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

[Franciscan]

Back to the topic…Sometimes i receive both. I take from the chalice (or sometimes sadly it’s a wine glass). The reason for me to receive both…

1. Even though both are Body,Blood,Soul and Divinty each are a better sign of either His Body or Blood. After the Consecration the priest breaks a fragment of the Host and mingles it in with the Chalice signifying the Resurrection. So to receive both is a better reminder that you are receiving the LIVING,resurrected Christ.
2. I normally dont drink wine but I eat bread all the time. So when i receive from the chalice it is, for me, -something extraordinary—a reminder to me that the Eucharist is extraordinary-supernatural.
3. Sometimes my mouth gets dry and the Host sticks to the roof of my mouth . Taking from the chalice helps me to receive in that it alleviates that complication. (This, admittedly, is the least important reason).

 

[Cat]

I’ll answer the OP. And I’ll be honest, even at the risk of offending some.

I don’t ever partake of the chalice because I don’t drink alcohol, ever.

I realize that the Precious Blood of the Lord is not going to harm me. But it still retains the appearance, taste, smell, etc. of alcohol. And I personally find the mere smell alcohol unbearable. I can’t imagine actually tasting the stuff.

I am very grateful that the Lord has humbled Himself to become Present in the Bread.

 

[outfctrl]

I am a returning Catholic and when I was a kid, it was the host only. Plus, I have my reserves about putting my mouth where 100’s have been, even though they do wipe it.

I miss the Priest placing the host in my mouth. Our Church does not have a place to kneel at the alter. Sad

Thats just me, though.

 

[Brendan]

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

So, is it your claim that the Substance of Blood present in the species of bread, is solid and chewable?

Do the physical reactions of our human body dictate the Substantiantial action that is being experienced?

 

[Brendan]

JKirkLVNV:
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).

I have read you earlier citations, they did not support your postion. All they discussed was that the faithful recieved both species at various times in the History of the Church.

None of them addressed the issue we are debating, if the species were provided in distinct receptions, or via intinction.

Could you provide any documentation that the faithful recieved both species in the fashion that you are promoting?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ll answer the OP. And I’ll be honest, even at the risk of offending some.

I don’t ever partake of the chalice because I don’t drink alcohol, ever.

I realize that the Precious Blood of the Lord is not going to harm me. But it still retains the appearance, taste, smell, etc. of alcohol. And I personally find the mere smell alcohol unbearable. I can’t imagine actually tasting the stuff.

I am very grateful that the Lord has humbled Himself to become Present in the Bread.

You’re stance is PERFECTLY reasonable and shouldn’t cause offense to anyone. The accidents COULD make you sick (if you can’t abide the smell, that’s kind of a warning), so you’re wise to avoid the Chalice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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).

I have read you earlier citations, they did not support your postion. All they discussed was that the faithful recieved both species at various times in the History of the Church.

None of them addressed the issue we are debating, if the species were provided in distinct receptions, or via intinction.

Could you provide any documentation that the faithful recieved both species in the fashion that you are promoting?

If you look at the article again, you’ll notice that intinction was spotty (and for a time, forbidden) in the Latin Rite. If the reception of the Most Precious Blood as Its seperate species was more or less common (and it would have to be conceded that it probably became less common the closer the Church got to the 12 Century) and if intinction was spotty (read the section), then how else would it be given if not by the Chalice? I’ve never read that there was another mode, other than by drinking from the chalice or via intinction (either dipped or spooned). And you have not provided any citation that intinction was widespread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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

Jim

But the point would be “consuming,” taking It into oneself in an act of consumption.

 

[Brendan]

I have read you earlier citations, they did not support your postion. All they discussed was that the faithful recieved both species at various times in the History of the Church.

None of them addressed the issue we are debating, if the species were provided in distinct receptions, or via intinction.

Could you provide any documentation that the faithful recieved both species in the fashion that you are promoting?

If you look at the article again, you’ll notice that intinction was spotty (and for a time, forbidden) in the Latin Rite. If the reception of the Most Precious Blood as Its seperate species was more or less common (and it would have to be conceded that it probably became less common the closer the Church got to the 12 Century) and if intinction was spotty (read the section), then how else would it be given if not by the Chalice? I’ve never read that there was another mode, other than by drinking from the chalice or via intinction (either dipped or spooned). And you have not provided any citation that intinction was widespread.

No, it had never been prohibited by the Church, perhaps you are thinking of the 3rd Council of Braga, which DID prohibit intinction in Portugal. But that was a regional council that only restricted the practice within that territory (the kingdom of Portugal). And even then, it only prohibited the distrubtion of “bread soaked in wine”

Do you have any documentant that intinction was prohibited **Church wide **?

 

[RosalieM]

I did partake of the chalice for a while but I stopped. I contracted conjunctivitis (pink eye) and I’m not around young children except during mass. I don’t want to catch (or spread) any other infectious diseases. I don’t think wiping the chalice is effective with so many people drinking from it. I might try it when choir starts up again after our vacation; because we’re among the first to partake of the chalice. It’s not something I’d nix forever. Besides, although bothersome, the pink eye got me out of work for a couple days and that was very good for my mental health.

 

[RB2]

We have a heavy illegal immigration problem here in SoCal. Consequently, with so many people electing to join the country and not getting requisite health exams TB and other other disease have increased.

I dont drink from the chalice unless I’m in the first few pews and not many have taken from it before me. TB being a big one, colds and flu are a big one also.

I’m very disease concious, dont get much sick time pay at work, to the point that I rarely shake hands in church but offer an appropriate sign of peace. Dont
want to shake hands with strangers then put your hands to your mouth, as in Communion – eating, because its the most effective way of spreading and catching illness and disease. Some dioceases (the Bishop)have
stopped the practice of the sign of peace over the cognizant recognition of this fact or at least I should say have heavily discouraged shaking hands. However, there are only few dioceses discontinuing or discouraging the practice. If the Bird Flu scare ever comes to fruition or recognition, then the continuation of this practice will probably be forever terminated.

God gave me a brain, thankfully!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, popes were involved:

"(5) The practice of the intinctio Panis, mentioned above, which is the last disciplinary variation to be noticed during this period, was already forbidden by the Council of Braga in 675 (Mansi, XI, 155), but, as from the “Micrologus” (xix, P.L., CLI, 989 sq.), was reintroduced in the eleventh century. It was condemned once more by the Council of Clermont (1095) under the presidency of Urban II, but with the limitation “nisi per necessitatem et per cautelam” (Mansi, XX, 818). The exception “per cautelam” allows the intinctio when it might be necessary as a precaution against the spilling of the Precious Blood, but the later prohibition of Paschal II (Ep. 535, P.L. CLXIII, 442) makes an exception only in “parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt”. Notwithstanding these prohibitions the practice survived in many places, as we learn from Robert Pulleyn (d. 1146; Sent. VIII, iii, P.L., CLXXXVI, 964), who condemns it. Its prohibition is renewed as late as 1175 by a Council of London or Westminster (Hefele, op. cit., v, 688). There is no evidence of the intinctio in the East during the first ten centuries, but its existence in the eleventh century is one of the grounds of reproach advanced by Cardinal Humbert (d. 1061) against the Greeks. (Adv. Grec. calumnias, 33, B.L., CXLII, 967 sq.). According to Dom Martène (d.1739) the practice still existed in the East in his own time (op. cit., I, 13); while the custom of pouring some of the Precious Blood on the consecrated bread, which was then dried by heating and reserved during a whole year for the Communion of the sick, may be considered as a kind of intinctio. This latter custom was prohibited by Benedict XIV for the Italo-Greeks in 1752, but the usage, where it existed among them, of receiving the Host on a spoon with some drops of the Precious Blood, was allowed to be retained (Gasparri, op. cit., II, 1177).

(continued)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Taking this a sentence at a time:

1. Intinction is called a disciplinary variation (if it’s a variation, there must have been a standard), which was forbidden by the Council of Braga. It was reintroduced in the 11th Century.
2. Condemned by the Council of Clermont, under Pope Urban II (1088-1099), with the exception that intinction could be used when there was a danger of spillage (again, it would seem that a variation was allowed when the standard couldn’t be empolyed).
3. The practice was further restricted by Pope Paschal II (1099-1118), who only allowed it for the sick who couldn’t swallow the Most Sacred Body any other way (if I read the Latin correctly). The article states that it continued in many places, but it doesn’t indicate that it was the universal mode and it would have been in disobedience to the Holy Father if it did.
4. It was further condemned by ANOTHER local council (London).
5. It was one of the things with which Cardinal Humbert reproached the Eastern Church (this is the cardinal who laid the Bull of Excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia, despite the fact that it had expired due to the death of Pope Leo IX), so it seems that it was still not something regarded with esteem by the hierarchs of the Latin Church.
6. Benedict XIV allowed one type of intinction (via spoon) to the Italian-Greeks of the Byzantine Rite, but this is a seperate rite (today, a seperate sub juris Church). This did not apply to the Latin Rite.

This was your original assertion:

“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 don’t think history bears this out.

 

[Br_Mark]

lepanto;

I find it interesting that you avoid receiving the Eucharist under the form of wine (the Blood of Christ)/ the chalice.
You bring up Jan Hus, who as you say was found to be a heretic by the Council of Constance. It is interesting to note that at the time there were three individuals who claimed to be the Pope, and that Hus attended the counsil to defend his views under the guarantee for his safety. He was found to be a heretic and burned at the stake. Nice Guarantee
Pope John Paul II voiced the opinion that Jan Hus’ case should be rexamined and he did apologied for the way the case was handled.

As to tradition regarding receiving the chalice by the laity, it was done until the 12th century (New Advent Catholic Encylopedia)
The Council of Lambeth (1281) diredted that the wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecreted wine is to be received by the faihful (Massi,XXIV, 405)
Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times. (Catholic Encylopedia IV, 176)
Pope Leo and Pope Gelasius both emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice (Catholic Dictionary, 202)

Just some thoughts,

Br Mark, OSB

 

[water]

Sometimes, I do; sometimes, I don’t.
Why? – why not!
Why not? – only when I get sick and do not want to transmit germs to others.

 

[Island_Oak]

Germ-o-phobia here.

 

[Digitonomy]

Germ-o-phobia here.

Likewise.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Germophobes: If you had been one of the disciples at the Last Supper would you have refused the cup because you were afraid of germs?

Remember the disciples were acused by the pharisees of not washing their hands!

And if you don’t mind using water fountains or swimming pools or public restrooms are you going to tell me that the Lord’s Blood is too germ problematic for you to try?

Do you really want to explain that to Jesus when He judges you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Germophobes: If you had been one of the disciples at the Last Supper would you have refused the cup because you were afraid of germs?

Remember the disciples were acused by the pharisees of not washing their hands!

And if you don’t mind using water fountains or swimming pools or public restrooms are you going to tell me that the Lord’s Blood is too germ problematic for you to try?

Do you really want to explain that to Jesus when He judges you?

Why would you attempt to constrain the conscience of the your fellow Christians in this area where the Church has granted a liberty of choice? It is sufficient in terms of imputed grace to recieve only one of the Sacred Species. Jesus is not going to judge those who do not receive from the Chalice. The Church has said that they don’t have to and the Church’s disciplines cannot lead the faithful to impiety, therefore, NOT receiving the Chalice cannot lead anyone into impiety. Was the Church wrong for the near 800 years that the Chalice was forbidden to the laity? NO, she wasn’t. Christ left HER the authority to govern her sacraments. The laity have no constitutive right to the Chalice. We may receive it on the Church’s sufferance.

 

[march19]

I always used to receive the Precious Body and Blood under both forms until about seven years ago. I was asked to be an EMHE at the student Liturgies at the school at which I taught, and over the years, saw way too much backwash. I know that what is contained in the cup is Jesus’ Blood, but I am just squeamish.

I doubt that Jesus would hold that against me.