Mass

[billcu1]

Can someone explain to me why that taking only the host, the wafer is good enough and you don’t have to drink the wine? I don’t want to drink after anyone so I have never taken the wine. Jesus said do both didn’t he?

 

[Mary_Ellen]

Each species contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus so there’s no strict need to consume both.

When the priest offers the bread and wine/Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharistic Prayer he fulfills Christ’s command to “do this in remembrance of me.”

It is your choice as to whether you consume from the cup or not, there is no sin or judgment imposed upon you for not doing so.

 

[gracepoole]

Can someone explain to me why that taking only the host, the wafer is good enough and you don’t have to drink the wine? I don’t want to drink after anyone so I have never taken the wine. Jesus said do both didn’t he?

Just out of curiosity, why don’t you want to drink after someone else? I understand why those with compromised immunity don’t do so, why some don’t take wine during flu season, etc. But if we touch public doorknobs, tie shoelaces that have been outside our homes, flush public toilets, etc., it seems like we’re already exposed to plenty of germs. Again, I’m legitimately just curious – there’s no attack here.

 

[billcu1]

Just out of curiosity, why don’t you want to drink after someone else? I understand why those with compromised immunity don’t do so, why some don’t take wine during flu season, etc. But if we touch public doorknobs, tie shoelaces that have been outside our homes, flush public toilets, etc., it seems like we’re already exposed to plenty of germs. Again, I’m legitimately just curious – there’s no attack here.

I never have liked drinking after anyone. Since I was a boy I’ve just always been like that. IDK.

 

[gracepoole]

I never have liked drinking after anyone. Since I was a boy I’ve just always been like that. IDK.

I have my idiosyncrasies, too.

 

[agnes_therese]

I have my idiosyncrasies, too.

Don’t we all!

 

[coopnann]

I have been wondering this too. I know it is not required to do but wasn’t sure why.
I used to drink from the cup for a couple years, then in college I was diagnosed with Mono, which is highly contagious, and definitely spread through saliva.
The night before I was diagnosed, I had received communion with the cup, and feel like I exposed others to what I had.
And Mono symptoms don’t even start until 4-6 weeks after you get the virus, so I’d had it for a while before I felt sick, and was drinking from the communion cup.

I’d really like to receive communion from the cup again, but haven’t, due to above example.

 

[z_0101]

Perhaps the following article will help

(because this is an archived article and fairly old - it could be removed at any time, I quote it here for the sole purpose of educational and academic - it is copyrighted and remains the property of the entity(s) that originally published it):

CDC Says Communion Cup Risk Is Small

The Mountain Times Online
CDC Says Communion Cup Risk Is Small

By Scott Nicholson

Christmas is a time of ritual and tradition, and one practice linked closely with some denominations also raises concerns over communicable disease: the chalice or communal cup. Recent shortages of flu vaccines have caused some people to be more reluctant to share anything that could put them in the path of a harmful germ.

However, there is little to suggest that the spiritual comfort provided through communion is offset by a risk on the mortal plane.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has had a formal position on the issue for about two decades, though there has been no documented disease transmission from a communion cup.

A CDC statement says, “The consensus of the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis is that a theoretic risk of transmitting infectious diseases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetectable. The CDC has not been called on to investigate any episodes or outbreaks of infectious diseases that have been allegedly linked to the use of a common communion cup.”

However, the CDC warns that such transmissions may go undetected if there’s an outbreak or cluster of cases of a disease or if the diseases have other routes of transmission rather than oral, such as cold viruses that can be air-borne. The length of the disease’s incubation period may also make it difficult to rule out other modes of transmission.

Father John Schneider of St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church in Boone said his diocese has no formal policy regarding the chalice. However, the church bulletin runs notices that asks parishioners to use common sense in deciding whether to partake of the sacramental wine. Parishioners are asked to refrain from drinking from the communion chalice or holding hands during services if they are sick.

Those giving communion at St. Elizabeth’s also wipe the rim of the chalice with a napkin each time, and the staff washes their hands first with an antibacterial rinse. The wine also contains alcohol, which is believed to help inhibit the spread of germs. The church holds a daily mass on weekdays and four on weekends.

The Idaho Press-Tribune recently reported that a bishop told Vermont Catholics that, because of the flu vaccine shortage, congregants should abstain from the mass customs of sharing a chalice and shaking hands.

In Maine, a bishop said sharing a chalice and handshakes were always optional and that churchgoers may consider forgoing them if they have the flu or are worried about getting it.

The CDC said, “Experimental studies have shown that bacteria and viruses can contaminate a common communion cup and survive despite the alcohol content of the wine. Therefore, an ill person or asymptomatic carrier drinking from the common cup could potentially expose other members of the congregation to pathogens present in saliva. Were any diseases transmitted by this practice, they most likely would be common viral illnesses, such as the common cold.

“However, a recent study of 681 persons found that people who receive communion as often as daily are not at higher risk of infection compared with persons who do not receive communion or persons who do not attend Christian church services at all. In summary, the risk for infectious disease transmission by a common communion cup is very low, and appropriate safeguards — that is, wiping the interior and exterior rim between communicants, use of care to rotate the cloth during use, and use of a clean cloth for each service —would further diminish this risk.”

The CDC said churches may consider advising their congregations that sharing the communion cup is discouraged if a person has an active respiratory infection, such as the cold or flu or exhibits moist or open sores on their lips.

A source at St. Mary’s of the Hills Episcopal Church in Blowing Rock said it is helpful that the sacramental wine contains alcohol and that sick people generally refrain from taking communion.

Personally, I refrain when I know that I am sick… with anything other than allergies.
I also normally receive the host on the tongue; however, if sick, I will receive the host by hand, I don’t want to risk infecting Father nor the person behind me.
Otherwise, I trust in the Lord.
I have a close friend that receives the host, and she is gluten intolerant… she never has a problem receiving the host! I think her faith heals her… and I take her example to heart when receiving the precious blood from the chalice.

 

[Bakmoon]

Can someone explain to me why that taking only the host, the wafer is good enough and you don’t have to drink the wine? I don’t want to drink after anyone so I have never taken the wine. Jesus said do both didn’t he?

This is a very good article by Karl Keating that addresses this quite well:

At weekday Masses in the Catholic Answers chapel, Communion is by intinction and thus under both kinds. On Sundays, at my parish, I receive only the host and not from the cup, which is to say I receive under one kind only. If someone were to ask me why, and if I felt mischievous, I might reply, “Because I’m not an Utraquist, of course!” My questioner would respond, “Huh?” Then I’d give him a short lesson in history and sacramental theology.

In 1414, Jacob of Mies, professor of philosophy at the University of Prague, began to teach a novel theory. He said that, to be saved, a Catholic must receive Communion under both kinds and that laymen were being shortchanged because they were offered only the host. The chalice was reserved for the priest alone. Jacob’s theory was picked up by the followers of Jan Hus, who had been excommunicated in 1411 and who ended up being burned at the stake in 1415. Hussites became famous for insisting on the laity having access to the Communion cup.

Jacob came to his new teaching by reading John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” To him this meant that to receive only the host or only from the cup meant a partial Communion and thus no salvation. Under the form of bread, he thought, one received only Christ’s body and under the form of wine only his blood. To receive the whole Christ, and to be obedient to the biblical injunction, one had to receive under both kinds (sub utraque specie, therefore “Utraquist” as the name for those who hold this position).

Jacob’s teaching was condemned by the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent. Not only did it contradict long-established usage, but it also contradicted Scripture: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Pay attention to the conjunctions here. Paul says that if someone receives either the host or from the cup and does so when not in the state of sanctifying grace (“in an unworthy manner”), he profanes both, the body and the blood of the Lord. This implies that the body and the blood are equally present under the form of bread and under the form of wine. Either species contains the whole Christ. If you receive Christ at all, you receive all of him.

Not all Catholics understood this in the fifteenth century, and not all understand it today, which is why there are functional Utraquists in our parishes. Their confusion reminds me of a related one that was manifested at a local parish that is frequented by tourists. One particularly crowded Sunday, the priest ran short of hosts and had to break the last few dozen in half to make sure everyone could communicate. Knowing how poorly catechized many Catholics are, at the end of Mass he said, “Don’t worry! Even if you got only half a host, you got the whole Christ.”
Source: catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-you-an-utraquist

 

[Bergon]

Can someone explain to me why that taking only the host, the wafer is good enough

You are receiving the Sacred Body of Christ not host or wafer.

and you don’t have to drink the wine?

It is the Precious Blood of Christ that is received not wine.

I don’t want to drink after anyone so I have never taken the wine. Jesus said do both didn’t he?

Whether you receive our Lord’s Sacred Body or Precious Blood you receive Christ Body, Blood, Divinity and Soul.

There was once a heresy that said when you receive the consecrated bread you only received Christ’s Body and when you drank the consecrated wine you only received Christ’s Blood. The Church corrected the heresy: whichever species you receive - you receive Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. To emphasise the point the Church decreed that the laity could only receive the consecrated bread. After the Vat II the Church relaxed these rules.

The modern norms are that you can receive either species although if only one is received it is normally the consecrated bread. Alternatively modern norms often allow lay people to receive both species.

If you only consume the consecrated bread at Mass you can be certain that you will receive our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity; there’s no need, or requirement, for you to partake from the chalice.

 

[petronus]

Jesus said do both didn’t he?

Yes , and should he not be obeyed ?

Take and EAT . Take and DRINK .

His command is crystal clear .

 

[Bergon]

Yes , and should he not be obeyed ?

Take and EAT . Take and DRINK .

His command is crystal clear .

What, then, would you say to any catholic who doesn’t take communion? I don’t mean any who, for one reason or another, can’t receive communion, e.g. in a state of mortal sin. I refer to people in good standing with the church and who are in a state of grace.

Do you think Rome is wrong teaching that you don’t require both species?

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes , and should he not be obeyed ?

Take and EAT . Take and DRINK .

His command is crystal clear .

The implication you seem to be making is not what the Church teaches.

CCC 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

 

[ProVobis]

Can someone explain to me why that taking only the host, the wafer is good enough and you don’t have to drink the wine? I don’t want to drink after anyone so I have never taken the wine. Jesus said do both didn’t he?

Intinction should solve that problem as well as a whole lot of other problems, no?

 

[EasterJoy]

Intinction should solve that problem as well as a whole lot of other problems, no?

Still, it is not a necessity to receive under both species, even though there are real reasons to prefer it.

 

[billcu1]

The implication you seem to be making is not what the Church teaches.

CCC 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

What’s it mean the sign of communion?

 

[ProVobis]

Still, it is not a necessity to receive under both species, even though there are real reasons to prefer it.

For the priest it is necessary. However, for the congregation, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are inseparable and may be gained through the reception of the smallest amount of consecrated bread and/or consecrated wine.

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s it mean the sign of communion?

The visual/experiential aspect of the ritual. For instance, the matter of the bread must be wheat; for the sake of the sign, the bread is to be manufactured to look like bread. A piece of wheat bread that was edible but odd-and-not-very-bread-looking shape that was difficult to fraction would still be valid matter, but it would be far from preferable. When possible, the bread is to look like bread, something intended for consumption, because it is best when the visual aspects fit the reality of what is happening and difficulties aren’t introduced into the liturgy without good reason. (The problems of not having enough suitable ministers to dispense or not having suitable sacred vessels for the Precious Blood, or problems in maintaining reverence et cetera when offering the Precious Blood at a school Mass, for instance, are appropriate reasons that the Precious Blood might not be a species offered to the faithful at a particular Mass.)

 

[FAB]

I always tell people that as a deacon I regularly finish the Precious Blood after communion after the entire congrgation. In additon I purify the vesseIs. Very seldomly do I get sick and when I do I can trace it to a person that I was around.
I believe the fear of contracting a virus from takig from the cup is some what unfounded.

 

[gracepoole]

I always tell people that as a deacon I regularly finish the Precious Blood after communion after the entire congrgation. In additon I purify the vesseIs. Very seldomly do I get sick and when I do I can trace it to a person that I was around.
I believe the fear of contracting a virus from takig from the cup is some what unfounded.

Your post made me wonder and so I located this:

"One doctor said, ‘The number of bugs you can get from a Communion cup don’t have a prayer,’ " Haynes recalled. “The chances of getting sick are less than talking after the [service] with someone who has a cold.”

Officials with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said inquiries about Communion cup dangers have been small but steady over the years.

“Theoretically, there’s a risk,” spokeswoman Bonnie Hebert said.

“But the risk is so small it’s probably undetectable.”

Loving, the microbiologist, said the risk of infection is reduced because the chalice is wiped after each sip, the alcohol in the wine can kill germs and, unlike ceramic cups, the silver and gold used in most chalices don’t harbor microbes.

“There is a difference sipping from a Communion cup and sipping a cup of coffee that someone left on the curb,” she said.

articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/01/local/me-beliefs1