Emphasis In Communion

[let_go_let_God]

My roommate, a friend of mine and myself were discussing the Eucharist after mass yesterday and they brought up an interesting thought, why is more emphasis put on the Body of Christ rather than the Body and Blood collectively.

We all agreed that the Blood is contained within the Consecrated host and that the Body is contained within the consecrated wine. Also that you do not have to consume under both forms to receive both the Body and the Blood. However we were all taught that you are to receive Communion (if spiritually able) under the form of bread unless you have some reason not to which would also place a high importance on Jesus' Body rather than His Flesh and Blood collectively.

Could someone clear this up and is it just an American thing?

Thank you and God bless-
LGLG

[Laudate_Dominum]

According to Catholic dogma one receives the whole Christ, body, blood, soul and Divinity, under either species. The priest is required to receive under both species for various reasons but in the Latin Church reception of both kinds by the laity became rare primarily for the sake of preventing accidents and ill treatment of the Eucharist.

In recent times the Church has encouraged reception of Communion under both kinds when appropriate. Based on Church documents such appropriate circumstances would be smaller congregations where distributing the Precious Blood to the faithful can be done in such a way that does not involve logistical situations that may compromise the safety of the Precious Blood. There should also be sufficient ordinary ministers available to carry this out; extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not justified by the desire to distribute Communion under both kinds. These points are often ignored in the dioceses of the United States owing largely to a deprecated indult from the Vatican which had approved certain USCCB adaptations that were very much at odds with the universal norms (for "grave pastoral reasons" which I'm still trying to figure out). Changes that are not "progressive" seem to be implemented very slowly (if ever) whereas regrettable innovations seem to spread like wildfire. In fact, the history of the more extreme innovations that we see today shows that they usually started as acts of disobedience that were then sanctioned by the Vatican to sort of sweep the scandal under the rug. I can quote the Vatican to this effect for the Communion on the hand issue for example.
Many people believed (and still believe) that this attitude of bold defiance is actually an authentic manifestation of the spirit of Vatican II. People who are concerned with actually following the laws of the Church are often called legalists or pharisees and are believed to be Catholics of another age who are not truly educated in the new ways of the Church per Vatican II. This has been made clear to me directly by priests and others (including a diocesan vicar general) who seemed to believe that I am ignorant of Vatican II. I appreciate the catechesis but am not convinced that it is altogether consistent with the Catholic Faith or right reason. In the meantime I'll follow my conscience and hope that my fundamental option is on the right track.

[holyspirit1985]

I don't know if this really answers your question, but before the Middle Ages, it hadn't been proclaimed that both species contained the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. During the Plague they stopped distributing under both species to stop spreading the disease. I believe that was when the clarification came about both species containing the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. It was always true, but not declared because no one really cared because they all just received under both. Dogmas aren't declared until there is a reason to, until there is a question about it. That's how theology has developed.
I think this history might be why today the consecrated host remains dominate when received. Also, that's what we see when the Eucharist is exposed. When someoen is unable to make it to mass, it is the consecrated host that is brought to them, I think for practicle purposes. I honestly think that too many Catholics do things without questiong why we do it. I don't mean, refusing to believe without solid proof or whatever, I mean really understanding why we do what we do. Why do so many receive only under the consecrated host? Why not both? People don't ask, they just follow along. Anyways, while it's okay to receive under only one species, I personally believe (and I don't know if this is backed up anywhere) that faithful should receive under both species whenever possible. (I understand wheat allergies, being sick, etc.)

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' post='1339408' date='Jul 23 2007, 11:46 PM']Could someone clear this up and is it just an American thing?[/quote]
This doesn't in any way answer your question but in my experience:
[list=1]
[*]In the US, one is generally able to partake of both Body and Blood.
[*]I lived in Ireland for 4 1/2 years, and I don't recall attending a single Mass in which the opportunity to partake of the Blood was given -- the norm was simply the Body, and that was it.
[*]I attended Mass for a time at a parish which during the winter months discontinued offering the Blood in order to minimize the risk of spreading communicable illnesses such as the flu.
[*]Finally, I partook of the Blood on one occasion in which a drop fell from my lips and absorbed into the carpet. I told the celebrant immediately after Mass, and he wiped up the drop with a purifier. However, who knows how many times the drop had been walked on by that point? On another occasion, I saw a piece of Host on the ground, which I was then able to pick up and eat. The point is, there seems to be more risk associated with spilling the Blood than with dropping a piece of the Body.
[/list]

[holyspirit1985]

Isn't it a theological teaching that once it is unrecognizable it ceases to be the Body and Blood? Not that we should be careless.