The Body Of Christ

[Paladin D]

Am I the only one who notices when someone refers to the Eucharist, an image of the Body aka host pops to mind? What about the Blood? Don't get me wrong, you can recieve the Body and skip the Blood, but I was always curious on the fact how the [b]Body[/b] is usually the image of the Eucharist, while the Blood isn't (like on T-Shirts and such).

It [b]"seems"[/b] as if the Body is in the spotlight, while the Blood is in the background.

[p0lar_bear]

The Body is more readily identifiable by both Catholics and non-Catholics.

For a long time, the laity only received the Body, so that is what they personally knew as the Eucharist.

It's easier to show a host and have it identified as some thing other than bread than to show a chalice of 'wine' and have people understand that it is more than wine.


....just my thoughts

[qfnol31]

Both fully contain Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. However, Holy Communion is normally first His Body. Only sometimes, when it is practical, does the reception of His Blood become a part of Holy Communion.

[White Knight]

Well his [b]"Blood and Body"[/b] are equally important, without the sheeding of his blood there wouldn't be any remission of our sins and sicknesses.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Blood of Christ, burn my soul with Love and Sacrifice.


[url="http://avemaria59.tripod.com/wallpaper/wallpaper4/eucharist.jpg"]Blood of Christ...[/url]

Ave Maria,

Andy

[White Knight]

The Link didn't work...

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 8 2004, 12:34 PM'] Am I the only one who notices when someone refers to the Eucharist, an image of the Body aka host pops to mind? What about the Blood? Don't get me wrong, you can recieve the Body and skip the Blood, but I was always curious on the fact how the [b]Body[/b] is usually the image of the Eucharist, while the Blood isn't (like on T-Shirts and such).

It [b]"seems"[/b] as if the Body is in the spotlight, while the Blood is in the background. [/quote]
This is exactly the reason why the Faithful should NOT be permitted to receive under both species! In fact, that is why th Council of Trent forbade them from doing. The FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY of Christ are present in the Sacred Host alone. They are FULLY present in the Chalice alone, as well, so that by receiving only the Sacred Host, which was the practice of the Church in the Latin Rite since the first centuries, the Communicant receives WHOLE AND ENTIRE the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY of Christ.

[cmotherofpirl]

But the Church says we can, and so we do. Disciplines can be changed by the Church. AS Cardinal Arinze says the Mass is not kept in some Vatican freezer, it is a Living Treasure of the Church.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:56 AM'] But the Church says we can, and so we do. Disciplines can be changed by the Church. AS Cardinal Arinze says the Mass is not kept in some Vatican freezer, it is a Living Treasure of the Church. [/quote]
So I guess your pastoral change is still OK, considering no one knows this simple doctrine concerning the Blessed Sacrament. Does that make much sense? Change what was working pefectly (ait was far from broken...) and what had preserved proper understanding of the Eucharist to what completely confuses and leads to misunderstandng, while contradicting what 100s of Pope said about the handeling of Sacred vessels by laymen. Nope, doesn't make sense to me either.

[cmotherofpirl]

Working perfectly?

Nothing was working perfectly, hence the need for Vatican II.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 06:06 PM'] Working perfectly?

Nothing was working perfectly, hence the need for Vatican II. [/quote]
LOL.. is that how Vatican II is justified? I guess the largest growth in convents, monasteries, all religious orders, and the priesthood was what we needed to fix?


Yup... didn't work (unless empty seminaries, empty convents, and empty monasteries were the desired goal)

Edited September 11, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[toledo_jesus]

HartfordWhalers, don't knock Vatican II. It had to happen. Some people went way too far with it is all. Maybe in our lifetimes a true understanding of the council will prevail in America. Maybe by the time we're old we won't need laypeople up there distributing Communion.

Edited September 12, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[cmotherofpirl]

Convents and Seminaries emptied out as a result of disobedience that started long before Vatican II. Dissent was well entrenched in the Church underground from the 20's on.
The ban on married priests and Humanae Vitae was the straw that broke the camels back, not Vatican II.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 07:06 PM'] Convents and Seminaries emptied out as a result of disobedience  that started long before Vatican II.  Dissent was well entrenched in the Church underground from the 20's on.
The  ban on married priests and Humanae Vitae was the straw that broke the camels back, not Vatican II. [/quote]
That is a good way to try to argue it... however, that's not the fact of the matter. Modernism has been around since the 1800s, not the 20s. It manifested itself in the 1910s and 20s, but the Church faught it. In the 60s the Church didn't fight. Paul VI announced, on the contrary, that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church! What more do you need? The Pope himself said it! And if the dissent was "well entrenched" then you show me some proof. Yes, just before VAt II some American Universities refused to submit to the Magisterium. Yes, liturgical innovation began just before the Council, but that was not the norm. Somehow in the 60s revoltion, the Church hierarchy put up no defense. The fact of the matter is this: before Vatican II everything was up: converts, priests, nuns, religious. After Vat II it's all way down.. record lows. In just a few years after Vatican II the US, Priests went from in 1962 being over 500,000 to less than 300,000, nearly down to 50%. That is a fact. Look it up in the Vatican records, if you want. Similar drops occurred throughout the world. I would suggest you read Handbook of Leading Catholic Indicators if you truly want to see the truth. The author documents many changes such as this (including an increase in OVER 4000%, yes 4000, in annulments... go figure)

Oh, and celibacy wasn't the problem... if it were, then the seminaries would be full, since twice as many people signed the pro-celibacy appeal than the married Priest appeal that recently came out!

Edited September 12, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[cmotherofpirl]

Dissent was well entrenched in the Church by the 20's and 30's. Vatican II simply brought it out in the open. Celibacy, Feminism, and birth control issues brought it to a head, when Vatican II upholding tradition did not change celibacy, and Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae.

I remember all the priests who left to marry the nuns.