www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholic Communion - Why no Blood?

Peace of Christ to you all,

I have a small question concerning the Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?

I have attended several liturgies in the Catholic Church where I was given the Holy Blood during the Communion.

However, in other liturgies, this was never given. Why are there such inconsistencies? Why in certain Churches is the Blood given and in others its not?

Furthermore, I'd like to understand why the Holy Body we partake of in the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same that was prayed on during the Liturgy? why is that?

I have seen this many many times, and I'm sure you must have too:
The Holy Body we partake of in the Catholic Church (i.e. the congregation) are not from the same element that the priest eats. Why is that?

Thank you

I never thought about this, honestly; and would like to know, as well I'm rather used to partaking of the same eucharist, as it's done in the Eastern Churches.

Just addressing this point - Catholic theology acknowledges either element in the appearance of wine or bread to be be a perfect whole and complete communion that IS the body & blood of Christ. Although the appearance might lend well to imagining the host to be "the body" and the wine to be "the blood" this would NOT be in line with Catholic theology. To partake in either form is to have a complete communion.

The question of receiving the consecrated hosts from the same mass has been an issue in the Roman Church for some time. The General instructions of the Roman Missal state that it should be a priority that people receive from the same sacrifice. However , the over consecration of particles at any one mass forces the use of elements consecrated a different mass to prevent corruption of the bread. The logic that was taught to me in my youth about receiving under one species was, “You cannot have a living body without blood, since this is truly the risen living Lord it must have both the body and blood present in it.”

This is an horrendous liturgical and sacramental abuse. I'm surprised anyone would defend it. As for receiving under one species only, it was adopted by the Latin Church in the 12th century for spurious pastoral reasons, and one of its unfortunate consequences (aside from mutilating the the mystagogical symbolism of the Eucharist and widening the division between clergy and laity) was the end of infant communion and the effective excommunication of children under the age of seven.

In the Liturgy of the Presanctified all receive only the one consecrated species, bread. Only extra liturgical "Lambs," that is bread, are consecrated for that liturgy.

During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.

That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

It is an innovation. The belief that the blood is not consecrated can only be traced back to the time of Peter Mogila, while the belief that the blood is consecrated by contact with the Lamb is far more ancient. Furthermore, the rubrics before the time of Peter Mogila make absolutely no mention of not communing from the chalice.

This is very odd to be reading these statements.

In the Orthodox Church, we respect the Mosaic Laws and Rituals where the sacrifice had to be completely consumed. Nothing should be left over. I see that in the Roman Catholic Church that this ecclesiological , or sacramental ritual, is not really understood or enforced the same as the Orthodox then?

Secondly, if you are saying that both the Holy Blood & the Holy Body should be consumed then why isn't that the case? Why is there disagreement over this within the Church? Who is correct?

Finally, a small question:

Do you partake of the Divine Holy Body, or of the Life Giving Holy Body, in the Roman Catholic Church?

Thanks

"Thus in the 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch' we read:
... the Holy Bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed in the mystical chalice, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the Holy Blood of our Lordand is recognized as having been changed" (Uspensky, Eveving Worship, pp 148-149).

I would say that rubric is one of the last Latinizations remaining in the Ruthenian Recension.

A practice informed by the west does not automatically make it a latinization. What of the theology of the liturgy? Do you subscribe to such contact transformation? What is the dogmatic force of a 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch'? By whom?

1. The Orthodox reserve the Holy Gifts too. The large size of many Roman Catholic parishes often requires presanctified Gifts to be distributed so they don't run out.

2. What the poster was saying was that whether one receives unde the sign of bread only, or the sign of wine only, one receives the entire Body and Blood of Christ.

3. Both.

When the Lamb is reserved, the priest cuts a cross on top and pours in a little amount of wine/Precious Blood. So whether you believe the unconsecrated wine is consecrated or not by comingling with the Lamb, the Lamb is still reserved with the Precious Blood, so you receive both at the Presanctified Liturgy.

Not all priests do this nor is this the original practice.