Eucharist via one species...


#1

Could someone articulate the validity of taking the Eucharist via one species?

Thanks.


#2

Christ is present “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” under either form. It is Jesus Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the form of the host, as well as in the form of wine.

One recieves the fullness of the Eucharist under either species. Receiving both species is simply a more full historical symbol as the Apsotles recieved both species.

A lone Raven


#3

Just to add–to what has already been said. We receive the fullness of God’s grace thru the reception of only one species.


#4

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. - John 6:54-55 DRB

Where in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition did we miss the ‘and’ here?


#5

We do though- just by recieving the Host we are recieving the Body and Blood of Our Lord.


#6

In recieving under either species you recieve Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. That is where and comes from. In fact, in the past, The cup was withheld from the faithful at certain points and in certain areas (Such as bohemia with the hussites) in order to drive home this truth.

A lone Raven


#7

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I understand the scholastic articulation of the ‘common’ essense between the two species but is this getting philosophy in the way of the direct commandments of our Lord and Saviour?

Again, I say… Except…ye drink my blood…

Such an act appears to do injury to the Divine Blood of Christ.


#8

In the name of Jesus peace be with you as well.

The thing is, we believe we are recieving the blood of Christ, it is simply under the form of bread. We do not believe that the consecrated host is the bloodless body of Christ, nor do we believe that the consecrated wine is blood without a body. It is inclusive. In essence, we believe we are drinking the blood of Christ, even if it is not in the form of wine.

A lone Raven


#9

Is the Blood not the cup of the New and Everylasting Convenant? Why should this be kept from us? Why would anyone not take it?


#10

The infallible anathema statements of the Most Holy Council of Trent:

CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

(See: 21st Session of the Council of Trent)

Deo gratias!


#11

Whilst others are articulating, I supose I should note that some of us should not be taking both. In my case, I am a Recovered Alacoholic, 22 years sober, on antabuse. I am quite sure that God understands and approves my taking the bread only. Who do you think has been keeping me sober 22 years?:smiley:

Likewise, there are those who suffer from wheat allergies, and for those just the wine should be needed.


#12

It may be kept from us to show the truth that Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present under either species. I believe that this belief is very easily lost when the Chalice is offered often, for very quickly you associate the blood of Christ only with the Chalice, and the body of Christ with the Host.

The reason I do not partake of the Chalice is because I do not recieve more of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, and I attempt to use my not partaking as a teaching tool, showing people that they do not need to chalice to completely partake in the Eucharist.

Many, many misunderstand this, and believe that I am missing out on something, or recieving only the bloodless body.

Again, we do partake of the blood, whether it is in the form of bread, or the form of wine, just as we partake of the body whether under the form of bread or of wine.

From the Hymn Lauda Sion by Thomas Aquinas

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

note the highlighted portions
A lone Raven


#13

I have to say everyone that I am a bit uncomfortable with the chevalier attitude some here have with regard to the Blood of our Holy Lord God in our presence.

These are the Body and the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and I’m hearing people discuss and discard them as if they were just some extra leftover things that don’t matter.

This is very disturbing to me and it illustrates the real danger of creating a dualism between the species and the essences of the Body and Blood.

On the night that he was betrayed, Jesus did not just take bread and say eat it…

We have allowed Scholastic Conjecture to blur and distort the true and complete Mystery given to us by our Lord and Saviour.

I’m very disturbed by this.


#14

Well said, ChrisB,

This is from the G.I.R.M.

  1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.

My parish is permitted to offer under both species every time we celebrate the liturgy. Of course, this requires the additional use of EMHC’s [offensive to some] — but realistically, the priest cannot hold both in his hands, can he?
Not everyone receives from the chalice, however, for their own personal reasons. But at least the priest is offering the sign value as the GIRM mentions, and the choice is left up to the communicant.


#15

No one is keeping the Precious Blood from anyone.

If you receive the Sacred Host, you are receiving the Precious Blood. Just as much as someone who drinks from the chalice.

The Eucharist is whole and entire under EITHER species.

That’s infallible dogma.


#16

I apologize if you are disturbed by my writings or by my (percieved) attitude.

I am doing my best to show the validity of communion under only one species, and to show how it is the fulfillment of the Eucharist, even if you recieve under only one species.

I apologize if you were offended. I believe in the real presence under either species, in such I do not have to recieve both species, it is the “selfsame meat” I recieve Jesus fully whether under one or both species.

A lone Raven


#17

It’s plain and simply heretical to argue that we’re not receiving the Blood if we receive under “only” one species. Heresy, plain and simple.

Of course Aquinas’ magnificent Sequence for Corpus Christi is now optional, and, in fact, is allowed to be severely cut…seems some people could use hearing it in the liturgy, at least once a year.


#18

You stated the “essences” of the Body and Blood. This seems to imply that the Body (Host) is not of the same essence as the Blood. Each is a separate essence—one the Body only --the other the Blood.

I do hope —this is not the case.


#19

The mere fact that you have people posting on a Catholic forum about being deprived of the Blood and not receiving the Blood shows that the BIGGER problem in Catholic Eucharistic theology is people understanding the doctrine that EITHER species is WHOLE, rather than the current obsession with “sign value.”


#20

I’m surprised that no one has reached back into Scripture on this matter except above.
In the ORIG. KJV this controversy hit a high point in:
COR 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, **[size=3]and **drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (KJV).
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]There was such a criticism over this corruption (to prove that the KJV was really not a true bible) that the revised current edition reads:
[/size][/FONT]COR 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, [size=3]or drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord. (RKJV).
[FONT=Arial]The DR has always held the correct translation:
[/size][/FONT]1Cor 11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
As do all the other versions on the market today.
Paul’s inspired testimony points to the completeness of either species.
That is the biblical basis, if you must have one.


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