Body AND Blood?

Does anyone receive both the Body and Blood of Christ in any of the Traditional Catholic churches, i.e. the consecrated wine as well as the host?

When did this stop being a common practice in Catholicism and why?

Thank you.

Danica (EO, curious)


Yes, definitely yes. And no.

Confused? It’s because the Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) of Christ is fully present under each species. That is, the Host contains (is) the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Christ.

But no, the people do not receive from the chalice. My understanding is that this practice was ended at least in some part exactly because of the confusion your question suggests (even if you yourself do understand about Christ being fully present). The equation of Host=Body and Chalice=Blood is a dangerous one. For one thing, where’s Christ’s Soul and Divinity? It tends to make one think that Christ comes to us in pieces which must be assembled in our stomachs.

The chalice is not offered at the traditional Latin Mass. While it is not wrong to receive it, and it has been done in the past history of the Church, it was finally stopped when it was considered too risky, as far as spilling any portion of the precious Blood. It also presents problems as far as disposing of any that might be remaining after Communion. It is not necessary to receive both species, because Christ is present, whole and entire, in the Host alone. This is why the trend of receiving under both species can lead to a misunderstanding or even loss of faith in the real presence.

Yes, and I’m sure many, many accidents went into that decision. I myself have seen the cup dropped (onto a carpet, no less) at a N.O. Mass.

It was around the tenth century. That is, at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
Part of the reason was practical - wine could be expensive and hard to obtain in Norther Europe. Part was to avoid the risk of spillage, drunkards draining the chalice, and so forth.

I suspect there were also deeper undercurrents, just as today the ppractise of Communion under both kinds is driven by a feeling that the laity ought to be equal to the clergy. However I haven’t researched the matter.

I wonder how many people think they get more of the Body of Christ the bigger the Host that they receive. But, in fact, if the priest decides to break It into (still) smaller pieces (because he feels he may not have enough,) the communicant still receives the Full Body and Blood of Christ.

Yes, exactly. He is present in every fragment and every drop! This is quite simply the main argument against Communion in the hand. How can anyone bear to think of Our Lord, in the fragments which most certainly drop onto the floor at Communion time, being trod upon? It’s so very sad.

I’ve been in several parishes over the last 30 years (none TLM) and they all offer both the body and blood. I’ve actually seen more hosts dropped than blood spilled (actually, I’ve never seen that).

I’m not an expert in this at all, and I’m not interested in starting a flame war. There is some good logic in the above post about not allowing reception of the blood, and we obviously want to treat the Eucharist in both forms with utmost reverence. . But Jesus did say “Drink this…”

Perhaps he even meant, “Drink this…even if there’s a risk of spilling some on the carpet”

As the Pharisees were over zealous about certain ritualistic practices, and missed the big picture (e.g. as in the Good Samaritan, or my Jewish roommate in college who refused to flush the toilet on the Sabbath because that was “work”) is it possible that those parishes refusing the cup are going down that same road? This is SO HOLY that we can’t even let you have it.

Taken to extremes, this type of logic would also say that we shouldn’t receive the host either, because we might drop it and some microscopic pieces drop off that are not handled properly. Or that we have germs in our mouth, or on our hands.

Yes, I do realize and agree Christ is fully present in both the bread and the wine, but English is not my native language and the word “species” kept eluding me. And if I had written just “bread” and “wine” it would have sounded as if I didn’t believe in the Real Presence. Sigh.

And I do agree it is enough to receive one. My baby girl (we are Orthodox) receives just a drop of wine.

I’m just curious about the “when” (whether it’s a new development) and “why” (what the practical reason was). I guess there is no historically verifiable answer, just conjectures?

Didn’t know that. Is this true? No age limits? No possible regards to the effects of alcohol on a baby?

Was intinction ever used in the TLM?

I like your reasoning. :slight_smile:

And your signature! My family patron saint before I got married was St. Athanasios and I LOVE him!

No age limits in Orthodoxy, no age of reason. You should see how joyful the babies and toddlers who receive the Eucharist are - they KNOW what it is probably better than us. I know a three-year-old girl who started crying when her parents told her that if she isn’t a good girl, she can’t receive. They decided never to threaten her like that again, it was too harsh. :rolleyes:

I do believe the good effects of the Eucharist far outweigh any possible bad effects from a weekly drop of wine :stuck_out_tongue:

Ha! Lighten up! She said a “drop”. :smiley:

Oh, and by the way, we’re also Balkan Slavs :smiley: .

I was given brandy (though accidentally) when I was six months old and beer (quite on purpose) when I was five years old!

A “drop” of poison can kill. But in this case, if the kids are happy afterwards, it must have been enough and from something other than what they had for breakfast. :smiley:

I was actually concerned at first if the joy I felt after receiving had in fact something to do with the mixture of bread and wine I’d ingested… So I tried mixing bread and wine at home and eating it… Nope, DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME!!! :slight_smile:

I don’t think this applies to Orthodox Christians but from Trent:

On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.
The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. **Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof. **

CANON III.-**If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema. **

I remember distinctly that in The Story of a Soul, St. Therese related how she prayed she would get a whole host during one communion, rather than a small, broken-off bit.

I’ll look up the exact passage later and share it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit