Last in Line for the Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Augustine

Guest
You’re the last one in line to receive the Precious Blood and the chalice still contains a sizable amount. What do you do?

:blessyou:
 
first of all, becuase i usually go to Mass before breakfast, the accidents of the wine can be a little unsettling. Secondly, those giving communion have guidlines for what to do with any left over after the end of communion, so i need not help them
 
Augustine said:
You’re the last one in line to receive the Precious Blood and the chalice still contains a sizable amount. What do you do?

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
I will drink a good mouth full.

If there is a little bit left I’ll consume what is left.
 
From a EMHC’s stand-point…

On occasions when I have just a sip of wine left in my small chalice, I will whisper to the person to go ahead and finish it.
 
The best solution is to not even offer the chalice. Receiving under both forms is not necessary and adds nothing sacramentally.
 
Lepanto said:
The best solution is to not even offer the chalice. Receiving under both forms is not necessary and adds nothing sacramentally.
Click to expand...
From the GIRM:
“240. Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller light shines on the sign of the eucharistic banquet. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.[68]”

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with receiving under both species - in fact, it seems like quite the contrary from what you have stated… Then again, maybe I’m just reading too much into the words “adds nothing sacramentally”? 🤷
 
marchoi said:
From the GIRM:
“240. Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller light shines on the sign of the eucharistic banquet. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.[68]”

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with receiving under both species - in fact, it seems like quite the contrary from what you have stated… Then again, maybe I’m just reading too much into the words “adds nothing sacramentally”? 🤷
Click to expand...
The GIRM confirms what I said. To receive from both species (instead of just one) is just a sign. Nothing is added sacramentally.

Once you’ve consumed the host, you don’t get “more” Jesus by drinking from the chalice.

Please see this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701lw.asp
 
Ahh… gotcha. I clearly misinterpreted what you meant by “adds nothing sacramentally.” True, when you receive any amount of either species, you received Jesus Christ wholly, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. But at the same time, to jump to the conclusion of “Let’s just not offer the Blood” seems to deprive the faithful of the additional sign (let’s call it that?) that reflects the fullness of the banquet, etc. etc. Basically, what I’m saying is, since the Church offers it for a good reason, is getting rid of it completely the proper response? It’s not like it adds no dimension to the meaning… You dig?
 
I’m an EMHC, so when I’m at another church, or “off duty” in my own church, I drink more than the usual sip, because it helps a bit from them having to consume after Mass.
 
In my parish, the EMHC will, after serving everyone in line, go to those who, for some reason, cannot physically approach the sanctuary for communion. So, even if I am the last in line, I take the usual sip, as there may be others who also need to receive from their seats.
 
“Chug” wasn’t an option 🙂

Yeah, I would drink maybe a larger sip, not a whole mouthful, to help out the minister so s/he doesn’t have so much left to consume. They’re there to serve, but I doubt they want to go home with a buzz from Jesus.
 
ChemicalBean said:
“Chug” wasn’t an option 🙂

Yeah, I would drink maybe a larger sip, not a whole mouthful, to help out the minister so s/he doesn’t have so much left to consume. They’re there to serve, but I doubt they want to go home with a buzz from Jesus.
Click to expand...
I prefer the term “holy intoxication.”
 
when in the chapel, I consume, because that is what we have been asked to do (Father is an elderly diabetic), and there is rarely more than a mouthful left.

in my home parish, and at the Basilica, the cup is not administered to the congregation except on certain feasts and solemnities and in any case by the time I receive the chalices are empty in any case.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
I will drink a good mouth full.

If there is a little bit left I’ll consume what is left.
Click to expand...
Ditto. It all depends upon how much is left. I would finish it if reasonable, and simply take a bigger drink if not. Hence, I chose the middle option. Of course, since when I attend the NO I am typically in the front pew, this situation almost never arises for me.😃
 
Augustine said:
You’re the last one in line to receive the Precious Blood and the chalice still contains a sizable amount. What do you do?

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
This depends on many factors. One is the local parish customs on the EM’s finishing the wine. Most EMs are instructed to finish what is left. It also depends on the person’s tolerance to alcohol. If you can tell the EM is elderly or some other reason they would not tolerate a large amount of alcohol, I would try to take more for their sake, to ease the “Holy Buzz” of too much wine (have had that happen to me many times).

Other times (small weekday mass without EMs), it depends on the priest. Some priests will explicitly tell the normal weekday crowd to finish it off for him (tolerance levels, upcoming meetings, etc…).
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Ditto. It all depends upon how much is left. I would finish it if reasonable, and simply take a bigger drink if not. Hence, I chose the middle option. Of course, since when** I attend the NO I am typically in the front pew, this situation almost never arises for me.:D**
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if I am in the front pew I am not supposed to drink from the chalice until it is empty?😃
 
Joannm said:
I prefer the term “holy intoxication.”
Click to expand...
Am I going to get extra time in Purgatory for finding this absolutely hilarious?! :rotfl:

My :twocents: regarding Lepanto’s opinion (which he has every right to have) on not allowing the laity to receive the Precious Blood: Jesus told us to “take and eat” and “take and drink,” and while of course we receive Him fully just by receiving the Host, my personal opinion is that we should receive the Cup as well. Unfortunately, the Cup is often subject to more abuses, but I think the problem lies in liturgical ignorance. I know of people who also are allergic to wheat, and as the accidents of bread remain, they would be unable to receive Our Lord in that form.

Since becoming Catholic, I receive from the Precious Blood (which as another poster said, can be a bit unsettling before breakfast at times), but you will always see me receiving the Host on the tongue. 😃
 
I worry about just how precious the Blood of Christ is once several people have partaken of it. I don’t think that transubstantiation prevents backwash. When I serve as extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, I always leave the remainder for the deacon because of that and also because it tastes like soy sauce.
 
To my surprise and shame I thought I was the last in line last weekend and so drank it all only to find that several people from the rear of the parish came up to partake of communion. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top