Only receiving the Body of Christ?


#1

I recently learned that when taking communion, often times Catholics only receive the Body and not the Blood of Christ.

Now I assume this wasn’t always the case and like the Orthodox Churches you used to receive both–is that a fair assumption?

When and why did the practice change?

I’ve heard before that you believe the host contains both the body and blood–where did this concept or theory come from?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

God Bless,
Elizabeth


#2

[quote=Coptic]I recently learned that when taking communion, often times Catholics only receive the Body and not the Blood of Christ.

Now I assume this wasn’t always the case and like the Orthodox Churches you used to receive both–is that a fair assumption?

When and why did the practice change?

I’ve heard before that you believe the host contains both the body and blood–where did this concept or theory come from?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
[/quote]

The fullness of Christ, His body, blood, soul, and divinity, is present under both species. It’s not a theory, but a fact of Catholic theology.

St. Thomas Aquinas confirms this in the Summa (Third Part, Question 76, Article 2):

After what we have said above (Article [1]), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (Article [1], ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ’s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.


#3

[quote=Coptic]I recently learned that when taking communion, often times Catholics only receive the Body and not the Blood of Christ.

Now I assume this wasn’t always the case and like the Orthodox Churches you used to receive both–is that a fair assumption?

When and why did the practice change?

I’ve heard before that you believe the host contains both the body and blood–where did this concept or theory come from?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

God Bless,
Elizabeth
[/quote]

I don’t know where you find a Catholic Church that doesn’t have both. Every Church I’ve been to in the last 40 years has both.

What Parish is it that doesn’t? If they can’t give you a specific diocese and parish I’d be a little skeptical.


#4

[quote=Ignatius]I don’t know where you find a Catholic Church that doesn’t have both. Every Church I’ve been to in the last 40 years has both.

What Parish is it that doesn’t? If they can’t give you a specific diocese and parish I’d be a little skeptical.
[/quote]

The parish I attend doesn’t. Should I be wary?

DU


#5

[quote=Ignatius]I don’t know where you find a Catholic Church that doesn’t have both. Every Church I’ve been to in the last 40 years has both.

What Parish is it that doesn’t? If they can’t give you a specific diocese and parish I’d be a little skeptical.
[/quote]

At St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City the priests consecrates both bread and wine, of course, but Holy Communion is distributed only under the species of bread.


#6

I don’t think he means no blood at all, the priest still partakes, but sometimes the offering of wine to the rest of the people is suspended for various reasons.

It first was done in the middle ages to counter heresy that a person must receive both to receive Christ. As you said the teaching in the Catholic Church is both the body and blood are present in both.

Currently, I know in Asia during a particularly nasty year, the blood was not offered either.

And in our parish, the blood is never offered in Children’s Mass.

God Bless,
Maria


#7

[quote=snowman10]The parish I attend doesn’t. Should I be wary?
[/quote]

No. It’s up to the bishop.


#8

The parish I attend doesn’t. Should I be wary?

Not as long as the priest partakes of the blood.


#9

I don’t know where you find a Catholic Church that doesn’t have both. Every Church I’ve been to in the last 40 years has both.

What Parish is it that doesn’t? If they can’t give you a specific diocese and parish I’d be a little skeptical.

Well, this site is where I learned of this practice, by reading posts from people saying that in some churches they are not even offered it.

I also recently attended a funeral in a Catholic Church, in which none of the congregation received the blood.

Why does the priest have to partake of the blood but not the congregation?

The fullness of Christ, His body, blood, soul, and divinity, is present under both species. It’s not a theory, but a fact of Catholic theology.

Yes, I understand that this is a “Catholic theology”, but nevertheless, you have not answered my questions. When did this start to be practiced? Why did it start to be practiced?

God Bless,
Elizabeth


#10

I’m pretty sure the “why” was to avoid spilling the Precious Blood. I’m not sure when it began.


#11

[quote=atsheeran]The fullness of Christ, His body, blood, soul, and divinity, is present under both species. It’s not a theory, but a fact of Catholic theology.

St. Thomas Aquinas confirms this in the Summa (Third Part, Question 76, Article 2):
[/quote]

Simply put, NO it is not the case. You have the wheat (which becomes the BODY) and you have the wine (which becomes the BLOOD). Try performing a Mass with only the Host and NOT the wine. And why not? Because the wheat does not equal the wine. They must be received together as Our Lord Jesus Christ specifically procaimed at the Last Supper. If the host was both (which it is not) then the Mass could be celebrated without any use of wine. Ask a Roman Catholic Priest if he can celebrate the Mass without the wine. It his answer is no then why would the laity be denied the complete Eucharist as intended?

Saying the host is both does not make it so. Think about it.

StMarkEofE


#12

Some may say that the Orthodox receive infants with wine only but let us be specific here. The bread and wine have been comingling on the altar prior to administering the Eucharist to infants. That is, the essence of the bread has mixed sufficiently with the wine to enable the infant to recieve both even thought it looks like wine only.

StMarkEofE


#13

[quote=StMarkEofE]Simply put, NO it is not the case. You have the wheat (which becomes the BODY) and you have the wine (which becomes the BLOOD). Try performing a Mass with only the Host and NOT the wine. And why not? Because the wheat does not equal the wine. They must be received together as Our Lord Jesus Christ specifically procaimed at the Last Supper. If the host was both (which it is not) then the Mass could be celebrated without any use of wine. Ask a Roman Catholic Priest if he can celebrate the Mass without the wine. It his answer is no then why would the laity be denied the complete Eucharist as intended?

Saying the host is both does not make it so. Think about it.

StMarkEofE
[/quote]

You are correct that the Mass cannot be celebrated without both species.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.

But you’re just wrong that the fullness of Christ is not present under both species.

From the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent:

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.


#14

[quote=atsheeran]You are correct that the Mass cannot be celebrated without both species.

Code of Canon Law:

But you’re just wrong that the fullness of Christ is not present under both species.

From the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent:
[/quote]

You are quoting Roman Catholic Canons here and it makes your argument. I have to make Eastern Orthodox arguments against the idea that both exist under on species. If this were true then wine would suffice for the bread would not it? I mean if you argue against an Anglican point and the Anglican brings up something Anglican to prove his or her point – what is the point?

StMarkEofE


#15

I think my concern is that in the original practice of communion always consisted of receiving both the Body and Blood. I therefore question why it is all of sudden considered okay to just receive one. I mean I’m still not sure who determined this, and when it was determined.

And if the reason is so not to spill the Blood…it just seems like the solution of just not offering it is a little ridiculous. In my church the congregation receives both and it’s not like there are stories about the blood spilling. Or is there another reason behind it?

Also, if both are contained in the Body then precicely why is it necessary to concecrate both?

Thank you for your responses, I really would like to understand this.

God Bless,
Elizabeth


#16

The point is the question was to Catholics about the Catholic practice and why.

original post
I recently learned that when taking communion, often times Catholics only receive the Body and not the Blood of Christ.

Now I assume this wasn’t always the case and like the Orthodox Churches you used to receive both–is that a fair assumption?

When and why did the practice change?

I’ve heard before that you believe the host contains both the body and blood–where did this concept or theory come from?

Thank you in advance for your responses.


#17

[quote=StMarkEofE]You are quoting Roman Catholic Canons here and it makes your argument. I have to make Eastern Orthodox arguments against the idea that both exist under on species. If this were true then wine would suffice for the bread would not it? I mean if you argue against an Anglican point and the Anglican brings up something Anglican to prove his or her point – what is the point?

StMarkEofE
[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by “if this were true then wine would suffice for the bread would not it?”

I’ve already said that both species are required for a valid Mass.

If you mean that one could receive only the cup and be receiving the fullness of Christ’s Real Presence then I would say YES. That is exactly what Catholics believe. When people have a low tolerance for glucose, they often receive just the cup. It is perfectly legit.


#18

And if the reason is so not to spill the Blood…it just seems like the solution of just not offering it is a little ridiculous. In my church the congregation receives both and it’s not like there are stories about the blood spilling. Or is there another reason behind it?

As I said in an earlier post, I believe the original reason was to combat heresy that a person must receive both the body and blood for it to be a valid communion.

and today it is sometimes done during epidemics for health reasons.


#19

As I said in an earlier post, I believe the original reason was to combat heresy that a person must receive both the body and blood for it to be a valid communion.

Sorry, I missed that…
Do you have any specifics on this?

God Bless,
Elizabeth


#20

[quote=MariaG]As I said in an earlier post, I believe the original reason was to combat heresy that a person must receive both the body and blood for it to be a valid communion.

and today it is sometimes done during epidemics for health reasons.
[/quote]

this is completely true. im not sure if it was considered a “heresy” officially, but people were misunderstanding communion, thinking that they had to recieve both the bread AND the wine to recieve the body and blood of Christ. so, to help make that point, the host was offered at communion but not the wine.
the other reason is a fairly practical one; wine has a good possibility of being spilled, and that’s a big no-no after the consecration.

if you believe in eucharistic miracles, it clearly shows that the blood of Christ is indeed present in the host (bleeding hosts).


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.