Catholics Who Do Not Partake Of The Wine During Holy Communion

[phil19034]

Honestly, I only receive the Chalice when I’m one of the first few to partake.

The idea of partaking of the Chalice after too many communicates makes me queasy, so I do not partake because it will distract me from my prayers if I feel queasy.

 

[dshix]

Honestly, I only receive the Chalice when I’m one of the first few to partake.

The idea of partaking of the Chalice after too many communicates makes me queasy, so I do not partake because it will distract me from my prayers if I feel queasy.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I don’t drink from the cup that holds the wine but place the host in it --I don’t drink from the cup a/c when I get a cold I really get sick and don’t want to take any chances.

How is it you are allowed. To do this!

 

[Jeanne_S]

My husband and I both have compromised immune systems (he due to a medication he takes, I due to chronic leukemia) and therefore feel it best to minimize possible exposure to germs. That’s why we also (discreetly) use hand sanitizer before receiving the Eucharist and following the Sign of Peace.

I as well as a lot of people use hand sanitizer after the sign of peace .My reasons are twofold,first to sanitize my hands before receiving the Euchrist and to prevent the spreading of germs.

 

[Bonnie]

Honestly, I only receive the Chalice when I’m one of the first few to partake.

The idea of partaking of the Chalice after too many communicates makes me queasy, so I do not partake because it will distract me from my prayers if I feel queasy.

Me, too. Not the queasy feeling, but not wanting to take chances with germs. Compromised immune system & getting old are both good reasons not to. That’s why I prefer to sit up front.

I don’t take chances with other people’s health either; if I’ve got a bit of a cold I don’t drink.

 

[DaveBj]

I receive Holy Communion in both species, but to channel Anne Shirley, anyone with a stitch of imagination should be able to come up with at least five reasons for bypassing the Chalice.

 

[porthos11]

That one somehow must, should, or ought to partake of the Cup.

It’s what I read (reed, not red) in the OP’s post, but I could of course be wrong.

 

[dshix]

Mr. John Yurich will certainly be surprised by the commotion his thread has stirred up when he returns.

 

[Memaw]

Why are there Catholics who do not partake of the wine during Holy Communion if the wine is available for the laity to partake of? If they like wine then they should not pass up the opportunity to take a sip of wine during Holy Communion. The Catholic parish I attend has both the bread and the wine available for the laity to partake of during Holy Communion. I partake of the wine also.

Receiving under both Species is up to the Communicant. But I would remind you that IT is NO LONGER wine but the Precious Blood of our Redeemer!!! ALSO, no longer bread but the precious Body of Our Lord!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[felsguy]

That one somehow must, should, or ought to partake of the Cup.

It’s what I read (reed, not red) in the OP’s post, but I could of course be wrong.

Agreed, it is difficult to read between the lines. So simply taking at face value the OP’s initial question, his choice of posting here on the Traditional thread rather than on Liturgy and Sacraments, and like wise your own responses, I would add just as general discussion:

Must one partake of the Cup? Obviously not!

May one? Of course.

Should one? I suggest that the has Church wisely left that up to each individual, each time one receives and according to individual circumstances and preferences.

Why would one? Here I find the USCCB’s Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America most enlightening:

*20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.”*

The full statement can be read here:

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[Casilda]

I see it as the norm, people passing up the chalice. Very few people receive the host AND the wine. I do not receive either when in a Roman Catholic parish. In our Eastern Catholic parish, the host is offered after intinction by the priest. We we have a few who receive it unintincted.

 

[Bonnie]

I see it as the norm, people passing up the chalice. Very few people receive the host AND the wine. I do not receive either when in a Roman Catholic parish. In our Eastern Catholic parish, the host is offered after intinction by the priest. We we have a few who receive it unintincted.

I’m curious, are accommodations made for those with celiac? We have 2 people in our parish who receive the cup only.

 

[adamhovey1988]

What wine? At the moment of consecration it ceases to be wine.

 

[Bonnie]

What wine? At the moment of consecration it ceases to be wine.

Not really. Drink enough of it & you’ll get drunk. I’m very sensitive to alcohol & found out the hard way, when I was an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist (or whatever it’s called nowadays), that finishing what was in the cup was not a good idea - it went straight to my head. Never did it again.

 

[Fiasco]

That one somehow must, should, or ought to partake of the Cup.

It’s what I read (reed, not red) in the OP’s post, but I could of course be wrong.

You’re NOT wrong. There are some who think that, just like one section of Hus’s disciples, causing the Church to cease giving under both Species.
It should have stayed that way!

Even worse is the danger of losing belief in the Real Presence; and if surveys mean anything, fewer than 50% of Mass-going Catholics believe it. The taste of the Host is bland, but the taste of the Precious Blood is anything but bland!!! “That’s wine, not blood.” someone once said to me. She wouldn’t budge. "Transubstantiation’ is too big a word for some people.

There’s been a terrible decrease in reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

People who suffer from coeliac disease should be able to receive the Precious Blood, but for the rest of us…it can trigger bad theology.
Lousy “Catechesis” hasn’t helped.

 

[mdgspencer]

When I lived in the United States, sometimes I took the wine and sometimes i didn’t. It seemed a matter of indifference to me, since either way you are taking communion, which seems the important thing to me.
Now I live in the Philippines, where the wine is never given to to the congregation. This however, doesn’t seem important to me, since I still can have communion perfectly well.

 

[porthos11]

Not really. Drink enough of it & you’ll get drunk. I’m very sensitive to alcohol & found out the hard way, when I was an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist (or whatever it’s called nowadays), that finishing what was in the cup was not a good idea - it went straight to my head. Never did it again.

It ceases to be wine, even though you still get drunk on enough of it.

The accidents of wine still remain. That includes all the properties of alcohol.

 

[corsair]

Interesting comments here. I’m not familiar with receiving under both species. I attend an FSSP parish.

 

[Fiasco]

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.”

In light of what has happened, those two paragraphs strike me as being misguided.
IF they had been backed up by sound catechesis, they **MIGHT **hold some water; but right now, they seem way off the mark.
Apart from that, tell those quoted statements to the TLM people.

It ceases to be wine, even though you still get drunk on enough of it.

The accidents of wine still remain. That includes all the properties of alcohol.

Your having to make those statements sums up so much of what’s gone wrong.

PS
Corsair: same here on most Sundays.

 

[felsguy]

Agreed, it is difficult to read between the lines. So simply taking at face value the OP’s initial question, his choice of posting here on the Traditional thread rather than on Liturgy and Sacraments, and like wise your own responses, I would add just as general discussion:

Must one partake of the Cup? Obviously not!

May one? Of course.

Should one? I suggest that the has Church wisely left that up to each individual, each time one receives and according to individual circumstances and preferences.

Why would one? Here I find the USCCB’s Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America most enlightening:

*20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.”*

The full statement can be read here:

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

In light of what has happened, the above two paragraphs strike me as being misguided.
IF they had been backed up by sound catechesis, they **MIGHT **hold some water; but right now, they seem to be way off the mark.

I’ll leave it to you to tell them that.

Here’s where you can contact them:

usccb.org/about/contact-us.cfm