Absolutely! I receive on the tongue in a most reverent way, I don’t take the blood of Christ because I find it to be unsanitary, but as I pass the cup of the most precious blood I stop and bow because Christ is there as well. I am happy to see both species being offered at my church but some administering the Holy Communion don’t wipe and turn the cup. I wonder if they just were not taught correctly, or just forget.
That’s a good idea. I never thought of that.
I’ve come to think that intinction WOULD be the best solution to a number of difficulties (none of which were ever so large in my mind as to absolutely preclude the reception of the Chalice by the laity).
We receive by intinction at my (Latin rite) parish. Is this abnormal?
I’m sure this works well since you have no EMHC’s. We would have a problem if it was this past 9:30 Mass without a Deacon and estimated 1000 people. For everyone to receive from the priest by Intinction would be impossible. I think when we are over 500 people (none of our Masses are under 800 except maybe the 7:30am) that Communion under one form is the answer. Daily Mass, Holy day Mass usually less than a couple hundred, Intinction would work.
Actually, we have the same problem, between 750-1000 per mass. We still have the chalice and it seems no problem, except when the Chalice is empty, that’s it. Intinction would mean everyone recieved both of the Sacred Species. The problem at our church is that if one of the priests isn’t actually offering the Mass, he’s not “on.” This is odd to me, as every other parish I’ve been associated with had the other priests on staff (or supply) assist with Communion (we still had EMCHs, but far fewer), as I personally think is proper, it being a “working” day for them. If the other priests were helping and we intincted, we wouldn’t need EMHCs at *any *Sunday Mass (and I’m not objecting to EMHCs, I’m generally grateful for the service they render to the Church, esp. to the sick and homebound) and certainly not at daily Mass.
The accident of wine is just an accident that might or might or might not have some effects like the wine. Prudence (a virtue) should tell us not to receive from the chalice when we are sick. Faith should tell us that we should receive from the chalice without fear (the Holy Spirit is in control). Fear in this situation is is lack of trust in God. Here we are not testing God, we are submitting to Him. Due reverence may stop us from receiving more than one species and I think that it is considered to be acceptable.Please refer to Church documents to show that your statement is correct. The Church has not changed in two thousand years.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here, but if you’re implying that after the consecration, there is no alchohol in the chalice … that is not what the Church teaches. The alchohol is one of the accidents that remains after consecration. It is the “substance” of the chalice that changes during transubstantiation, not the ingredients. It is accurate to say that after consecration there is no longer “wine” in the chalice, but all of the ingredients (such as alchohol) will still be present if you did a chemical analysis of the contents.There in no alcohol in the cup after the consecration, we have to accept that!
Please refer to the Church document that says that alcohol is one of the accidents that remain. The accident is only one (associated with our perception), that it is the way we are allowed to see the consecrated specie. After transubstantiation the accident of wine (and bread) may still be present (does not have to) and it has always been in my case.
The appearance of alcohol if you do a chemical analysis is due to the accident of wine, but because its substance is different it does not have to behave like alcohol from every point of view. If we were to assume that than we would start to believe in Consubstantiation.
), but I’m wondering what you would disagree with in Mr. Keating’s explanation of substance/accidents/properties/appearance, etc.I should have been more thorough. Our priest offers communion by intinction. You have to get in his line to receive this way. We DO have EMHCs, who only offer the host (no chalice). The chalice is only used by the priest and the several people in our parish who have wheat allergies. We are a large parish with several hundred to one thousand people at each Sunday Mass. But we can still receive by intinction.
As evidenced by the fact that I couldn’t even spell “alcohol” correctlyPlease refer to the Church document that says that alcohol is one of the accidents that remain. The accident is only one (associated with our perception), that it is the way we are allowed to see the consecrated specie. After transubstantiation the accident of wine (and bread) may still be present (does not have to) and it has always been in my case.
My take is that we tend to use todays scientific terms that are based on our perception thorough senses or tools to define accidents and substance. In the case of accidents the scientific description is quite appropriate, in the case of substance it can be too approximative.
, I’m not the smartest guy in the world. Therefore, could I please ask you to clarify what you’re saying here? I honestly don’t understand it. Could you explain it in simpler terms? If the accidents remain after transubstatiation, how is it that the alcohol does not? I want to make sure that I understand transubstantiation correctly.Uh, yes, there absolutely IS alcohol in it! As an EHMC who has had to consume varying amounts of precious blood in the past, I can tell you there definitely IS alcohol present!There in no alcohol in the cup after the consecration, we have to accept that!
There is only the Blood of Christ in the Chalice after Consecration. There is no wine or alcohol. However the Blood of Christ has the same accidents, look, feel, taste and properties of wine, including the alcoholic properties.
First of all I get the proper spelling because I have an automatic spell checker that shows a nasty red line when I mistype something. Second I am not the smartest guy either, and that is why my explanation can be confusing. I am simply saying that an accident is something associated with our perception. My expectation when I drink from the chalice is that it will taste like wine, and that if I drink to much of it I will feel inebriated like if I were to drink true wine because of the alcohol inside. That is because God decided that I just must believe in the True Presence and that I do not need further evidence. However, that it is just my expectation but it does not mean that things must go that way. The Church does not say that it will always look, taste, and affect us like true wine (or bread), it just says that it is a reasonable expectation for the accident. Only God decides how it looks, tastes, and affects us by changing the accident to satisfy our needs accordingly to His will.As evidenced by the fact that I couldn’t even spell “alcohol” correctly
Thanks,
Gary
Keating:Cristiano,
Did you read post #14 (mine)? It’s not a Church document, and I’m not that riled up about the issue to find one (yet!
(I’m sincerely asking only because it seemed like such a clearly worded, succint explanation to me; it’s hard for me to understand what we disagree on.)
True statement
That it is his own opinion and I would tend to expect that sometimes the contaminants will not be neutralized. However, he is putting a limit to what God can do by using an absolute statement. Drinking from a chalice where you are sure that there are dangerous contaminants is matter of your intent and faith. We must remember that sometime there is a fine line between faith in the Lord and testing Him.
Where does it say that the church ask those who have colds to refrain from the cup?