Why Body only...no Blood. New Thread


#1

I changed a couple of things. Just wanted you to have a fair chance to see and possibly learn more about our Catholic faith.:thumbsup:

Second, you seem to be disappointed in what you perceive the Catholic Church to be, not in the Church. The Catholic Church is not one of the churches, She is THE Church built on Peter the Rock with Jesus sitting at the Head.

Third, if you have been away and a lapsed Catholic, you are still Catholic but you are not in a position to receive the Eucharist at all unless you have met with your priest and come back into communion and received reconciliation. Then you could partake in the Body and Blood worthily, even though you may only receive in the species of bread, you would receive both Body and Blood.

Forth, to feel that “the more churches I go to the better”, shows you are not ready to receive truly what God has to offer. There is only one Church, Jesus sits at the Head of Her; She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostalic; She holds the entire deposit of truth given us by Jesus.

Ask and it shall be given to us, seek and we shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to us; or we can stay outside searching in what the world has told us about God and His Church, or the Church can teach us the truth if we are ready to listen!


#2

For someone all upset over the “higher ups changing everything”, I would think such a person would be thankful the tradition of receiving only under one species was preserved as it was before Vatican II. In fact, it wasn’t until very recently that communion was offered under both species regularly every Sunday. That’s something that happened within the last decade or so.

Also, I’m not sure what the issue is considering that regardless of receiving under both species, or one and not the other, a person receives Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity completely.


#3

Years ago, I heard a sermon about the Eucharist, and it made a big but perhaps unintentional impression on me. The priest said that the original word for eat * that Jesus used when instituting the Eucharist meant *chew. His point was that Jesus really did want us to eat *His Body. The sermon never mentioned the word *drink, but it made me think that if Christ's intention was for us to eat, then presumably He literally meant *drink *too.

Now, as mentioned above, the Church teaches that even if you receive only the Host, you fully receive Communion, but I think that Christ's intention, which we should obey whenever possible, in the plain meaning of the Gospels, seems to be not just "Take this, all of you, and eat," but also "Take this, all of you, and drink."


#4

Don't we in English use terms like "one's own flesh and blood" like the two are inseparable? The consecrations are separate because bread and wine are separate. But the end product is Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" regardless of the amount or accident (bread, wine). We either believe in the Transubstantiation or we don't. And transubstantiation, as opposed to consubstantiation, means the substance is no longer bread or wine.

As for the priest's part, validity of the Mass or consecration isn't complete until he consumes both species. After he consumes both, then whatever amount under either species/accident consumed would be the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of Christ. At least that's my understanding.


#5

[quote="ProVobis, post:4, topic:323881"]
The consecrations are separate because bread and wine are separate. But the end product is Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" regardless of the amount or accident (bread, wine).

[/quote]

This leads to a question that I've always had. Since we know that the body, blood, soul and divinity are contained on both species, why is it that, when communion is distributed, we are told "The body of Christ" or "The blood of Christ"? Doesn't this contribute significantly to the misunderstanding that one needs to receive each species to receive both the body and blood of Jesus?


#6

[quote="babochka, post:5, topic:323881"]
This leads to a question that I've always had. Since we know that the body, blood, soul and divinity are contained on both species, why is it that, when communion is distributed, we are told "The body of Christ" or "The blood of Christ"? Doesn't this contribute significantly to the misunderstanding that one needs to receive each species to receive both the body and blood of Jesus?

[/quote]

Yes, and I'm surprised Trent didn't address the formula issue. I'm afraid it's that way in the Latin too and in the old communion formula. I wouldn't object if it were changed to reflect what you just stated.


#7

[quote="babochka, post:5, topic:323881"]
This leads to a question that I've always had. Since we know that the body, blood, soul and divinity are contained on both species, why is it that, when communion is distributed, we are told "The body of Christ" or "The blood of Christ"? ** Doesn't this contribute significantly to the misunderstanding that one needs to receive each species to receive both the body and blood of Jesus?**

[/quote]

If I remember correctly, this is the reason why it was stopped centuries ago.


#8

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.