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.
gus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Praying for you both.👍
 
I do not partake, since the parish I am in allows chalaces to be crystal (they contend this is not glass, but precious metal). This is problematic for me.
 
Gene_Church said:
I do not partake, since the parish I am in allows chalaces to be crystal (they contend this is not glass, but precious metal). This is problematic for me.
Click to expand...
Maybe the crystal is actually transubstantiated into gold, but it simply retains the accidents of glass? 😃
 
GENERAL NOTICE

The question for this thread is:
Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?
Click to expand...
Those who wish to post on other subjects are welcome to join an ongoing thread on the topic of their choice or initiate one in the appropriate forum.

Those who have a preferment for Traditional Rite and practice are invited to post in the forum CAF provides for this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102

Your assistance in not hijacking threads is as always appreciated and will prevent thread closure and interruptions to posting privileges.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Receiving under one species is the common way. Keep in mind that the Pope is talking about the majority of the Church, of which, 2/3rds exist in 2nd and 3rd world countries. In other words, we in Western Europe and North American, make up less than 1/3 of the Catholic Church.

Either way, we in the US are not prohibited, but allowed to receive under both species. IF that ever changes, no one should feel that they are prohibited, or less Catholic, when receiving from the cup. My guess is that we in the US will be fortunate to have a priest say Mass, and receiving from the cup will be a non-issue.

Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, there has been a marked decline in the Faith and in vocations to the priesthood since the Second Vatican Council and particularly in the countries like the United States where things have been liberalised - not so in the other countries you mention where vocations are flourishing. I have been to the Tridentine Mass where the majority of those attending are young men, that tells us something. We should be one Holy Catholic and Universal with the same Mass - not the mismash you get in every parish where things are done differently and also one language means that you can go anywhere in the world and understand the Mass - not like the “Mass” I attended in Holland in 1989 where the priest said Mass in a grey suit and red tie - the only thing I could recognise was the Our Father - thankfully things are being pulled back. I have just been to a Tridentine Mass - received communion, felt no less Catholic for receiving Our Lord’s body and blood under one kind and not a lay minister in sight - very peacful because there were no lay people fighting one another as to who was going to do what - everybody is equal at the Tridentine Mass - not so with the Novus Ordo where people are constantly bickering as to who does what and who does it better. As far as I’m concerned as long as I can get to the Tridentine Mass they can swing on a chandelier or have their mimes and all the terrible guitar music that’s driving people out of the churches as they’re sick of it. People are saying they can’t get out of the Church fast enough on Sundays and that the loud music makes them bad tempered. When the band wasn’t able to play one Sunday they found it peaceful and could actually think about where they were and pray to God. They realised what was happening with all that music - bringing street music into the church like a disco and a lot of the lyrics provocative with the women in the band gyrating their hips, etc. Deo gratias for Pope Benedict and the Tridentine Mass it will restore the priesthood and the Church.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Receiving under one species is the common way. Keep in mind that the Pope is talking about the majority of the Church, of which, 2/3rds exist in 2nd and 3rd world countries. In other words, we in Western Europe and North American, make up less than 1/3 of the Catholic Church.

Either way, we in the US are not prohibited, but allowed to receive under both species. **

Jim**

One thing that you didn’t quite gather from the document was that Cardinal Arinze was not ever restricting the faithful’s ability to recieve both species. THe ability to recieve both species by intinction is available “always and everywhere”.

This is seperate from any norms that bishops might establish for the reception of both species outside of intinction.

Everyone, anywhere in the Church is permitted to recieve via intinction. This is not true for reception from the chalice.
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Teresa:

You’re misinformed.
  1. The administration of Communion under both Sacred Species is permitted, not merely on special occasions, but where a bishop deems it appropriate. A bishop may deem it appropriate (any other opinion notwithstanding) for each and every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. There are prudential reasons not to, for very large gatherings, etc.
  2. Many thing which you mention as abuses are, in point of fact, NOT abuses. If they are permitted by the competent authority, either the Holy See or the bishops acting with the Holy See’s delegated authority, they are by definition not an abuse.
  3. EDIT Communion in the hand and Communion under both Species have antecedents in the Catholicism, therefore they are hardly Protestant, even if it were Protestants that harkended back and insisted that we had to revert to Communion in the hand and Communion under both Sacred Species. We don’t, because the Church possess the authority given Her by Christ to govern the Sacraments. Form, matter, and intention are immutable. Disciplines are not. The Church exercises Her prudential wisdom in these matters. It’s as big a mistake to say that we must receive Communion in the hand and under both Sacred Species as it is to say we cannot receive Communion in the Hand and under both Sacred Species. They’re both incorrect.
Click to expand...
As this is thread is under Sacraments and Liturgy it seems strange that one cannot refer to the Latin Mass which is part of the Church’s liturgy so should be able to be discussed under this thread. The moderator seems to kill the thread by stifling the natural flow of thought.
 
Marian_Carroll said:
GENERAL NOTICE

The question for this thread is:

Those who wish to post on other subjects are welcome to join an ongoing thread on the topic of their choice or initiate one in the appropriate forum.

Those who have a preferment for Traditional Rite and practice are invited to post in the forum CAF provides for this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102

Your assistance in not hijacking threads is as always appreciated and will prevent thread closure and interruptions to posting privileges.
Click to expand...
It is not a question of hijacking threads it is just a natural flow because sacraments and liturgy are interlinked. The Tridentine rite is part of our liturgy and so the moderator should not be interferring with the natural flow of the thread and as a result killing off the thread. I note the over all title of this thread is LITURGY and the SACRAMENTS so everyone who has been edited out was entitled to post here - the Moderator is incorrect or should rename the whole section and take out LITURGY
 
I do not mainly because the few times I have partaken of the chalice I became sick with colds, etc. The last time I did it, I got mono - and, no, I definitely did not get it from kissing anyone, nor anywhere else since I never drank out of other people’s glasses or dishes, etc… Although it was definitely from the germs of another college student since I took the precious blood at our mass on campus.

The other reason, too, is that I’ve become turned off by extraordinary ministers who try to force you into taking the chalice after receiving the host by getting into your face almost immediately after receiving the host and then give you a disdainful or disappointed look after refusing them, respectfully. Many of the parishes I’ve attended have ceased offering the chalice, so I don’t experience that anymore, and most of the time, I’m cantoring, so I don’t have to deal with it anyway.

If intinction were brought back, I would partake in both, though.
 
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...
How about because Christ said so . Drink this cup.
 
houseofsaul said:
How about because Christ said so . Drink this cup.
Click to expand...
In RCIA, you will learn that due to the error of people thinking that they didn’t get ‘complete Jesus’ unless they took both cup and host (blood and body), as though the Body wasn’t complete without the Blood, and the Blood without the Body, meaning that Jesus was ‘two separate pieces’ (yuck), many centuries ago the Catholic Church only gave the congregation the host (body) because ALL CHRIST was contained therein. It kept a lot of problems at bay (people were no longer swilling from the cup, dropping the precious blood, etc), or getting upset if they didn’t ‘get both’.

Then the US bishops, from a praiseworthy attempt, feeling that humanity had advanced enough NOT to get the wrong idea and were ‘ready’ to receive both signs with knowledge and reverence, allowed the reception IF the individual bishops or priests so CHOSE.

IOW, there are MANY parishes in the US where only the Host is offered. And it is perfectly fine. One gets JUST AS MUCH JESUS through the Host as through Host and Chalice.

Unfortunately, people are NOT as advanced as the bishops thought. Instead of people understanding the Real Presence and receiving reverently, people think of the Eucharist as a symbol and get upset if they only get “HALF OF JESUS” (as they improperly understand), or think they MUST have both because only one is not ‘complete’. They’re right back to where they were centuries ago.

The bottom line is that while it is a ‘fuller’ sign for those who are in a state of grace and proper understanding, it is not ‘required’ that any Catholic receive ‘both cup and host/blood and body’ as first, only ONE of the two contains it ‘all’, and second, no Catholic need receive the Eucharist AT ALL at Mass, especially if he/she is not in a state of grace.

Anyway, God’s blessing to you. It sounds to me as though you will very likely be one of those who understands the teaching and will happily partake of BOTH Body and Blood, and that is perfectly fine and wonderful; just as wonderful would be if you understood and took only one, but again, it is up to you. As I said, I think you DO understand and will be a good example to your fellow Catholics once you are received into the Church.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
In RCIA, you will learn that due to the error of people thinking that they didn’t get ‘complete Jesus’ unless they took both cup and host (blood and body), as though the Body wasn’t complete without the Blood, and the Blood without the Body, meaning that Jesus was ‘two separate pieces’ (yuck), many centuries ago the Catholic Church only gave the congregation the host (body) because ALL CHRIST was contained therein. It kept a lot of problems at bay (people were no longer swilling from the cup, dropping the precious blood, etc), or getting upset if they didn’t ‘get both’.

Then the US bishops, from a praiseworthy attempt, feeling that humanity had advanced enough NOT to get the wrong idea and were ‘ready’ to receive both signs with knowledge and reverence, allowed the reception IF the individual bishops or priests so CHOSE.

IOW, there are MANY parishes in the US where only the Host is offered. And it is perfectly fine. One gets JUST AS MUCH JESUS through the Host as through Host and Chalice.

Unfortunately, people are NOT as advanced as the bishops thought. Instead of people understanding the Real Presence and receiving reverently, people think of the Eucharist as a symbol and get upset if they only get “HALF OF JESUS” (as they improperly understand), or think they MUST have both because only one is not ‘complete’. They’re right back to where they were centuries ago.

The bottom line is that while it is a ‘fuller’ sign for those who are in a state of grace and proper understanding, it is not ‘required’ that any Catholic receive ‘both cup and host/blood and body’ as first, only ONE of the two contains it ‘all’, and second, no Catholic need receive the Eucharist AT ALL at Mass, especially if he/she is not in a state of grace.

Anyway, God’s blessing to you. It sounds to me as though you will very likely be one of those who understands the teaching and will happily partake of BOTH Body and Blood, and that is perfectly fine and wonderful; just as wonderful would be if you understood and took only one, but again, it is up to you. As I said, I think you DO understand and will be a good example to your fellow Catholics once you are received into the Church.
Click to expand...
I just don’t want to be one of those people on Judgment Day trying to explain to Christ why I felt I only had to obey half of his command not whole. If Jesus felt it only necessary to eat his body and not drink his cup, he wouldn’t have given the command. Nor would he felt the need to repeat his command several times throughout scripture.

I have never attended a parish that did not offer both, nor will I attend a parish that feels that way.

Question? Does your parish offer both? Do you partake of both? There have been many different reasons given why both were not offered, are not offered and why even if they are one is not required to partake of both. Why would anyone spit on Jesus by not partaking of both?
 
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.)

Not hygenic. One wine is alcohol, thus an antiseptic. two, Catholics believe in transubstantiation so it’s Christ Blood. Do you believe Christ is unhygenic.

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...
 
Andruschak said:
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:
Click to expand...
Remember the wine is changed, so I find it very unlikely that you would be tempted to return to alcoholism from the Eucharist.
 
houseofsaul said:
Remember the wine is changed, so I find it very unlikely that you would be tempted to return to alcoholism from the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
This thread is from 2007. If you’d like to get some current (name removed by moderator)ut, please start a new thread on the subject.
 
It really troubles me to hear folks using illness as a reason to avoid following the commands of Jesus.

If you believe you will become ill from sharing the cup, IMHO one should evaluate themselves to see if they are partaking of the Eucharist for the right reasons.

Sorry Jesus, I thought I might get sick if I drank from the chalice that I believe beomes your Blood.

If one gets sick from the Eucharist, it was partaken of IMHO unworthily.
 
Lapey said:
This thread is from 2007. If you’d like to get some current (name removed by moderator)ut, please start a new thread on the subject.
Click to expand...
So these opinions are no longer valid…no need for a new threrad I have read enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top