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.
Compendium said:
“Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic Species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man” .
Click to expand...

Council of Trent said:
“CANON I. If any one denies that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or power; let him be anathema.

“CANON II. If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species Only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”
Click to expand...

Council of Florence said:
“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ.”
Click to expand...
Denzinger-Schönmetzer:
Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
 
Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
It should never be construed, therefore, that Communion under the form of bread alone or Communion under the form of wine alone is somehow an incomplete act or that Christ is not fully present to the communicant. The Church’s unchanging teaching from the time of the Fathers through the ages—notably in the ecumenical councils of Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican II—has witnessed to a constant unity of faith in the presence of Christ in both elements.

Even in the earliest days of the Church’s life, when Communion under both species was the norm, there were always instances when the Eucharist was received under only the form of bread or wine. . . . Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.
Click to expand...
CCC 1377:
Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts.
Click to expand...
 
Yago said:
I refuted this position in posts 39-42. Read them.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly acceptable to refer to what began as wine as the “Precious Blood” once It has been consecrated.

Claiming that we cannot use that phrase is pure nonsense.
 
FrDavid96 said:
It is perfectly acceptable to refer to what began as wine as the “Precious Blood” once It has been consecrated.

Claiming that we cannot use that phrase is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...
Before I respond further, may I ask a question,
Do you believe that Christ is present wholly and completely in either species?
 
Yago said:
Before I respond further, may I ask a question,
Do you believe that Christ is present wholly and completely in either species?
Click to expand...
You do realise that Fr. David is a priest, don’t you?
 
Yago said:
Before I respond further, may I ask a question,
Do you believe that Christ is present wholly and completely in either species?
Click to expand...
The phrase “Precious Blood” is an accepted way of referring to the species of consecrated wine. At least in Western Catholicism it is.

We have to call it something and the phrase “consecrated wine” just doesn’t have the same sense of reverence.
 
SMHW said:
The phrase “Precious Blood” is an accepted way of referring to the species of consecrated wine. At least in Western Catholicism it is.

We have to call it something and the phrase “consecrated wine” just doesn’t have the same sense of reverence.
Click to expand...
In fact, calling it “consecrated wine” actually DENIES the fact that the contents of the chalice are no longer wine once the priest has said the words of consecration. Yes, both species are, in full, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. However, Jesus Himself presented the species of bread as His Body and the species of wine as His Blood. He did not say: “This is the chalice of my Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinty”. He said: “This is the chalice of my Blood”. This is why we refer to it as the Precious Blood. To say that we are stating heresy by calling it so is akin to saying that Jesus Himself was stating heresy.
 
Yago said:
I refuted this position in posts 39-42. Read them.
Click to expand...
I did and do not see the relevance. No one is denying the full Presence in either species. I am not going to waste time discussing that point with you any further. Why be argumentative about something we all agree on?🤷
 
My current parish does not offer it ever. I am not usually much of a wine drinker so the physical response to, shall I say the accidents of the species (?), are pretty powerful to me and when I do receive it, I associate mostly with the Mass. It certainly engages the senses more so than the Host. Yes, Christ is truly and fully present in both but when we take that sip we get the aroma, the taste, when we swallow we feel it going down into us and, at least I, feel a warmth from it. The host is pretty much tasteless and odorless. Not much for the physical senses. As Catholics we appreciate the senses with incense, bells, art, touch and being offered the cup at communion gives us that richer physical sensual participation.

And yet it is not that important to me. I like it once in a while but not every day or every week. Whenever I do drink wine it reminds me of Mass.
 
Every Sunday Mass at every church I have been to in England all my life have the Precious Blood.

I have never had the Precious Blood at any Mass in Poland, my wife thinks it may be too expensive but I don’t know.
 
Yes it is always offered to the laity in my parish. I would say about 1/2 of those who come up for Communion or so receive both forms. My aunt is one that can receive only from the cup as she is a celiac.
 
Always including daily mass.
The only time we don’t is if the archbishop, if there are concerns during flubseason, asks the parishes to refrain
 
My parish never does this. 👍
So, coupled with the fact that it’s a small parish we also don’t need EHMCs either. The priest distributes Holy Communion at the altar rail. It works fine.
 
Our new parish pastor decided we will be receiving, during communion, just the communion host and not provide the Cup. Is with holding the chalice/cup breaking not only Tradition of the Mass but making communion incomplete.? The priest prepares and elevates both the host and wine to be consecrated and blessed. We respond by saying ‘when we eat this bread and drink of this cup we profess…’ Perhaps it’s not incomplete because Christ remains in both species.
 
For laity, it was centuries where we could receive only the Host. The issue came up prior to Trent, with some of the groups that broke off from the Church insisting that one had to receive both (without getting into the theological arguments pro and con).

I prefer to receive both; I agree with the Church’s thinking that it is a fuller sign.

Theologically, however, the matter was settled in the Council of Trent.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1390, says that while receiving in both forms is “more complete,”
“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.”
(emphasis mine)

In other words, it does not break tradition, and it does not make Holy Communion “incomplete.”
 
Your pastor is not “withholding the cup” from the laity.

What he is doing is “not offering the cup” to the laity.
And there is no requirement (liturgical, moral, nor otherwise) that he do so.

tee
who is not an utraquist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top