I need a question answered. The Blood was never offered at Latin Masses before, right? It was just the Eucharist?(I’ve only asked my mom). We constantly defend our transubstantiation with Sacred Scripture but in most of the history of the Church, we never had the Blood. Just the Body. I mean, Jesus DID say “This is my Body and Blood.” I know it does transform into the Blood because Rome told us. After all, it is God’s way of “phoning in” new instructions. So, can anyone tell me why we didn’t have the Blood before? If we did have it before, then I’m a huge idiot and I wasted my time writing this.
It is not that no wine was consecrated during the Mass, it is just that the blood was not distributed to the congregation. The priest has always received Christ under both forms. The distribution of the Blood was discontinued in order to combat the heresy that the bread became only the Body of Christ and the wine only the Blood. Reception under only one kind was meant to reinforce that each species is fully Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. In (relatively) recent times, communion under both kinds has been reinstated because it is deemed to be more symbolically whole, although we still recognize that any fragment of a host or drop of Blood is just as metaphysically (theologically/really) full as both kinds together.
the term ‘Eucharist’ does not just refer to the consecrated bread, but also refers to the consecrated wine.
sharing the Chalice wasn’t unheard of, but it was very uncommon. the perception that only the priest drank the Blood prior to the changes stemming from vatican ii is not correct. however, the practice of only giving the Host became common over time. various writers (church fathers, saints, etc.) have attested to communion under both species in the past. at the council of trent, this very question was addressed. the council clarified the fact that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in both (each) species. it doesn’t matter, as far as the truth of the sacrament goes, whether you receive one or both. this is one of the reasons that only giving the Host was allowed to become the norm.
the second vatican council decided to return to the earlier practice. even though the sacrament is the same under only one kind, there is also sacramental value in consuming Jesus under both species. as you note, it is more scripturally significant to consume both. receiving under both kinds emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the sacrament, the reuniting of the body and blood in the resurrected Christ, and its aspect as the communal meal which creates and sustains the mystical body of Christ. one of the reasons for changing the posture for communion was to further facilitate the sharing of the cup.
Thanks for the reply guys. I guess now I understand why the Host sometimes bleeds or turns into flesh in someone’s mouth. I appreciate it.