Half-baked Eucharists

[Webers_Home]

******

 

[Webers_Home]

.
I was an old school Catholic from 1944 to 1968 which was pre Vatican II. Only priests consumed the fruit of the vine in those days: viz: the congregation had zero contact with it-- no dipping, dunking, tincturing, moistening, soaking, wicking, or tasting; no, the congregation was given only the bread element. So then all those years I practiced the Lord's supper my participation was half-baked; which is far more serious than the average rank and file pew warmer realizes

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

In other words; it's necessary to consume both the Lord's body and his blood in order to obtain eternal life; which means I was a dead Catholic.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Thomas Aquinas came up with the bright idea that it's only necessary to consume one of the elements (he called them species) in order to be given credit for consuming the Lord's flesh and blood. But is that really the procedure that the Lord stipulated for his apostles? No. He clearly, and without ambiguity, commanded them to eat a bit of bread and to follow it up with a beverage from the vine; and I would just like to know why in God's good name Rome found it so difficult to comply with His son's wishes prior to Vatican II.

†. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

The importance of the correct procedure is paramount because; according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: I and the other pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life due to our lack of access to the fruit of the vine; were consequently denied Christ too.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christless-ness is an extremely hazardous spiritual condition.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

What it boils down to is: I and my fellow pre Vatican II Catholics were not the Lord's sheep; and had no right to claim any of Psalm 23 for ourselves.

Buen Camino
/

 

[stovebolts]

Oh dear, so they sent you to hell because you didn't drink the blood of Jesus. That's really sad.

I guess we have that in common. My cousin is Vatican 1 as well and according to her, I'm not a Brother in Christ either.

Oh well, at least I'll have some good company in hell.

 

[dadof10]

.
I was an old school Catholic from 1944 to 1968 which was pre Vatican II. Only priests consumed the fruit of the vine in those days: viz: the congregation had zero contact with it-- no dipping, dunking, tincturing, moistening, soaking, wicking, or tasting; no, the congregation was given only the bread element. So then all those years I practiced the Lord's supper my participation was half-baked; which is far more serious than the average rank and file pew warmer realizes

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

In other words; it's necessary to consume both the Lord's body and his blood in order to obtain eternal life; which means I was a dead Catholic.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Thomas Aquinas came up with the bright idea that it's only necessary to consume one of the elements (he called them species) in order to be given credit for consuming the Lord's flesh and blood. But is that really the procedure that the Lord stipulated for his apostles? No. He clearly, and without ambiguity, commanded them to eat a bit of bread and to follow it up with a beverage from the vine; and I would just like to know why in God's good name Rome found it so difficult to comply with His son's wishes prior to Vatican II.

†. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

The importance of the correct procedure is paramount because; according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: I and the other pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life due to our lack of access to the fruit of the vine; were consequently denied Christ too.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christless-ness is an extremely hazardous spiritual condition.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

What it boils down to is: I and my fellow pre Vatican II Catholics were not the Lord's sheep; and had no right to claim any of Psalm 23 for ourselves.

Buen Camino
/

Did you bother to look into what the Church actually teaches on the subject? Most luke-warm Catholics don't. The Church teaches that BOTH the Body and Blood are present in BOTH species. This is what Aquinas taught, not that we were only "given credit" for consuming both. Before distributing communion, the priest breaks off a tiny piece of the Host and puts it in the cup, that way if someone has a wheat allergy, he can consume only the Blood yet still receive the Body. It is simply assumed that within the Body there is Blood, just like within our flesh there is blood, you can't separate the two.

I'm glad I was able to put your mind to rest, because you were probably losing sleep at night worrying about all the souls who were "denied eternal life" because the dark, evil pre-Vatican II Church listened to Aquinas.

I'm curious, do you still receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ? If you do, do you still believe that what you consume is the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus? If not, why do you care?

 

[dadof10]

Oh dear, so they sent you to hell because you didn't drink the blood of Jesus. That's really sad.

I guess we have that in common. My cousin is Vatican 1 as well and according to her, I'm not a Brother in Christ either.

Oh well, at least I'll have some good company in hell.

I can't speak to your cousin's view, but according to the Catholic Church's official teaching, you are a brother in Christ, and always have been.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The Church teaches that BOTH the Body and Blood are present in BOTH species.

If you were to review Mtt 26:26-27 and 1Cor 11:23-25 you'd readily see that the Lord's body is per the bread, and his blood is per the fruit of the vine; which is why his followers need to consume both elements in order to obtain the life.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. Matt 26:26 . . And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body

†. Matt 26:27-28 . .Then he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood.

That's distinctly a two-step procedure and if Rome truly loved the Lord; it would comply with his wishes.

†. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

Buen Camino
/

 

[dadof10]

.

If you were to review Mtt 26:26-27 and 1Cor 11:23-25 you'd readily see that the Lord's body is per the bread, and his blood is per the fruit of the vine; which is why his followers need to consume both elements in order to obtain the life.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. Matt 26:26 . . And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body

†. Matt 26:27-28 . .Then he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood.

That's distinctly a two-step procedure and if Rome truly loved the Lord; it would comply with his wishes.

†. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

Buen Camino
/

I'll ask again. Do you "comply with the Lord's wishes" by eating His Body and drinking His Blood? Do you believe in the Real Presence?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Common Objection : But surely God would understand if a person doesn't consume something because of an allergy or something like that? Especially since an allergy isn't something someone chooses, but a physically-based problem? I would hope that a God who sees all and knows all wouldn't hold it against someone if He knew they weren't taking the bread because of an allergy.

What would you be willing to do to stay out of hell? Would you be willing to gouge out your own eyes so that you could never again read a book, watch a sunset, or go to the movies-- and have to feel your way around with a stick? Would you be willing to be a quadriplegic the rest of your life in a wheel chair like Stephen Hawking? Would you be willing to puncture your eardrums so that you would never again hear the slightest note of music? Would you be willing to sever your tongue so that you would never again speak a word nor taste your food? Would you be willing to eat a bowl of maggots and toilet water for breakfast every morning for the next ten years? Would you be willing to slice off your nose, your ears, and chop off every finger on both of your hands?

See what I'm saying? If perchance transubstantiation is true, then I would emphatically suggest that people with allergies bite the bullet unless they want to suffer a worse fate.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

People without life in them are eo ipso omitted from the book of life. Consequently; they will be terminated in a special reservoir of liquefied flame.

†. Rev 20:15 . . If anyone's name was not found recorded in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

John reported that event in the grammatical past tense because he was given a glimpse into the future and saw for himself the lifeless dead being executed by a method somewhat akin to burning at the stake-- and all because they failed to correctly consume the Lord's flesh and blood.

†. Mrk 9:47-48 . . And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

†. Isa 66:22-24 . . All humanity will come to worship me from week to week and from month to month. And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror.

Buen Camino
/

 

[farouk]

The Lord's Supper is a remembrance (Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor. 11). 'This do in remembrance of me'.

The sacrifice of Christ at the Cross was a single, finished offering (Hebrews ch.s 9 & 10.)

 

[stovebolts]

I can't speak to your cousin's view, but according to the Catholic Church's official teaching, you are a brother in Christ, and always have been.

That's Vatican 2... The church may teach that now, but it's not what was ingrained into her head from the church growing up etc. Not only that but she may know this, but I don't think she believes it.

The church also teaches abstinence, yet most members are on birth control... Again, they may know what the church teaches, but not many of them actually believe it, let alone live it.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Wine or grape juice? Well; due to the fact that the last supper was a Passover seder; which is consumed in springtime right around March and April when fresh grapes are generally unavailable in Palestine; and considering that 2,000 years ago nobody had refrigeration, I think we have to concede that the fruit of the vine in the last supper's cup was fermented; especially because one need not go to any particular trouble to make wine since grapes typically have enough indigenous yeast on their skins to start the process naturally.

†. Mtt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

New wine (a.k.a. young wine) is quite sufficient to get people hammered (Acts 2:5-15) though old wine (a.k.a. aged wine) is generally considered the better quality of the two (Luke 5:39). Precisely why the Lord prefers a young wine to an aged wine; I have no clue.

Is it therefore mandatory that communion be served with fermented grape juice? Well; in Jesus' day they really had no choice about it at Passover time; but in our day we do. So I'd say that fermented grape juice is optional just so long as the communion cup contains fruit of the vine.

Note : a pretty good argument might be made that the cup actually contained some vinegar. (John 13:26-30, cf. John 19:29-30) indicating that the liquid in the last supper's cup was maybe not all that tasty. Personally I think wine tastes awful anyway— even the smell tends to make me a little nauseous —but vinegar works pretty good for salads and sauces.

Buen Camino
/

 

[John 8:32]

.
Wine or grape juice? Well; due to the fact that the last supper was a Passover seder; which is consumed in springtime right around March and April when fresh grapes are generally unavailable in Palestine; and considering that 2,000 years ago nobody had refrigeration, I think we have to concede that the fruit of the vine in the last supper's cup was fermented; especially because one need not go to any particular trouble to make wine since grapes typically have enough indigenous yeast on their skins to start the process naturally.

†. Mtt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

New wine (a.k.a. young wine) is quite sufficient to get people hammered (Acts 2:5-15) though old wine (a.k.a. aged wine) is generally considered the better quality of the two (Luke 5:39). Precisely why the Lord prefers a young wine to an aged wine; I have no clue.

Is it therefore mandatory that communion be served with fermented grape juice? Well; in Jesus' day they really had no choice about it at Passover time; but in our day we do. So I'd say that fermented grape juice is optional just so long as the communion cup contains fruit of the vine.

Note : a pretty good argument might be made that the cup actually contained some vinegar. (John 13:26-30, cf. John 19:29-30) indicating that the liquid in the last supper's cup was maybe not all that tasty. Personally I think wine tastes awful anyway— even the smell tends to make me a little nauseous —but vinegar works pretty good for salads and sauces.

Buen Camino
/

G3631
οἶνος
oinos
oy'-nos
A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); “wine” (literally or figuratively): - wine.

Means an alcoholic beveridge. The first miracle Christ performed was to turn around 120 gallons of water into oinos, alcoholic wine. Drinking is not prohibited in the Bible, drunkeness is.

 

[dadof10]

If perchance transubstantiation is true...

So, the answer to my question above is probably not. It COULD "perchance" be true, but you don't, at this time, hold the view that Transubstantiation is true, correct?

This brings up and interesting point concerning your take, because you personally neither consume the Body nor the Blood, but find it acceptable, and probably even virtuous, to pass judgment upon the Catholic Church teaching on HOW WE consume Them.

The importance of the correct procedure is paramount because; according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: I and the other pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life due to our lack of access to the fruit of the vine; were consequently denied Christ too.

So, consuming the Eucharist leads to eternal life, yet you don't. According to your thinking, using the "correct procedure is paramount" to eternal life, yet you don't use ANY "procedure" at all. Which is worse, only consuming the Body or consuming neither?

 

[Webers_Home]

.

This brings up and interesting point concerning your take, because you personally neither consume the Body nor the Blood, but find it acceptable, and probably even virtuous, to pass judgment upon the Catholic Church teaching on HOW WE consume Them.

I'm personally familiar with your defensive attitude as I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church an infant in 1944 and subsequently sent to catechism where, in time, I completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation. I was loyal to the Roman hierarchy and to it's beliefs and practices until 1968 when I came to the realization that it was essential to my eternal welfare to renounce Catholicism and convert to Protestantism.

So, consuming the Eucharist leads to eternal life

If the Lord's flesh and blood are consumed correctly; they don't "lead" to eternal life; on the contrary, they grant eternal life-- instantly. Note the grammatical tense of the Lord's "have" verb in his statement below. It's present tense rather than future; indicating that people who correctly consume his flesh and blood have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

This point is extremely critical because according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: people who don't have eternal life; don't have His son. No; they are indeed quite christless.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

People who refuse to believe God's testimony imply that He's a person of questionable integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.

†. 1John 5:9-12 . .God's testimony carries more weight than human testimony . . . anyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His son.

Which is worse, only consuming the Body or consuming neither?

They're equally worse because neither toes the mark.

I once heard of two Forrest Gumps standing on Santa Monica pier discussing the distance to Santa Catalina Island; which is something like 26 miles off the California coast. One guy says to the other: Let's see if we can jump to the island. So he takes off running and gives it his best shot but splashes into the surf only ten feet from the end of the pier. The next guy does a little better at twelve feet. Which one made it to Catalina? Well; one guy was closer but their efforts were futile because neither reached the island.

According to the Lord's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to his own last supper; his body is per the bread and his blood is per the cup; ergo: both must be consumed if Christians are to have any hope of satisfying his wishes.

†. Mtt 26:26 . . Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, he broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body.

†. Mtt 26:27-28 . . And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood

In other words; the correct transubstantiation procedure consists of two items: bread and fruit of the vine. Omitting one of those two items leaves worshippers short of the goal like the two Gumps who tried to jump out to Catalina. Nice try; but no cigar.

Buen Camino
/

 

[dadof10]

.
If the Lord's flesh and blood are consumed correctly; they don't "lead" to eternal life; on the contrary, they grant eternal life-- instantly.

Then in your opinion, all post-Vatican II Catholics have Eternal Life and all Protestants, including yourself, don't?

They're equally worse because neither toes the mark.

I once heard of two Forrest Gumps standing on Santa Monica pier discussing the distance to Santa Catalina Island; which is something like 26 miles off the California coast. One guy says to the other: Let's see if we can jump to the island. So he takes off running and gives it his best shot but splashes into the surf only ten feet from the end of the pier. The next guy does a little better at twelve feet. Which one made it to Catalina? Well; one guy was closer but their efforts were futile because neither reached the island.

This is not a proper analogy. Your two doofuses (doofi?) are attempting to do the impossible, and gaining eternal life is not. Secondly, Jesus is telling us to perform two actions, not one impossible one. A better analogy would be "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

Here Peter gives us two things we MUST do in order to have our sins forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that BOTH are necessary for the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, or is baptism merely a symbolic gesture for the already saved? Did God violate His strict form when He sent the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius' household before he was baptized? Humm... I hope all that were there didn't later get "sent to hell" for not doing things in the proper order...

In other words; the correct transubstantiation procedure consists of two items: bread and fruit of the vine. Omitting one of those two items leaves worshippers short of the goal like the two Gumps who tried to jump out to Catalina. Nice try; but no cigar.

As I have already said, the proper way to view this is not to take a legalistic approach to the words "eat" and "drink". As Aquinas said, both the Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist. Just because the pre-Vatican II Church didn't literally interpret "drink" to mean "consume from a cup in liquid form" doesn't mean the Blood is not ACTUALLY BEING CONSUMED, and that's the point. Again, you don't partake nor believe that there is even such a thing as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, so I don't understand what difference the form makes to you. It is like a Catholic telling a Jew that they aren't following the proper Seeder traditions because "OUR interpretation of Scripture says you should be doing X,Y and Z, not A,B and C." That would be quite comical (if not offensive) to the Jew, and so is this.

Is there a reason why you interpret the words "eat" and "drink" literally, yet interpret the words "flesh" and "blood" symbolically, within the same sentence?

 

[Webers_Home]

*****

 

[Webers_Home]

.

This is not a proper analogy

It may not be a proper analogy for you; but it's proper enough for me.

As Aquinas said, both the Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist.

According to the expressed wishes of Christianity's Lord and Master-- on public display at Mtt 26:26-27 and 1Cor 11:23-25 --his body is per the bread and his blood is per the cup.

According to Christ's expressed wishes then; communion is incomplete when only one of the elements is consumed; viz: participants in a half-baked communion are disqualified from the blessing of eternal life; and not only that, but people who listen to ecclesiastic celebrities like Thomas Aquinas instead of listening to Christ, are under a special curse.

†. Gal 1:7-9 . .There are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you; let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Like they say: a word to the wise is sufficient. Be wise therefore instead of lacking prudence.

†. Prv 29:25 . . Reverence for men will prove to be a snare; but whoever trusts in The Lord is kept safe.

You may continue to rely upon Thomas Aquinas if you want; that's your choice. But I highly recommend that you rely upon Christ instead, and trust that he knows better than Aquinas what he's talking about when it comes to his own wishes.

Buen Camino
/

 

[stovebolts]

As I have already said, the proper way to view this is not to take a legalistic approach to the words "eat" and "drink". As Aquinas said, both the Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist. Just because the pre-Vatican II Church didn't literally interpret "drink" to mean "consume from a cup in liquid form" doesn't mean the Blood is not ACTUALLY BEING CONSUMED, and that's the point. Again, you don't partake nor believe that there is even such a thing as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, so I don't understand what difference the form makes to you. It is like a Catholic telling a Jew that they aren't following the proper Seeder traditions because "OUR interpretation of Scripture says you should be doing X,Y and Z, not A,B and C." That would be quite comical (if not offensive) to the Jew, and so is this.

I'm just curious why they would withhold the fruit of the vine when it is so obvious that Jesus first broke bread, and then he drank fruit of the vine. Why does the catholic church combine these two items into one item?

 

[dadof10]

.
It may not be a proper analogy for you; but it's proper enough for me.


According to the expressed wishes of Christianity's Lord and Master-- on public display at Mtt 26:26-27 and 1Cor 11:23-25 --his body is per the bread and his blood is per the cup.

According to Christ's expressed wishes then; communion is incomplete when only one of the elements is consumed; viz: participants in a half-baked communion are disqualified from the blessing of eternal life; and not only that, but people who listen to ecclesiastic celebrities like Thomas Aquinas instead of listening to Christ, are under a special curse.

†. Gal 1:7-9 . .There are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you; let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Like they say: a word to the wise is sufficient. Be wise therefore instead of lacking prudence.

†. Prv 29:25 . . Reverence for men will prove to be a snare; but whoever trusts in The Lord is kept safe.

You may continue to rely upon Thomas Aquinas if you want; that's your choice. But I highly recommend that you rely upon Christ instead, and trust that he knows better than Aquinas what he's talking about when it comes to his own wishes.

Buen Camino
/

Sigh...Do you want to have a conversation, or just keep repeating your point? There is nothing new here, nothing different from the OP. I think I brought up a few pertinent questions that are being ignored. Here they are again, in case you care to move forward.

You said: "If the Lord's flesh and blood are consumed correctly; they don't "lead" to eternal life; on the contrary, they grant eternal life-- instantly."

My question: "Then in your opinion, all post-Vatican II Catholics have Eternal Life and all Protestants, including yourself, don't?"

"A better analogy would be "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

Here Peter gives us two things we MUST do in order to have our sins forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that BOTH are necessary for the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, or is baptism merely a symbolic gesture for the already saved? Did God violate His strict form when He sent the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius' household before he was baptized? Humm... I hope all that were there didn't later get "sent to hell" for not doing things in the proper order..."

As you can see by the example above, God is more interested in the SPIRIT of the law, not the letter. To claim that entrance into Eternal Life is based on consuming the Blood from a cup in liquid form ONLY, is to be quite legalistic, and this rigid view is contrary to the mercy of God.

"Again, you don't partake nor believe that there is even such a thing as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, so I don't understand what difference the form makes to you."

"Is there a reason why you interpret the words "eat" and "drink" literally, yet interpret the words "flesh" and "blood" symbolically, within the same sentence?"

 

[dadof10]

I'm just curious why they would withhold the fruit of the vine when it is so obvious that Jesus first broke bread, and then he drank fruit of the vine. Why does the catholic church combine these two items into one item?

As near as I can tell, the reasons were purely practical. One reason was the danger of spills. The Host is easy to pick up, the Wine, not so much. The main reason was that the Church grew rapidly and, pre-Vatican II, communion was only given by the priest. If given under both species, it would take forever even in a mid-sized congregation. Once Extraordinary Ministers (EM's) were instituted, it became practical to distribute under both Kinds. This is the reason distribution of the Precious Blood was re-instituted after VII, because EM's were put in place.

Again, it wasn't really "withheld" from the faithful because the Blood is present in the Body. This view comes from the fact that there is not one bit of human flesh that does not contain blood. Same with the Host. If we believe it becomes the ACTUAL Flesh of Christ, then it stands to reason there is blood within the Flesh, right? The argument here should be, as it is everywhere else, that the Host DOESN'T become the actual Flesh of Christ. Once you grant the point that the Host is the Flesh (which the OP seems to do), the debate is basically over due the facts of biology.