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

Only the symbolic signification is different. However, Sacramentally, there is no difference, since the Latins teach that EACH element contains BOTH elements according to Scripture - "Whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord." (I Cor 11:27).

So when Latins take EITHER the bread OR wine, they do believe they are partaking of the Body AND Blood.

Theologically, all the Churches are in agreement that it is necessary to partake of the Body AND Blood. So we all have the same Faith on this matter, though its local expression may vary.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have to say that the Markdum's statement is an unexpected endorsement of the kind of hylomorphic sacramentology that the Catholic Church has been working so hard to jettison over the last 75 years. Everybody recognizes that the suppression of the Chalice in the 12th century was done for spurious pastoral reasons that had no theological foundation and also represented a radical break in the Tradition of the undivided Church (the emanations and penumbras of which have caused further deformation of the Tradition). However you slice it, the practice of offering the Eucharist under just one species is an intolerable abuse that should be suppressed universally, no matter that certain bishops may object.

Well. One thing I've noticed, now that bishops are requiring parishes to have ministers for both the hosts and for the chalice now, is that even though the Blood of Christ is there, a lot of communicants tend to receive the body, but ignore the chalice's existence, which I find disrespectful. I mean, if it's there, you are called upon to take both the body AND blood when you are in that line. It just seems that most just...I dunno. Not to mention that there are people that actually leave Church after Communion instead of returning to their pew, praying, and staying until the priest dismisses everyone, which I also find very disrespectful. Sad times indeed.

Poor catechesis is the cause; indifferent bishops are to blame.

This is it. And this is why the practice has been, since reintroduction, widely rejected by the laity: we don't want to play their stupid game. I assure you that if a priest were offering communion by intinction, the laity would immediately and joyfully embrace it.

I disagree somewhat. There was a valid theological foundation for depriving the chalice - the utraquist controversy. I believe that was a valid, exceptional circumstance. It became abuse when, even beyond the controversy, it became the norm.

I do not agree with your statement that the practice of offering the Eucharist in one kind is an "intolerable abuse," since communion under one kind obviously was practiced in the early Church, and is practiced today in all the Churches. Of course, this practice is limited to exceptional circumstances. What is problematic (indeed, horrendous) is the rationale that since we can find instances of communion under one kind in the ancient Church, then there is nothing wrong with making communion under one kind the norm in all circumstances. The fact is, communion under one kind was always done only in exceptional circumstances. To make communion under one kind the norm when no exceptional circumstance exists is no doubt an horrendous abuse.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Utraquist controversy was the 15th century reaction on the part of Jan Huss and other proto-reformers to the ongoing Latin practice of administering communion under one species. Their motto of sub utroque species (under both species) was a call to return to the apostolic norm. The Latin Church normally administered communion under both species until the 11th-12th centuries, when a fear of profanation by spilling led to the removal of the Chalice from the laity--for which there was no theological foundation at all. This led, coincidentally, to the suppression of infant communion i the West (because infants cannot accept solid food, they could only receive the Sacred Blood, therefore, when the Chalice was withdrawn from the laity, infant communion ended). This in turn led to the development of pernicious theories about the "age of reason", which in turn led to various heretical attacks on infant baptism.

Just because an abuse becomes hallowed by time does not make it any less of an abuse, and we should strive constantly to cut through the fog of our pious myths. Communion under one species was never the norm, anywhere, until the Middle Ages in the West. We should never accept it as the norm today, anywhere. We have recognized the error and should have moved beyond it.

If you read closely my posts on this thread, you will see that I covered exception cases for reception under one species (whether body or blood). I was not referring to those when I call communion under one species an intolerable abuse.

You could call it "poor" catechesis, but you might also say it's actually very *good* catechesis--in the sense of the message actually getting across--based on rather *poor* theology.

I can certainly attest that, prior to Vatican II, RC catechesis on the Eucharist emphasized such statements as:

• Equally present under both species
• The entire Christ is received in either form
• Either species contains both the Body and the Blood

In the post-Vatican II period, the emphasis seemed to shift almost entirely to the Eucharist as "communal meal," along with an emphasis on the fact that a meal usually involves both eating and drinking. This was also generally understood to mean a celebration that was man-centered rather than God-centered; a celebration of "the divine element within man," rather than worship of a transcendent God. Not surprisingly, this led to a lot of people--including priests and bishops--conflating Communion from the chalice with an implicit denial of the "true presence."

Since then, the emphasis seems to have shifted back again, which in most cases means a return to the pre-Vatican II theology.
In other words, Communion from the chalice remains, as far as many RCs are concerned, both redundant and unnecessary--not to mention less than hygenic.

This, brethren, is what I believe to be the reality we have to deal with.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Amazing! Those of the Latin Rite are afraid to drink from the chalice because of hygienic concerns? Well, do they really believe there are germs on the Real Presence?

Have you ever seen the way their deacons scrub away at the reliquary after each person kisses it? Definite germ phobia going on there. Laymen have cooties, you know.

Well, then how about us that have to receive the body and blood off the same spoon and chalice during Communion? Would there be hygienic concerns there, too? I'm sure most priests and deacons are trained well enough to clean the spoon off before scooping up another cube of bread for the next person in line. That's another reason for those red cloths besides catching anything from falling.

'scuse me ????


That is something I've never seen and I most certainly hope I never do

I've literally never seen any priest do such a thing.

Neither have I, and as an altar server, I have frequently held the cloth while communion was being distributed. I've seen little kids with yellow elevens take the spoon right into their mouths, and old people gum the spoon so hard the priest has to pull it out. We never wipe, and, just as interesting, we don't have epidemics, either. So, take your pick: the ascetic properties of the Wine kills germs; or the miraculous power of the Eucharist protects us from infection; or our constant exposure to pathogens has bolstered our immune systems. No matter what, we aren't concerned, and we would never follow the practice of some Latin bishops of directing their priests to withhold the Chalice during flu season.

Yeah, okay, maybe I was overexagerrating there, you're right...maybe this hasn't been done. But at the same time, there should be some sanitary issues involved with receiving either by chalice or by spoon, maybe not by wiping, even though in the RC, with the Blood of Christ, most ministers do have a towel. However, in terms of receiving by spoon in the Eastern tradition, not sure how that spoon can be sanitized between communicants, that's all I'm saying.