Have you ever wondered why we don’t often receive the Precious Blood during Mass these days? Patrick Madrid tackled this question on his show, and here’s what you should know. ⛪️✨

Historical Context: For over 1500 years, Catholics in the Latin Rite have mostly received the Eucharist in the form of the host alone. This practice is not a doctrinal necessity but a long-standing custom. Post-Vatican II, receiving both forms became more common, but it’s still not the norm.

Key Reasons for the Custom:

Combating Heresy: A heresy called utraquism (Latin for “both”) suggested that to receive the fullness of Christ—His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity—both the host and the Precious Blood were necessary. This is incorrect. Even a small part of the host or a sip of the Precious Blood contains all of Jesus. The consecrated host and chalice both fully embody Christ, which is why we adore the Eucharist immediately after the consecration of the host.

Practical Considerations: Distributing both forms can take a lot of time, especially if only the priest is distributing Communion. The introduction of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion has helped, but it’s still logistically challenging.

Health Concerns: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the risk of spreading germs through the shared chalice. While transubstantiation changes the substance, the accidents (appearance, taste, texture) of the bread and wine remain, meaning germs can still be spread.

Final Thoughts: Receiving only the host doesn’t diminish the grace or fullness of receiving Jesus. So, whether we receive under one form or both, we are still receiving the complete presence of Christ. 🙏💖

The best way to listen to the Best of the Week is on our #1 Free Catholic App. It’s free, and always will be! To get and share the Relevant Radio app, check it out here.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS