Jesus wants us to eat his body and drink his blood. But, as you know, during the communion we were only given the bread. Dont you think we should be given the drink too? I am not thirsty.
Many parishes offer the cup also.
The cup is always offered at my parish.
Regardless, you receive His body and blood even if you only receive Him under the appearances of the bread.
Additionally, we receive the entire Jesus under either appearance, as His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity can no longer be separated.
That said, receiving both does enhance the symbolic value, since we are both eating and drinking. I have never attended a parish that regularly denied the chalice to parishioners, except perhaps in cases of fear of germ transmission.
You receive his body AND blood in the Host. It is not required to also receive from the chalice but you may if a parish offers it.
I saw at least 30 people drink from the cup the other night. I personally couldn’t do it. They did wipe the outside of the rim in between, but I can’t help thinking about backwash flowing down into the cup.
The body without the blood (and/or the soul) is dead. Jesus, now risen, can never die. Therefore, when the bread is consecrated, though only the body is named, it becomes both the body and blood (as well as the soul and divinity) of the risen Jesus. Similarly, when the wine is consecrated, though only the blood is named, it become both the body and blood (as well as the soul and divinity) of the risen Jesus. This is known as concomitance.
You can read more about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in the section, The totality of the Real Presence.
Mine didn’t. Although I wish they could.
I don’t know where you live, but in USA it is common practice at many churches to also give the Precious Blood from the cup at Communion time, in addition to the Body of Christ in the host (“host” is a more proper word than “bread”).
In USA, the decision of whether to distribute the Precious Blood is usually based on a few practical factors, such as 1) whether the priest/ pastor at that parish is in favor of distributing it, 2) whether there are enough Eucharistic ministers and EMHCs to help distribute both Body and Blood at Communion time given the number of people who typically come to Mass there, 3) whether there is any communicable disease scare that can cause pastors to prudentially decide not to have people drinking from a common cup, 4) whether the people can reasonably receive by intinction, which requires Eucharistic ministers comfortable with doing it and recipients who know they have to receive on the tongue and not in the hand, and also takes longer than just distributing the Body of Christ.
In any event, it’s not necessary to receive in both forms. If you receive the Body of Christ alone then it’s understood to contain the Precious Blood. Likewise if you receive just the Precious Blood, it’s understood you are also receiving the Body.
Hundreds of years ago there was quite a debate in the Church over this issue that resulted in some very bad conflicts. Fortunately it’s kind of a non-issue for us today.
Never known any problems in the Eastern Catholic Churches or Orthodox Churches - there we Receive the Eucharist from the Chalice by a golden spoon.
Never know a time when there was a problem because of flu epidemic or the like
In the Byzantine rite both the bread and wine are placed in the chalice. A spoon is used to distribute the body and blood which is dropped in the communicants mouth. If you have ever attended the Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox Church there is no dropping of the host into the mouth. Everyone shares the same spoon.
In our parish, kneeling at the Communion rail, Father dips the edge of the host in the wine and offers it on the tongue as “the Body and Blood of Christ”. If the host is taken by the recipient in the hand, no dipping in wine, and it is offered as “the Body of Christ”. I always receive kneeling, and on the tongue, so I get both every time.
Amen! Thank you for saying this. Some Parishes do offer the Precious blood to the laity but ours doesn’t.
I shall recommend this technique to my priest.
Be prepared for him to smile and dismiss the suggestion. There are a lot of reasons why priests don’t want to do intinction. I’ve only seen one priest in USA doing it in years, and I suspect it’s because many of the people who attend his daily Mass are elderly/ in poor health, can’t handle the cup along with their cane or walker or whatever, and he usually has no EMHC helping him at the Mass.
Sad, but true. We are blessed with a very traditional minded pastor/priest, yet he is only 39 years of age, and only 10 years ordained. I love the way this man says mass, and the other little things he does. I pray we gave him in our parish for a very long time.
He doesn’t aound very “traditional minded” to me.
The US bishops’ guidelines for distributing communion under both. says things like:
Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church… Distribution of the Precious Blood by a spoon or through a straw is not customary in the Latin dioceses of the United States of America.
Intinction is an option, but it is not traditional in the US in the Latin rite.
Personally, I would rather risk getting germs from the “backwash” in the Cup than from the priest sticking his fingers in or near everybody’s mouths.
Yeah, I guess. To me receiving in the hand is untraditional. But I recall receiving in my youth where the priest did Intinction. I’m almost 60. Apparently I misused the term “traditional minded”. My bad.
When recieving the host you recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, so you are recieving His blood.