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

[Lucania]

No I do not because it is not offered at my Parish. At my previous Parish they did offer it but I did not partake there either. I was taught that Jesus was fully present under each species, so I am happy to receive the Eucharist only. My preference. It matters not that others partake of the Precious Blood of Jesus.

 

[gus]

When I was married July 24, 1965
A recent change to the the Mass…
Allowed my bride and I drink from the cup.
That was a new and radical practice at that time.
I don’t think anyone else in addendence was allowed.
We both left the Church soon after.
I returned in 1997 but my parish did not offer both species
The parish I am currenly in(same church I was married in ) does allow both species. I usually decline. (maybe it has something to do with what happened last time I drank from the cup)
Unfortunately I am still waiting for my bride to return to the church. Maybe that day we will both drink from the cup.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church allows it, but does not demand it.

For that reason alone, a person’s choice to partake of Body, Blood, or both (or even the choice to partake of none of the above in case of mortal sin) should not be denigrated.

I get as tired of the “I can’t see why you people don’t take advantage of every single option” as those who get tired of the “holier than the Popes” who exercise their choice of ‘one’ option with at least as good a reason as those who choose ‘both’. After all, either is a legitimate choice.

I haven’t seen anybody who takes just the “Body” actually coming right out and saying, “This is the ONLY way and the Church is wrong to allow the option of both”.

I have seen more of the "since it allows both, those who receive only one are not ‘receiving the fuller sign’, are judgmental, are ‘rejecting Jesus’ for passing the cup by, etc.

I vote that we close this here and now. Proper reception is ‘either’ Body OR Blood, while in a state of grace, as a baptized Catholic of whatever rite permitted, and PLEASE both sides stop the infighting.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church allows it, but does not demand it.

For that reason alone, a person’s choice to partake of Body, Blood, or both (or even the choice to partake of none of the above in case of mortal sin) should not be denigrated.

I get as tired of the “I can’t see why you people don’t take advantage of every single option” as those who get tired of the “holier than the Popes” who exercise their choice of ‘one’ option with at least as good a reason as those who choose ‘both’. After all, either is a legitimate choice.

I haven’t seen anybody who takes just the “Body” actually coming right out and saying, “This is the ONLY way and the Church is wrong to allow the option of both”.

I have seen more of the "since it allows both, those who receive only one are not ‘receiving the fuller sign’, are judgmental, are ‘rejecting Jesus’ for passing the cup by, etc.

I vote that we close this here and now. Proper reception is ‘either’ Body OR Blood, or Both, while in a state of grace, as a baptized Catholic of whatever rite permitted, and PLEASE both sides stop the infighting.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan;2496043]My parish offers both species via Intinction.

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

Really? Show me in scripture where Jesus said, “take and dunk.”

I always thought Jesus said, “take and eat”, “take and drink.”

Jim

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Church allows it, but does not demand it.

For that reason alone, a person’s choice to partake of Body, Blood, or both (or even the choice to partake of none of the above in case of mortal sin) should not be denigrated.

I get as tired of the “I can’t see why you people don’t take advantage of every single option” as those who get tired of the “holier than the Popes” who exercise their choice of ‘one’ option with at least as good a reason as those who choose ‘both’. After all, either is a legitimate choice.

I haven’t seen anybody who takes just the “Body” actually coming right out and saying, “This is the ONLY way and the Church is wrong to allow the option of both”.

I have seen more of the "since it allows both, those who receive only one are not ‘receiving the fuller sign’, are judgmental, are ‘rejecting Jesus’ for passing the cup by, etc.

I vote that we close this here and now. Proper reception is ‘either’ Body OR Blood, or Both, while in a state of grace, as a baptized Catholic of whatever rite permitted, and PLEASE both sides stop the infighting.

You’re mistaken, Tantum Ergo, I suggest you go back and read the original post, in which it is alledged that:

1. Reception of the Chalice was associated with Jan Hus.
2. Reception of the Chalice is regarded as self-communication, which is forbidden by the Church.
3. It is associated with sacrilege via spillage (a mistaken view of sacrilege).
4. It is associated with an unecessary presence of EMHCs (some think ANY EMHCs are unecessary, which they’re entitled to think. The Church, however, makes provision for them and it is a pastoral decision as to how they are to be used. If I’m not mistaken, an instituted acolyte COULD administer the Chalice).

The whole purpose of the thread COULD have been an honest question about this. As we are commanded by the Church, we must ASSUME that the OP’s intentions were the best, in which case, those of us who do partake of the Chalice are obligated to give a charitable and truthful response that is in keeping with the mind of the Church. NO ONE has here suggested that anyone who doesn’t partake of the Most Precious Blood is out of line. That would be the height of presumption, as some people cannot receive because of an allergy or because of problems with alcohol, the accidents of the species remaining and having their natural effect even after consecration). NO ONE has here suggested that the Most Precious Blood HAS to be received under it’s seperate species or that there is less Grace to be had if one does not receive from the Chalice.

Further, I would challenge you to demonstrate “what you see more of” in terms of “judgemental” attitudes. I feel VERY, VERY confident that if you do a search of these fora, using the search feature, you would find that the overwhelming majority of threads on this topic are initiated by those who do NOT receive from the Chalice and who do not believe that the laity SHOULD receive from the Chalice. If ANYONE is on the defense, it’s those of us who do receive from the Chalice, as per the permission of the Church. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I would challenge you to do just that: look into it. Then you can admonish the proper party as to stopping the “infighting.”

 

[Lepanto]

Really? Show me in scripture where Jesus said, “take and dunk.”

I always thought Jesus said, “take and eat”, “take and drink.”

Jim

Yes, but to whom did he say that? The 12 apostles.

The apostles were the first bishops. Bishops are allowed to self-communicate.

 

[Lepanto]

If ANYONE is on the defense, it’s those of us who do receive from the Chalice, as per the permission of the Church.

But why do you receive from the chalice? Merely because you have permission?

I have yet to read a cogent reason why the faithful should regularly receive from the chalice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Really? Show me in scripture where Jesus said, “take and dunk.”

I always thought Jesus said, “take and eat”, “take and drink.”

Jim

While I believe Brenden is mistaken on two counts (that intinction has the longest history in the Latin Rite and that intinction has the deepest or clearest theologically symbolism, since I doubt that we have grasped something that the Apostles and the Fathers did not), the Church does have the authority to govern Her Sacraments. She can use intinction as a means for distribution of Holy Communion, she can open the Chalice to the laity or close them, etc. That’s a fundamental. The proper interpretation of Our Lord’s intent belongs to the Church.

 

[tcraig]

No, I don’t receive the Precious Blood.

(1) I once had a rather “shaky” hand-off with the EMHC, which left me in terror that I would actually spill. Not receiving from the chalice eliminates this concern.

(2) A few times when I’d receive from the chalice, there was a lot of floating backwash. I know it’s Jesus, but it still retains the *appearance *of bread and wine, and it appeared like others’ backwash. Not receiving from the chalice eliminates that concern, also.

I would love to receive via Intinction, though I’ve never yet attended a parish that offers communion in this way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But why do you receive from the chalice? Merely because you have permission?

I have yet to read a cogent reason why the faithful should regularly receive from the chalice.

You may have yet to hear a reason you may agree with, but I believe I gave you my reasons earlier.

I don’t care that you don’t receive ever, I don’t even pay attention to who is receving what in the line for communion. But that the Church permits it IS sufficient.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, but to whom did he say that? The 12 apostles.

The apostles were the first bishops. Bishops are allowed to self-communicate.

That is not the understanding of the Church, that the Apostles alone could receive because they were bishops (or at least, it is not used to exclude the laity from the Most Precious Blood in its seperate species). That is a “traditionalist” interpretation. Certainly the Apostles were bishops, but as has been shown, even most “traditionalists” admit that for 1200 years, more or less, the Most Precious Blood under its seperate species was allowed the laity (even by those who think intinction was widespread).

 

[Lepanto]

That is not the understanding of the Church…

Please provide citations of official Church documents. If you’re going to claim something is or is not the “understanding of the Church” I want citations and references, not more opinions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please provide citations of official Church documents. If you’re going to claim something is or is not the “understanding of the Church” I want citations and references, not more opinions.

No, I’m sorry, you’re the one making the assertion that the Apostles were bishops and thus alone could receive the Chalice. That’s your assertion. It’s up to YOU to demonstrate that and provide a citation to that and that that is the reason the Church prohibits the Chalice to the laity. I can prove the Church allows the Chalice to the laity.

 

[Brendan]

While I believe Brenden is mistaken on two counts (that intinction has the longest history in the Latin Rite

I never said anything about it having the longest history in the Latin Rite, I said it had the longest history.

and that intinction has the deepest or clearest theologically symbolism,

It does. Intinction has the deepest symbolism of the Resurected Christ that we recieve. The Eucharistic species are confected seperately. This is the demonstration of the Passion and Death of our Lord. The Blood is apart from the Body (Death). And the Doxolgy, the Species are presented together, this is the re-presentation of the Resurrection, where the Body and Blood are reunited in the Resurrection.

Intincted Eucharist has the deepest theological symbolism of what we are actually recieving.

since I doubt that we have grasped something that the Apostles and the Fathers did not), the Church does have the authority to govern Her Sacraments. She can use intinction as a means for distribution of Holy Communion, she can open the Chalice to the laity or close them, etc. That’s a fundamental. The proper interpretation of Our Lord’s intent belongs to the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Really? Show me in scripture where Jesus said, “take and dunk.”

I always thought Jesus said, “take and eat”, “take and drink.”

Jim

You show a defective understanding of Transubstantiation.

When a Catholic recieves either species, they both Eat and Drink, even if the physical actions do not mimic the Substantial action.

When the Host is consumed, the recipient drinks the Substance of Blood even though the accidents appear to be solid. This also occurs with our eyes, as we physically see only bread, while the Substance is Christ.

Christ’s command to Eat and Drink is therefore entirely fulfilled in Substance with a single species, even if the accidents appear otherwise. And, as Catholics, our concern in this matter is always focused on the Substance, as the accidents to not impart the full truth of the Sacrament.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, but to whom did he say that? The 12 apostles.

The apostles were the first bishops. Bishops are allowed to self-communicate.

The first Christians followed what the Apostles taught, i.e, “take and eat,” “take and drink.”

You won’t find “take and dunk.”

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You show a defective understanding of Transubstantiation.

When a Catholic recieves either species, they both Eat and Drink, even if the physical actions do not mimic the Substantial action.

This is nothing but stretching doctrine to fit your argument.

When receive the bread alone, we receive the fullness of Christ, body and blood, but we are in fact, eating, not drinking.

Jim

 

[Al_Masetti]

Rarely.

The reason is that I want to minimize the potential for spilling any of the Precious Blood.

For the first decades or so of my life, folks only received the Consecrated Host. Only the priest(s) received Holy Communion under both Species.

So, receiving the Precious Blood was not an option for most of my life. While receiving the Precious Blood now is an option, it is not mandatory in any way. Not receiving the Precious Blood does not detract from the Grace or the validity or the “value” of the Sacrament in any way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never said anything about it having the longest history in the Latin Rite, I said it had the longest history.

It does. Intinction has the deepest symbolism of the Resurected Christ that we recieve. The Eucharistic species are confected seperately. This is the demonstration of the Passion and Death of our Lord. The Blood is apart from the Body (Death). And the Doxolgy, the Species are presented together, this is the re-presentation of the Resurrection, where the Body and Blood are reunited in the Resurrection.

Intincted Eucharist has the deepest theological symbolism of what we are actually recieving.

since I doubt that we have grasped something that the Apostles and the Fathers did not), the Church does have the authority to govern Her Sacraments. She can use intinction as a means for distribution of Holy Communion, she can open the Chalice to the laity or close them, etc. That’s a fundamental. The proper interpretation of Our Lord’s intent belongs to the Church.

A) You have not provided a citation that demonstrates intinction has the longest history. I agree it may have been practiced in places, esp. in the East. See my earlier citations.

B) While I do see the symbolism, I don’t think we do wrong or understand less to simply receive the Chalice (since that’s how Our Lord instituted it).