MERGED:Does your parish offer the cup to the congregation at Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Mayo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I answered “NO” because I attend the EF Mass exclusively. and by the way its a “chalice” not a cup. Check the prayer at the Consecration. 🙂
 
corsair said:
I answered “NO” because I attend the EF Mass exclusively. and by the way its a “chalice” not a cup. Check the prayer at the Consecration. 🙂
Click to expand...
The one the priest uses yes. But the vessels used for the EMHC are indeed cups.
At our parish, only the priest and Deacons receive from the chalice.
 
not in my diocese - it would require too many EMHCs and we don’t use those very often (we use Acolytes and Priests and sometimes a summer visiting deacon or a seminarian that has received training). There is no need (for me anyway)- Jesus is fully present in the Host. (tried to explain that to my convert borther in law after Christmas eve Mass at my brother’s parish 10 years ago, when he was looking all over for someone offering the precious blood…in their diocese, both species are offered at their parish.)
 
Only on Sundays. Not sure whether this is due to the lack of EMHCs (we don’t have a deacon or acolytes) and altar servers.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Why would “Precious Blood” have you think otherwise?
Click to expand...
I understand his point. Technically, through either species, we sacramentally receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It seems that we are shortchanging ourselves somewhat if we refer to It only as “Precious Blood” but that’s only my opinion.

To the OP, I attend at several parishes; some do and some don’t. Mass is the same, though.
 
Yes, for all masses in my parish. We have 4 EMHC who serve the cup during daily noon Mass, 2 at the 7:30 am daily Mass and 9 at all Sunday Masses and the Saturday Vigil.
 
Dang it, I think I accidentally voted no. I meant to vote yes. No way to change my vote.
 
ProVobis said:
I understand his point. Technically, through either species, we sacramentally receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It seems that we are shortchanging ourselves somewhat if we refer to It only as “Precious Blood” but that’s only my opinion.
Click to expand...
That said, the chalice is presented to us with the words “The Blood of Christ” and Christ, HImself, referred to it as his ‘blood’. So, I don’t think anyone is doing anything wrong or shortchanging anyone by referring to the contents of the chalice as the “Precious Blood”.
 
pianistclare said:
The one the priest uses yes. But the vessels used for the EMHC are indeed cups.
At our parish, only the priest and Deacons receive from the chalice.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on the parish. In ours we have no ‘cups’, we have several chalices. The priest receives from the same chalice as the congregation and when two are necessary they are identical.
 
Yago said:
trial members cannot vote on polls, but,

PUH-LEEEEEASE DON’T REFER TO CONSECRATED WINE AS PRECIOUS BLOOD. OUR LORD IS PRESENT COMPLETELY IN EITHER SPECIES.

sorry for the shouting.
Click to expand...
The rubrics call for those distributing the Hosts to say “The Body of Christ,” and for those distributing via the chalice to say “The Blood of Christ.” What would you have them say, and why do you think the Church is wrong in these instructions?
 
Yago said:
PUH-LEEEEEASE DON’T REFER TO CONSECRATED WINE AS PRECIOUS BLOOD. OUR LORD IS PRESENT COMPLETELY IN EITHER SPECIES.
Click to expand...
Michael_Mayo said:
Why would “Precious Blood” have you think otherwise?
Click to expand...
Yago said:
Aaargh!
Click to expand...
Michael_Mayo said:
Why do you have such an issue with “Precious Blood”?
Click to expand...
SMHW said:
“Precious Blood” seems to be the “official” term used in my diocese.
Click to expand...
Tarpeian_Rock said:
The rubrics call for those distributing the Hosts to say “The Body of Christ,” and for those distributing via the chalice to say “The Blood of Christ.” What would you have them say, and why do you think the Church is wrong in these instructions?
Click to expand...
Yago, you’ve made a strong request of others to refrain from something which seems very unreasonable of you to demand. Many have asked for an explanation.

I dont think anyone has attempted to seperate the two as both part of His body. Furthermore, we have Peter expressing the Lord’s blood as such…

1 Peter 1:18-19 (RSVCE)

18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

And Paul distinguishing His Blood…

1Cor. 10 (RSVCE)

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ?
 
Just a little note on vocabulary, since it seems to be so “important” here.

A chalice, by definition, has 4 parts: a base (or foot), a stem, a node (pommel), and a cup. A chalice is not a cup, but every chalice does have a cup. This is the Catholic liturgical definition of chalice. A secular dictionary will have other definitions of chalice.

When a vessel does not have a node, then it’s properly called a cup, not a chalice.

The priest must use a chalice for Mass. Other vessels to contain the Precious Blood can be either chalices or cups, or any combination of them.
 
Phemie said:
That said, the chalice is presented to us with the words “The Blood of Christ” and Christ, HImself, referred to it as his ‘blood’. So, I don’t think anyone is doing anything wrong or shortchanging anyone by referring to the contents of the chalice as the “Precious Blood”.
Click to expand...
For consecration, yes. And as a general reference and to distinguish, yes.
Tarpeian_Rock said:
The rubrics call for those distributing the Hosts to say “The Body of Christ,” and for those distributing via the chalice to say “The Blood of Christ.” What would you have them say, and why do you think the Church is wrong in these instructions?
Click to expand...
It’s not wrong as those are the instructions, even in the EF which has it’s own formula. It may be that there were plans to change that to more reflect Catholic theology but I don’t know if they ever will. To say “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity” to each communicant would be quite a change and perhaps very confusing to the younger members who are still studying religion. My opinion, only.
 
Yago said:
coz then you are holding heretic, i mean, erroneous opinions, disbelieving in the scripture and forgetting Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Are you accusing the Church of being heretical? Here’s the section of the Vatican’s own document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, that deals with Communion under both kinds.
102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable **quantity of the Blood of Christ **remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
Click to expand...
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “**the Blood of the Lord **may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]
Click to expand...
It’s a linguistic economy, not an expression of heresy. :eek:
 
Yago, you’ve made a strong request of others to refrain from something
Click to expand...
Yes, I did.
which seems very unreasonable of you to demand.
Click to expand...
I don’t think what the Church teaches is unreasonable.
Many have asked for an explanation.
Click to expand...
I was not in the forums for a few days so i did not see them. I see them now, and will reply to each one of them individually.
Furthermore, we have Peter expressing the Lord’s blood as such…
Click to expand...
He does not, however, seem to be talking about wine consecrated at the Qurbana.
And Paul distinguishing His Blood…
Click to expand...
You mean the same man who said ?

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. [1Cor 11: 27]
 
Corki said:
Are you accusing the Church of being heretical? Here’s the section of the Vatican’s own document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, that deals with Communion under both kinds.

It’s a linguistic economy, not an expression of heresy. :eek:
Click to expand...
Apparently, the very same document gave the context in no.100
So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Also, n102 is sourced to this, of which another statement is:
Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top