat take only the blood when low gluten hosts are not available.

Would it be okay for someone to receive ONLY the Blood?

 

[japhy]

Would it be okay for someone to receive ONLY the Blood?

Certainly. Some people do this because they are allergic to the bread used to confect the Eucharist (since its accidents remain).

 

[Aramis]

Would it be okay for someone to receive ONLY the Blood?

Happens all the time in the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches…

The byzantine Tradition is communion from baptism onward. Infants may or may not get a particle of the Body, but definitely receives the most precious Blood.

In the Roman church, yes, it’s permitted for a few reasons: Gluten intolerance, inability to open one’s mouth, inability to stomach solid food (such as after gastric surgery).