Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lepanto

Guest
I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
  1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
  2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
  3. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
  4. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
 
lepanto said:
IDo you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
I am a recovered alcoholic, 23 years sober. So I avoid the chalice. I doubt if God has any problms with this, since he pushed me into sobriety 23 years ago:extrahappy:
 
the chalice is not offered in our parish any longer for various reasons, so the answer is no. When it is offered I do not partake if I have an active headcold or sinus infection, or during flu season because my immunity is compromised already. I do not take the chalice when my arthritis flairs up because I sometimes drop things and I just don’t want to take the risk. That is also the reason why not an EMHC (or one of the reasons, the other being I believe it is a non-essential ministry). There are certain churches we visit while travelling that offer communion from the priest by intinction (kneeling, at a communion rail, with vessels designed for the purpose) and there of course do receive both species.
 
I had a kidney transplant two years ago, and must take anti-rejection meds for the rest of my life, which supress my immune system to some extent. I therefore will not chance drinking from a common cup, even though the EM wipes it after each user.
 
I have enough health problems without potentially exposing myself to more.
 
My parish does not proffer the chalice. (The EMsHC are somewhat lackadaisical – Three are scheduled for each Sunday Mass, typically two show, sometimes one or zero. The pastor (rightly IMHO) says there is no point trying to proffer the chalice when we can’t get sufficient ministers to show up now)

I do enjoy visiting a neighboring parish, where the option of intinction exists (standing, with vessels designed for the purpose).

tee
 
lepanto said:
I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
  1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
  2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
  3. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
  4. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
Since receiving under one species allows one to receive the full grace from the sacrament, I see no need to. On a personal note I understand the theology behind allowing communicants to receive under both species. However many do not and believe that they must receive under both species for the sacrament to be valid **OR **that they have the unqualified right to receive under both species at all times. Neither is the case.

It is exactly for that reason when the Church re-allowed the practice it stipulated that those receiving MUST be properly catechized in it and of the right disposition. Something that has generally fallen by the wayside.
 
lepanto said:
I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
  1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion. **It was in response to the ultraquist heresy that the Church came to withold the Chalice from the laity. For the first 1200 years, the Chalice was received by the laity as well as the priesthood. In the history of the Church, the laity received it far longer than they did not. **
  2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice. The discipline of the Church is contrary to what you describe (see here: hometown.aol.com/saint35/1-j.htm)
**The cup must be given by a minister, either ordained or extraordinary. For it to be self-communication, the communicant would have to pick it up from the altar himself/herself and this is forbidden. The Church clearly doesn’t think that reception by the laity of the chalice is self-communication. **
  1. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
    Sacrilege implies an intent to blasphemy or profantion. Spilling implies an accident. There is a misguided mindset that so sacralizes the Sacred Species that They could potentially not be used for the purpose Christ intended them: to be consumed and in the consumption, Communion achieved between the Most Holy Trinity and the communicant. In any enterprise involving human beings, there is a risk of accident or, frankly, sacrilege. That’s a risk we run. Since Christ instituted the Holy Communion under both Sacred Species and since the Church permits it (except in really large assemblies), I don’t see a problem.
  2. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers. **Not in my experience, really. In my home parish and a much, much smaller parish that I sometimes attend, there are only two EMHC administering the Chalice. **
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite. The Catechism teaches that it is a fuller sign, that is the way Our Lord instituted the Mass, the laity rec. for far longer than they have not, and the Church permits and even encourages it. I think those are pretty good reasons.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
I don’t partake only when I’m ill or when the Chalice is not offered. Otherwise, I do. I should say I would favor the use of intinction, however, as a very good idea.
 
My parish offers both species via Intinction.

(which is the form with the longest history and deepest theologicaly symbolism)

Contrary to the JKirk’s statement, even prior to the Ultraquist heresy, the chalice was not offered to the laity. When both species were offered, it has been via Intinction.
 
I used to and stopped for several reasons. For one thing, I noticed that the EME’s usually do not wipe carefully the chalice. (They don’t unfold the cloth nor even attempt to move to a different place.)

The main reason was when, several years back, there was a big stink about people with celiac’s disease wanting/deserving to have a special “host”. I read stories about people’s “rights” being violated. I was so sad, especially for the children. I wanted to teach my DD what the church teaches–that receiving under one species is receiving all of Jesus. Not that I anticipate this problem for her, but I could easily explain that she needs to receive from the cup only and she wouldn’t be left out. They are both Jesus!
 
Brendan said:
My parish offers both species via Intinction.

(which is the form with the longest history and deepest theologicaly symbolism)

Contrary to the JKirk’s statement, even prior to the Ultraquist heresy, the chalice was not offered to the laity. When both species were offered, it has been via Intinction.
Click to expand...
Would you mind terribly much citing a reference for that?
 
lepanto said:
I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
  1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
  2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
  3. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
  4. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
I partake of the Cup as well as the Host because:
  1. I am not holier than the Pope. The Church allows it, and that is good enough for me.
  2. At my church, the Cup is offered every Sunday and daily Mass, and who am I to pass by Jesus without accepting His gift.
 
lepanto said:
I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
  1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
  2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
  3. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
  4. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
For all those reasons – that’s also why I only receive on the tongue as well; I’m afraid of the increased risk of sacrilege, as well as the fact that my ordinary hands might touch Jesus Himself just seems needless to me when I can receive him straight from consecrated hands…
 
Brendan:

In this article (newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm), the specific cases in which the early Church did not offer the Holy Communion under both Sacred Species is dealt with, as well as the very true fact that we (the laity) have no constitutive right to the Chalice (though we may certainly receive it as the Church allows it). In terms of *intinctio panis, *however, there is NO indication that this was universal and it was, in fact, for a time forbidden except in instances where there was danger of spillage by offering the Chalice (which seems to indicate that the Chalice was offered). Further, it lists as the first 1,200 years of the Church’s history as the time span in which the Most Precious Blood under Its seperate Species was offered to the laity (in some form). The exceptions do not constitute a rule.

Here are more articles:

catholic-center.rutgers.edu/article3.html

This timeline is from a “traditinalist” site:

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html
 
jpjd said:
I partake of the Cup as well as the Host because:
  1. I am not holier than the Pope. The Church allows it, and that is good enough for me.
  2. At my church, the Cup is offered every Sunday and daily Mass, and who am I to pass by Jesus without accepting His gift.
Click to expand...
👍 Yeah, the “more Catholic than the pope” stuff starts to get old.
 
I don’t usually because I am a nervous ninny and I tend to dribble 😊 or my hands shake when I get nervous, so I abstain. I’m very confindent that I in turn receive everything I need from the host.
 
I don’t partake of the chalice right now, because my parish does not offer the chalice. I don’t know why, and since I don’t speak Korean, I can’t really find out. But since the Host is the entire Christ, I am not bothered by that fact in the least.

I did receive from the cup when I was in the United States, since the sacrament is also an outward sign, as well as a source of grace. While the grace is the same without receiving under both species, the outward sign is not.

I do agree with the concerns though about self-communicating. I wish more parishes would consider offering communion by intinction. I’ve never seen this done, and I’ve only heard of it through this website. I think this would be a good way to receive the Eucharist, but I’ve never heard of a parish anywhere offering communion in this way.
 
I frequently break out in cold sores/fever blisters. Since you can be contagious before you actually have a breakout, I don’t want to pass it on to the people in line behind me incase I am in the first stages of one.
 
valient_Lucy said:
I do agree with the concerns though about self-communicating.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t regard it as self-communicating. The minister or EMHC HANDS the Chalice to you. Thus, it is they who are communicating you. Self-communication would be if you went to the altar and took the chalice yourself.
 
palmas85 said:
Since receiving under one species allows one to receive the full grace from the sacrament, I see no need to. On a personal note I understand the theology behind allowing communicants to receive under both species. However many do not and believe that they must receive under both species for the sacrament to be valid **OR **that they have the unqualified right to receive under both species at all times. Neither is the case.
It is exactly for that reason when the Church re-allowed the practice it stipulated that those receiving MUST be properly catechized in it and of the right disposition. Something that has generally fallen by the wayside.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top