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

[JimR-OCDS]

It is understood that the bread becomes his body and blood and the wine becomes his body and blood. It is why the sacraments are mysteries. You can’t understand exactly how they work. When you receive either you have fulfilled His commandment to eat and drink.

I pointed this out in the context of the Mass in my previous post to try and make that distinction a bit more clear.

In other words, you are not required to drink of the cup, the priest is, as part of the Mass offering though, fulfilling the command at the Last Supper. The Mass is offered in Remembrance of Him. We then partake of the Mass in the Eucharist and either form of bread or wine receives fully the body and blood BECAUSE of the action of the priest. Only one form is necessary to receive the body and blood. The Church allows both forms now, but the command of our Lord is already fulfilled by virtue of the Mass itself through the priest. It is not fulfilled through us receiving both forms. Without a priest, you have nothing…We are the beneficiaries.

I think a lot of the confusion is in the misunderstanding of roles proper to the priesthood and those of the laity. The Laity are not priests for this purpose.

Joe B

Theologically you are correct. However, when you drink from the cup, you are not eating, in the literal definition of the word “eat.” If you try to chew wine, its impossible, so you are literally drinking, but you are receiving both body and blood. Same thing when receiving the host, you are receiving the body and blood of Christ, but the action you are performing is eating, not drinking.

The debate over this actually began with the assertion that intinction, (dipping the host into the wine) is historically the oldest form of receiving both bread and wine in the Eucharist.

There has yet to be any evidence supporting this claim.

Jim

 

[cheddarsox]

It is understood that the bread becomes his body and blood and the wine becomes his body and blood. It is why the sacraments are mysteries. You can’t understand exactly how they work. When you receive either you have fulfilled His commandment to eat and drink.

I pointed this out in the context of the Mass in my previous post to try and make that distinction a bit more clear.

In other words, you are not required to drink of the cup, the priest is, as part of the Mass offering though, fulfilling the command at the Last Supper. The Mass is offered in Remembrance of Him. We then partake of the Mass in the Eucharist and either form of bread or wine receives fully the body and blood BECAUSE of the action of the priest. Only one form is necessary to receive the body and blood. The Church allows both forms now, but the command of our Lord is already fulfilled by virtue of the Mass itself through the priest. It is not fulfilled through us receiving both forms. Without a priest, you have nothing…We are the beneficiaries.

I think a lot of the confusion is in the misunderstanding of roles proper to the priesthood and those of the laity. The Laity are not priests for this purpose.

Joe B

so the eating /drinking command was only given to the Apostles, the priests, so as long as priests do it the command is fulfilled?

Didn’t Jesus also say that in order to have eternal life one must eat and drink? Or does the action of the priest cover for all the believers as well?

thanks

 

[RB2]

Other posts showed that the Church teachs that if you partake only of the Eucharist and not the Chalice that you are receiving all…It is Church teaching and is consistent witht the Tridentine Mass where only the Eucharist is offered… and may I say that was the standard for about 500 years …if I am not wrong on this point!?

Additionally, other measures outside of church that I take to avoid illness

1. dont rest your hands on the order counter at fast food restaurants or any public counter. Everyone in these establishemts goes through this point and everyone has a chance to sneeze, cough and put their hands down on this counter during flu season
   and at best these areas are cleaned periodically with the same dirty rag.
2. free samples at Starbucks, usually little cakes or cookies that are uncovered and set next to the cash register where everyone lines up and again has their turn sick or not , to sneeze and cough on these before you choose one. The medium of this food stuff is perfect for prolonging the life of these germs etc.

So if you think about it, there are general helpful ways to avoid unknowlingly picking up the cold or making yourself a flu statistic and spending possibly a week in bed when there are some sensibly high target things to avoid that wont make you a victim of the things going around in the general public.

 

[cheddarsox]

What about folks with coeliac disease? Must they consume the host even if it will eventually cause serious physical harm? The problem with all the arguments I see here is they leave out the authority of the Church to regulate the sacraments.

I am not arguing that anyone must consume both.

I was just curious why the “eat, drink” command of Christ is not followed by everyone. The Catholic explanation has been provided, and clearly, it is within the right and duty of the Church to decide these things.

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Brendan]

Theologically you are correct. However, when you drink from the cup, you are not eating, in the literal definition of the word “eat.” If you try to chew wine, its impossible, so you are literally drinking, but you are receiving both body and blood.

Can you chew Blood?, Can you drink Flesh?

But that is exactly what we are doing when we recieve from a single species.

How do you explain it then.

A Protestant would say that it is not the literal Body of Christ as it doesn’t appear to be. But yet your claim rests on a similar foundation.

Your entire argument seems to be based on how our body reacts to the accidents of the species. Can you honestly claim that bodily reactions to a particular species in any way describe the Truth of what occurs in the Sacrament.

Same thing when receiving the host, you are receiving the body and blood of Christ, but the action you are performing is eating, not drinking.

Once again, can Living Blood be chewed? Can Living Flesh be drunk?

I would say yes, as I do it every Sunday at least.

 

[LilyM]

You are correct, and when we recieve either species, we both EAT and DRINK.

We have to. In the chalice we recieve the Flesh of our Lord. Do you drink flesh? No, of course not. So how is the Flesh of our Lord consumed when we recieve the chalice. By eating it of course.

Or mouths might not react to eating this way as it would ordinary food, but physical reactions do not define what we are consuming; no more so that the physical reactions of our eyes, fingers or nose define the contents of the chalice.

So yes, when our mouths ‘drink’ from the chalice, we EAT the Body of Our Lord, just as literally as it is the Real Presence.

Good point. Made me think of two things. Firstly a baby who in spite of being on an entirely breastmilk and/or formula (liquid) diet is still said to ‘feed’ or ‘have feedings’ and so on.

Secondly - all the people in hospital who are given liquids and food via nasogastric tubes.

Certainly it’s liquified food, certainly they don’t do any chewing or swallowing. It’s very similar in most every respect to giving them water or other liquids via that same tube.

Yet they are still said to be ‘fed’ at times rather than ‘given drink’.

So the terms ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ are very flexible indeed.

 

[2livfree]

No, I always receive if offered.
The definition of eat- to put in the mouth, chew, and swallow. In the medical field we do not consider being fed via tube eating; it is considered nourishment. Also breastfeeding and such is not considered eating it is being fed (receiving nourishment).

 

[LilyM]

No, I always receive if offered.
The definition of eat- to put in the mouth, chew, and swallow. In the medical field we do not consider being fed via tube eating; it is considered nourishment. Also breastfeeding and such is not considered eating it is being fed (receiving nourishment).

All respect - my parents are doctors, I know the medical profession always uses appropriate and precise terminology :yup: I’m talking of the common or garden understanding of the words, not the medical.

‘Feed’ odinarily implies solids - you don’t feed someone orange juice, no matter how nourishing it is, ‘drink’ usually implies liquids, no-one ‘drinks’ a crown roast of lamb even if it were to be pulverised and passed into their feeding tube (I know that’s almost certainly not the way feeding tubes work, I’m making an obvious example)

I didn’t mention the definition of ‘eat’ at all but this is my take on it. God the Father is always referred to as just that - ‘He’, ‘Father’ all the masculine forms of address. Does that mean we honestly believe He has a gender? Quite probably not - we do know that Christ, second person of the Trinity, chose to adresss the first person of that same Blessed Trinity in masculine terms.

And so it makes sense to me that the idea of ‘food’ or ‘drink’ (Christ himself calls His flesh real food and His blood real drink) can come first and people can work backwards and use the most natural terms which are ‘eat’ for flesh and ‘drink’ for blood.

It also makes sense to me that Body and Blood are both contained in the Host - I’ve never eaten a steak that didn’t have some of the blood of the animal still in it, in cooked or raw form. The flesh and blood are pretty much inseparable.

And if you look carefully you’ll see the priest put a small piece of Host into the Chalice as well, just before Communion, so that the Chalice too indisputably unites Body and Blood. So either form is complete.

 

[JButky]

so the eating /drinking command was only given to the Apostles, the priests, so as long as priests do it the command is fulfilled?

Didn’t Jesus also say that in order to have eternal life one must eat and drink? Or does the action of the priest cover for all the believers as well?

thanks

Personally, I think we are getting too wrapped up in the process of what is eating and what is drinking. As a sign, it is built into the Mass that way, there is no question as far as that is concerned. The Church teaches that you are receiving both the body and blood fully in either form… Literally…no sign on that level…

Sacraments are mysteries, I’m content to leave it at that and remind everyone that you cannot fully understand it. If you have received the Eucharist in either form you have done both actions. Don’t be fooled by the appearance…it’s the substance that matters…You are seeing only the appearance of eating and drinking while substantially in either form you are both eating and drinking. If that is not true then somehow you are saying the Church has taught in error. And I don’t see how you can go that route because it leads to grave error.

to reiterate…just remember…it’s a mystery…

Joe B

 

[CatholicSam]

I try to receive the Precious Blood whenever I can. But these are some reasons why I do not, from time to time:

1. Carrying a wiggly baby/toddler–not worth the risk of a spill.
2. When I’m sick.
3. If the chalice is empty by the time I get to it or if it is not offered for some reason (Communion Service, etc.).

But if none of those reasons are present, I do try to receive the Precious Blood. The OP mentioned that he is affraid of a spill. I used to sit in the front of the church (pre-baby days ), and I would be one of the first ones up for Holy Communion. Sometimes I was quite disturbed to see how full the chalice was. It seemed like an accident waiting to happen . So I would take an extra-big sip to help get the volume down to a safe level I especially worry about very young children and the “shaky” elderly.

 

[OldRiteFan]

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 **?

Hmmm new at this but I know for a fact I heard Jimmy Akin advise (on Catholic Answers Live) that intinction is definately prohibited-don’t recall any cites by him (not sure he did) but I certainly would not argue his understanding of licit and illicit in the mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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 **?

Hmmm new at this but I know for a fact I heard Jimmy Akin advise (on Catholic Answers Live) that intinction is definately prohibited-don’t recall any cites by him (not sure he did) but I certainly would not argue his understanding of licit and illicit in the mass.

I don’t know how far back Jimmy was talking about, but SELF-intinction is prohibited now. That is to say, one cannot receive the Most Sacred Body from one minister and then carry It to the minister with the Chalice and then dip the Host into the Most Preciious Blood before consuming it. It is perfectly licit for a priest to administer Holy Communion by intinction, dipping the Host into the Most Precious Blood, then placing it into the communicants mouth.

 

[OldRiteFan]

Yes-I apologize for not doing more homework, but after I did do the research found out this is what he was referring to, self intinction.

 

[dympnha]

I have no desire to share spit with 50 other people so I don’t partake from the chalice.

 

[Kevin42]

I have to admit, that the thought of dropping it absolutely horrifies me. I can just see myself dropping it and spilling the blood of our Lord. While I figure the chances of this are slim, I would rather not even risk it. When I think of becoming a priest I think about this happening sometimes and it really scares me. I am just fine receiving Christ in the form of the bread.

 

[dalesmom]

I know this sounds so simplistic, but as a new convert, I love to have the chalice offered. I have the body of Christ in my mouth and let it disolve in His warm comforting blood in my mouth. I feel that warm loving embrace through my whole body and know that Christ is with me body and soul.

 

[turtleoompa]

I prefer to partake of the Host only. As a past EMHC I noticed as I gave people the Host there would be sores on their tongues or mouths and then watched them go take the Cup. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Also I would see children take the Cup and notice saliva dripping down the Cup with a little Host on it. We have glass Cups so you can see everything. We also are dealing with some abuses dealing with the use of EMHC’s in our parish. I feel the sanctity of the precious Blood and Body is at risk with the use of EMHC. But I know we need them. We are working on correcting these abuses(pouring precious blood after consecration into the cups, use of glass cups, the EMHC on the altar while Priest takes communion, EMHC purifying the vessels). It is too much for me to take, but I am trying to assist in correcting these matters.

 

[Theresa65]

Yes, I have never partaken of the chalice except on two very special occasions and I understand it is not permitted at every Mass anyway as it is now. And it is true that you cannot separate the body from the blood nor the blood from the body, so it is not necessary to receive under both kinds.

 

[Theresa65]

I know this sounds so simplistic, but as a new convert, I love to have the chalice offered. I have the body of Christ in my mouth and let it disolve in His warm comforting blood in my mouth. I feel that warm loving embrace through my whole body and know that Christ is with me body and soul.

Communion under both kinds is not permitted as an every day occurrence at Mass but on very special feast days, due to the danger of spillage, not being able to estimate how much wine needs to be consecrate - if too little not everyone can receive - if too much the priest alone has to consume the remainder. It is not necessary anyway because you received the full sacrament when you eat Our Lord’s body because there is not flesh without blood and you get the same feeling you describe just receiving the blessed Eucharist alone.

 

[cheddarsox]

I prefer to partake of the Host only. As a past EMHC I noticed as I gave people the Host there would be sores on their tongues or mouths and then watched them go take the Cup. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Also I would see children take the Cup and notice saliva dripping down the Cup with a little Host on it. We have glass Cups so you can see everything. We also are dealing with some abuses dealing with the use of EMHC’s in our parish. I feel the sanctity of the precious Blood and Body is at risk with the use of EMHC. But I know we need them. We are working on correcting these abuses(pouring precious blood after consecration into the cups, use of glass cups, the EMHC on the altar while Priest takes communion, EMHC purifying the vessels). It is too much for me to take, but I am trying to assist in correcting these matters.

While I understand the “ick” factor, I encourage you to think on this. What you see…this is humanity. This is the Body of Christ. This is the Church, the people for whom Christ came to live and die for. This is the communion of believers…the old, the feeble, the young, the ill, the revererant, and those who don’t quite “get it” yet. This is what people are committing to when they take the bread and drink the cup, not to turn away from this people, this Body of Christ.

Drinking from a mutual cup is a strong symbol, it shows a deep and willing trust and commitment to join our lot with those with whom we share the common cup.

It is not surprise, or coincidence that many times the reason people don’t share the cup is that they are not willing to “share” whatever misfortunes might be concealed there. That is one of the symbols of cup sharing. We know the danger and the risk, but we decide to take it as our own. We say to the community, your lot is my lot, we are one.

I am not trying to denigrate anyone who for any reason chooses not to take the cup. I just wanted to share some of that symbolism, and offer something to think about.

Sometimes we offhandedly say “church family”, but haven’t truly taken that on in our hearts and souls. We use the term “communion”, but still hold back, would rather not sit behind THAT family…etc. Sometimes it is good for us to honestly explore the depth of our commitment, not merely to the institutional church, the set of teachings, but to this very earthy Body of Christ. Not just the purified Divine Body received in the Sacrament, but the less than perfect human Body which we are called to be a part of.