Drinking from the cup of wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter kitah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you believe that Christ won’t allow you to get sick from the shared Chalice, that’s great, and perhaps God is especially protecting you. I don’t normally imbibe in alcohol, and when I became Catholic 4 years ago I chose to usually just receive the Host. When I started playing/singing with and directing Spanish Choir, I started to sometimes drink from the cup with the girls just before sitting back at the piano to start the Communion songs. I noticed a kinda fuzzy relaxed feeling after just the one sip of wine settled my nerves to play better. I liked it. But, after battling several severe bouts of unusually bad colds and flu, I wondered about germs on the chalice. This past year I have avoided the cup, just received the Host, and have only had 3 short mild illnesses. So, for me, it appears that just receiving the Host is best. But if you have a feeling of protection or Divine advice , then of course the full communion is best.
 
The law of averages says; that if I take the cup often enough, someone will go before me with infectious germs. I always take the cup whenever it is on offer.

The only exception is when I have a cold, then I won’t. This is because I do not want to make the people behind me feel uncomfortable. I still believe that our Lord will protect them from my germs, but I would not like to rock anyone’s faith.
 
I don’t know why drinking the Eucharistic cup (not “wine”) has become so popular. I’m not so sure about the sanitation of the cup, and there’s no sanitation regarding people grabbing the cup to drink from it.

Above and beyond these whining remarks of mine, the issue is one of faith. When we commune with the Eucharistic body of Christ, we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

The issue of people coming to church with an illness was brought up by my pastor, and he advised people who were ill to stay away. It’s not just the cup, it is virtually impossible to sanitize all the pews, hymnals. door knobs, etc. to avoid all risk of communicable disease.
 
Receiving the Precious Blood is entirely one’s choice. The Body of Christ is sufficient.

That being said, if the concern is that you might receive a germ from the chalice, we touch literally thousands of common surfaces every day, and then touch our faces. I’m not convinced you’re at any greater risk from the chalice than from a doorknob.
 
I just dont see the need. Once you take the Eucharist you have taking christ in body and blood, there is no reason to drink from the cup.
 
Last edited:
No Catholic is ever required to partake of the cup, if you need to tell him that to make him feel better. Drinking the Precious Blood is not necessary if one only wishes to take communion under the species of bread alone.
 
Reminds me of the book animal farm.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

“All Catholics are full, but some catholics are more fuller than others.”
― Philipl, Catholic Answers Forum.
 
Last edited:
I think if you read a few more lines you will see that the opposite of your statement is presented.
 
philipl said:
GIRM section 281
Click to expand...
That is exactly what is says. You just don’t like the fact that what is says. If you take a glass and fill it up 100% (eucharist) then you add more to the glass (wine) and it spills over, you haven’t added anything to the glass. Just as taking from the chalice adds nothing to the person. You may “Feel” more complete but you’re not
 
Laymen aren’t supposed to be dipping their own host in the chalice by themselves.

And there is no need to receive both species. You receive the FULLNESS of Christ when you receive under one species.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Laymen aren’t supposed to be dipping their own host in the chalice by themselves.

And there is no need to receive both species. You receive the FULLNESS of Christ when you receive under one species.
Click to expand...
I didn’t specify who would dip, just that it would solve the issue of touching.

Of course, either species contains both, that goes without saying.
Having said that, I view it as weak liturgy and spiritually stingy to just offer the one species unless there is a very demanding practical reason (semi-improvised deathbed Eucharist might be one of them).
It’s a solemn meal, not a snack on the run.

But again, you do what you do, I’ll stick to our way. I just asked a practical question of how to handle the Blood.
 
In Italy where we live for about half the year, the Precious Blood is never offered to the congregation - the only time that happens is when there’s a wedding, and then the couple are offered the chalice. I’ve been to Masses in different parts of Italy, and this seems to be standard practice.
 
St. Paul is not describing the Eucharist as the cause of the sickness and death he mentions. Rather, it is the natural result of the community’s neglect and exclusion of the poor at the celebrations and in general. This is the cause of weakness and death. The inequity being practiced in their community was also being reflected in their Celebration of Eucharist. Indeed, it contradicted the very meaning and purpose of Eucharist, unity with God and one another. For their lack of unity with their poorest brothers and sisters makes their act of Communion a lie. This lack of charity is why they, the wealthier members, receive “unworthily.”

1 Cor. 11:20-21

“20 When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper,
21 for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.”

In the Early Church, the Celebration of the Eucharist was a full meal still strongly resembling the celebration of Passover. The poor were being excluded from the meal portion. By the time they were allowed entry, if at all, the substantial foods were already consumed and the poor, as usual, were left to go hungry.

This neglect and abuse, according to St. Paul, brings judgement upon those who are greedy, exclusive and lack charity towards those who are poor and weak. He is not saying that the Eucharist is a divine curse.

I assure you, your friend was not made sick by the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Last edited:
The body and blood of our Lord should bring healing and unity. It should bring us closer to the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and to each other.

We bless the lord and give thanks for all he has done; Amen.
 
Oh I see.

I believe intinction would be the best way to go.

The liturgy isn’t dry if you’re just receiving under one species.
 
So its fuller than full, Right? If it makes you feel good. Go for it. If you think it makes you a more fuller catholic, good for you. When we get to the Gates of Heaven we will both be judge the same way.
 
SnowRose said:
I didn’t specify who would dip, just that it would solve the issue of touching.
Click to expand...
The norm for Melkites is for the priest to instinct and drop in the mouth. (this is fairly recent; just a couple of centuries, iirc)

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top