The Blood of Christ

[Vetus Ordo]

I don't understand how it is only the clergy that Christ commanded to drink his blood for it says in John 6 (Douay-Rheims):

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"

The clergy are commanded to drink his blood in order to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist. The laity, on the other hand, even when receiving in one kind alone still fulfill the precept "because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other."

Ver. 54. Unless you eat ... and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfill, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall life for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (Challoner)

[Melkite]

Thanks for your reply Sir!

Isn't it better if we allow the laity to receive the wine yet continue to remind them that Christ is not divided in any way?

Thanks again!

+ Benedicat Nobis Deus +

What would the point be? It's redundant. You fully receive the body and blood of Christ with the bread.   

If it's redundant, then why bother with it at all?  Why does the priest have to commune under both species?

[Melkite]

However aren't we still commanded by Christ to drink of His blood? I believe eating the consecrated bread is enough for it is Christ Himself, undivided, but I cannot reconcile this to the command of Christ to drink the consecrated wine.

The clergy are commanded to drink of His blood, not the laity.

Observe, that Christ divided the bread into thirteen parts, one of which He took first Himself, and then gave the remaining parts to the Apostles, one by one. But with the contents of the chalice, being liquid, He could not do this. Wherefore, after it was consecrated, Christ first drank of it Himself, and then gave it to his next neighbour, whether John or Peter, bidding him pass it to his nearest neighbour, and thus the chalice passed round the company, and all the Apostles drank of it. Wherefore it does not follow, as the Hussites and Luther say, that the chalice ought to be given to the laity, and that they ought to communicate in both kinds, because Christ and the Apostles communicated in both kinds, and that the same is Christ’s command. For this precept of drinking, where He said, Drink ye all of this (as the Church has always understood), pertained only to the Apostles, who alone were then present. For Christ at that time was consecrating them Priests, and He bade them consecrate the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist under both kinds, and bade them receive both kinds, that they might complete a perfect Sacrifice. But He did not command this to the laity, to whom, inasmuch as they do not sacrifice, but only receive the Eucharist as a Sacrament, it is sufficient that they take it under one kind, because in one kind they receive the whole effect and fruit of the Sacrament. And it is especially to be considered that in so great a number of lay people communicating, the chalice might easily be overturned, and the Blood of Christ contained in it spilt upon the ground, which would be an act of great irreverence. Similarly the command of Christ, This do ye for a commemoration of Me, in what refers to consecration, pertains only to Priests; but to the laity pertains only the receiving of the consecrated Bread, as is plain. For when several precepts are mingled together, their variety may be limited and distributed, according to the condition of the persons intended, and the intention of the legislator, who in this place is Christ, and His interpreter the Church.

That's an interesting idea, but it seems to be one that you have to read into the passage rather than what is really there on its own.  I thought Christ didn't ordain the Apostles until he breated the holy spirit on them prior to the ascension.  That would have made them laity at the last supper, right?  But, more importantly, if we are to take Scripture at its most literal sense, unless it is clearly not rational to do so, there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in this part of scripture to say that Christ only commands the clergy to commune under both forms.  This sounds like a completely eisegetical postulatrion.

[Vetus Ordo]

If it's redundant, then why bother with it at all?  Why does the priest have to commune under both species?

To complete the sacrifice and confect the sacrament.

[Vetus Ordo]

That's an interesting idea, but it seems to be one that you have to read into the passage rather than what is really there on its own.  I thought Christ didn't ordain the Apostles until he breated the holy spirit on them prior to the ascension.  That would have made them laity at the last supper, right?  But, more importantly, if we are to take Scripture at its most literal sense, unless it is clearly not rational to do so, there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in this part of scripture to say that Christ only commands the clergy to commune under both forms.  This sounds like a completely eisegetical postulatrion.

That's no eisegesis, it's the interpretation of the Church.

Only the Apostles, chosen by Christ Himself to be the first bishops, were present at the Last Supper. In the Last Supper our Lord instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist which only the clergy can confect.

[Melkite]

That's an interesting idea, but it seems to be one that you have to read into the passage rather than what is really there on its own.  I thought Christ didn't ordain the Apostles until he breated the holy spirit on them prior to the ascension.  That would have made them laity at the last supper, right?  But, more importantly, if we are to take Scripture at its most literal sense, unless it is clearly not rational to do so, there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in this part of scripture to say that Christ only commands the clergy to commune under both forms.  This sounds like a completely eisegetical postulatrion.

That's no eisegesis, it's the interpretation of the Church.

Only the Apostles, chosen by Christ Himself to be the first bishops, were present at the Last Supper. In the Last Supper our Lord instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist which only the clergy can confect.

Ok, maybe it's a valid interpretation, but then why didn't the apostles institute it this way?  It just seems strange that for however many years, the entire Church received the eucharist in both forms, then a heresy came along that necessitated the laity only receiving in one form, and then after that an explanation that says it was inherently like that from the beginning.  If it was a central interpretation, why didn't the apostles or any bishops for the next few centuries see it?  Were any of the fathers advocating for reception of the eucharist under one form before it became obligatory in the west?  Or is there any evidence prior to the heresy that thingsfl4 were moving in that direction already?  I was always under the impression that it was unprecedented, but I don't know too much of the history on this particular issue. 

Also, is this the Church's official interpretation?  If so, is it saying that ideally only clerics should receive both forms, or that it's only necessary that clerics receive both?

[Vetus Ordo]

Ok, maybe it's a valid interpretation, but then why didn't the apostles institute it this way?  It just seems strange that for however many years, the entire Church received the eucharist in both forms, then a heresy came along that necessitated the laity only receiving in one form, and then after that an explanation that says it was inherently like that from the beginning. If it was a central interpretation, why didn't the apostles or any bishops for the next few centuries see it?  Were any of the fathers advocating for reception of the eucharist under one form before it became obligatory in the west?  Or is there any evidence prior to the heresy that thingsfl4 were moving in that direction already?  I was always under the impression that it was unprecedented, but I don't know too much of the history on this particular issue. 

Nobody is arguing that the laity didn't receive holy communion in both kinds prior to the rise of Utraquism. Everybody knows they did. That's not the point.

Withholding the chalice from the laity is just a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. It's inconsequential when it comes to our salvation.

Also, is this the Church's official interpretation?  If so, is it saying that ideally only clerics should receive both forms, or that it's only necessary that clerics receive both?

Obviously, it's only necessary for the officiating priest to receive both bread and wine in order to consumate the sacrifice of the altar. It's a heresy to say that it's necessary for the other communicants to receive in both species: that's actually Utraquism, the heresy against which the Western Church reacted in the strongest terms. Given the doctrinal confusion that pervades the Chuch today, I believe it's a discipline still worth keeping although not intrinsically necessary in absolute terms, as it is proven by the practice of the Eastern churches and the very Western practice prior to the rise of Utraquism.

Re-read Haydock's scriptural references that testify to the sufficiency of the bread: "In one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall life for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

[Resurrexi]

I'd say that withholding the Chalice from the laity is a most good thing; there is too much danger of spillage of the precious Blood when the laity receive under the species of wine.

[Melkite]

I'd say that withholding the Chalice from the laity is a most good thing; there is too much danger of spillage of the precious Blood when the laity receive under the species of wine.

Some laity have to receive under the form of wine.  Infants and those with Celiac's disease, for example.  Besides, the acolytes hold a cloth or plate between your mouth and the priest's hand, there's no more danger of spilling any than dropping crumbs.

[Someone1776]

I'd say that withholding the Chalice from the laity is a most good thing; there is too much danger of spillage of the precious Blood when the laity receive under the species of wine.

Some laity have to receive under the form of wine.  Infants and those with Celiac's disease, for example.  Besides, the acolytes hold a cloth or plate between your mouth and the priest's hand, there's no more danger of spilling any than dropping crumbs.

In the Latin Rite, infants cannot receive communion.  However, people who are gluten intolerant may get permission to receive the wine at the TLM.