The Blood of Christ

[LorenzoMdeVera]

Greetings everyone!

I have been wondering for quite sometime about why the laity are not given the consecrated wine to drink which is the Blood of Christ. I understand that Christ is not divided in any way and the bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ himself. 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. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the laity receiving the consecrated wine, so long as it is received in a most reverent way just like the consecrated bread.

Thanks for your sharing of wisdom.

+ Benedicat Nobis Deus +

[Someone1776]

In the early church both the bread and wine were given to the laity. However, in the Latin Rite a heresy developed where people began to believe that the bread was only the body of Christ and the wine was only the blood of Chirst. So, the wine was withdrawn from the laity to remind people that they received both the body and blood of Christ with the bread.

This heresy which was killed off for nearly a thousand years has come back in a big way since the laity have once again begin to receive the wine.   

[LorenzoMdeVera]

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 +

[Christus Imperat]

I think there are two other related factors.  Because we use unleavened bread in the Roman Rite, intinction does not work as an alternative and as a result, in order for the laity to receive from the cup they must handle the sacred vessels.  If laymen were to receive the Precious Blood in a Solemn manner some kind of rubric and ceremony would need to be developed for it--perhaps receiving from a spoon at the altar rail.  This, however, would increase risk of spillage.

[Someone1776]

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.   

[LorenzoMdeVera]

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.  

Touche. I  think you're absolutely right with that one.

Thanks for your wisdom and replies everyone!

+ Benedicat Nobis Deus +

[Vetus Ordo]

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.

[Christus Imperat]

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.

Id est, the Church is free to legislate such matters for her children and for centuries the Roman Church has communicated the laity only under the species of bread. 

[SouthpawLink]

The Roman Catechism gives five reasons why the celebrant alone receives under both species:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

In summary:

1. to avoid spilling the Precious Blood of the Lord on the ground;
2. the Precious Blood might turn to acid before reaching the sick;
3. not all can bear the taste or even the smell of wine;
4. in some countries, wine was extremely scarce and so expensive;
5. to oppose the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in each species.

[LorenzoMdeVera]

Thanks again everyone for you replies!

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.

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"