Not drinking from the cup?

[longing4Jesus]

I choose not to receive the wine for a different reason… I know myself to be klutzy… and I am terrified of spilling Jesus. At least every couple of weeks I take a drink of water and tip the glass up too far and spill it all over myself… eek… what if I did that with the wine?

So for me NOT drinking from the cup is a sign of respect.

 

[andrewstx]

I agree with you. I don’t get these germs thing as well.

I don’t get it either. Eastern Catholics recieve both species together from a common spoon, no diseases.

Also Anglicans and Lutherans have recieved from a shared chalice as well for centuries, and again no sickness ensues.

For those who believe in transubstantiation it is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. The sacred blood does not transmit germs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t get it either. Eastern Catholics recieve both species together from a common spoon, no diseases.

Also Anglicans and Lutherans have recieved from a shared chalice as well for centuries, and again no sickness ensues.

For those who believe in transubstantiation it is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. The sacred blood does not transmit germs.

Yes. I mean, in the Byzantine Rite we never close our mouths on the spoon, but the little kids do not do that. And its the toddlers who put a whole lot of other stuff in their mouths and pick up more diseases.

 

[Ancient1]

For those who believe in transubstantiation it is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. The sacred blood does not transmit germs.

**That is nonsense. Transubstantiation is not a magic trick. Germs may be present anywhere on earth including the rim of a chalice or the hands of a priest. **

If a few drops of arsenic were dropped in the “sacred blood” would you be so eager to prove your faith that it cannot be contaminated? Let’s get real. It’s no disrespect to Our Lord to acknowledge natural properties and scientific phenomena.

 

[ConstantineTG]

**That is nonsense. Transubstantiation is not a magic trick. Germs may be present anywhere on earth including the rim of a chalice or the hands of a priest. **

If a few drops of arsenic were dropped in the “sacred blood” would you be so eager to prove your faith that it cannot be contaminated? Let’s get real. It’s no disrespect to Our Lord to acknowledge natural properties and scientific phenomena.

It is one thing to try and prove something, which would be vanity. It is another to trust that God will take care of you. When we receive the Eucharist, are we doing it to prove that we cannot get sick from it? If that is the intention, then I doubt God will extend His grace onto you for your vanity. But if your intention is to receive Him and His graces, without worrying about anything else, then you will be taken care of.

 

[thewanderer]

Personally, I don’t receive from the chalice. Its not because I’m afraid of germs. (although avoiding germs can be an added bonus ) Its also not meant as a sign of thinking that those who receive from the chalice ‘aren’t doing it right’ or anything like that. Its simply because thats what I’m used to. I grew up in a parish where it wasn’t offered. I am still receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, so I never saw the point of starting to also receive from the chalice. So it can also just be a matter of habit.

 

[Wampa]

Eastern Catholics receive both species together from a common spoon, no diseases.

Also Anglicans and Lutherans have recieved from a shared chalice as well for centuries, and again no sickness ensues.

Really? You know for a fact that over hundreds of years, across thousands of parishes/congregations, no one has ever caught a virus or bacteria from putting their lips on the same piece of metal? Wow, now there’s a bold contention!

Common sense says otherwise. Forgive me if I stick with the microbiologist.

And I’m not worried about the blood. I’m worried about that fact that hundreds of people have put their lips on the chalice, in the winter, when a significant percentage of those people have the flu here in my neck of the woods.

 

[Vico]

In previous years, what has the Church done in localities where the outbreak of Influenza is most significant?

• In those localities where the outbreak of the disease has been the most significant, bishops have introduced several liturgical adaptations in regard to such practices as the distribution of Holy Communion and the exchange of the Sign of Peace in order to limit the spread of contagion.

What measures should be taken in Roman Catholic liturgies in the United States of America now?

• Priests, deacons, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should be especially reminded of the need to practice good hygiene. Ministers of Holy Communion should always wash their hands before Mass begins; a further precaution suggests using an alcohol-based anti-bacterial solution before and after distributing Holy Communion. The faithful should be instructed not to receive from the cup if they feel ill.

old.usccb.org/liturgy/swineflu.shtml

 

[andrewstx]

Really? You know for a fact that over hundreds of years, across thousands of parishes/congregations, no one has ever caught a virus or bacteria from putting their lips on the same piece of metal? Wow, now there’s a bold contention!

Common sense says otherwise. Forgive me if I stick with the microbiologist.

And I’m not worried about the blood. I’m worried about that fact that hundreds of people have put their lips on the chalice, in the winter, when a significant percentage of those people have the flu here in my neck of the woods.

I do think it would be known and the precious blood eliminated had 100s died.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I never used to receive the Precious Blood simply out of habit. I took First Communion in a country where alcohol was illegal so only the priest was allowed to take the Precious Blood. I then moved and in my new parish the Precious Blood was not offered to the congregation because the parish could not afford to supply it for the 4000+ strong parish. That was all I’d ever experienced so only taking His Body was what was natural to me.

 

[Brendan]

How can the blood be within the bread? I don’t understand. Christ says, “And drink his blood.”

This does not make sense to me in the slightest. The “and” makes all the difference in these things. How can you drink the body? Or eat of the blood?

Jesus presented these elements as different things.

EDIT: I went to the uscatholics page on it, and it makes a little bit more sense; however Jesus was very clear that you should take both.

I don’t understand this only taking one business.

The Eucharist is a representation of the entire Passion narrative. From the Last Supper to the Resurrection.

The elements are consecrated seperately, as it indicates Christ’s Death on the Cross ( the Body is seperate from the Blood).

But the elements are mixed (a small particle of the species of bread is dropped within the chalice) that shows us the mystery of the Resurrection.

Christ is alive, He is Risen. That is the Christ we partake of in the Eucharist. His Blood flows through His veins, pumped by His Most Sacred Heart.

The Body and Blood can no longer truely be said be seperate, nor can they ever be seperated again, as that would be a second death of the one who has defeated death itself.

So no matter what species one recieves Christ, you recieve the totatilty of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

As to His command to eat and drink, that is fulfilled.

To understand that, you have to understand the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

What is present before us is the Substance of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Christ is living, His Flesh is alive, and His Blood courses through His veins. ’

What our senses experience is different from the actuality.

Our senses see Bread and Wine, while the reality is a whole living person.

In consuming this living person (Christ) we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That is the definiton of ‘drinking’, is it not, to consume that which is liquid.

Our senses do not experiece the reality of what we are doing, but the reality is there, nonetheless.

We eat His Flesh, we drink His Blood, even if our senses tell us otherwise. Just as our sense of sight sees only Bread, when the reality is different.

That is the nature of Transubstantiation. Our senses do not tell us what the reality is. But the reality is there nonetheless.

 

[thomas_jd]

The Eucharist is a representation of the entire Passion narrative. From the Last Supper to the Resurrection.

The elements are consecrated seperately, as it indicates Christ’s Death on the Cross ( the Body is seperate from the Blood).

But the elements are mixed (a small particle of the species of bread is dropped within the chalice) that shows us the mystery of the Resurrection.

Christ is alive, He is Risen. That is the Christ we partake of in the Eucharist. His Blood flows through His veins, pumped by His Most Sacred Heart.

The Body and Blood can no longer truely be said be seperate, nor can they ever be seperated again, as that would be a second death of the one who has defeated death itself.

So no matter what species one recieves Christ, you recieve the totatilty of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

As to His command to eat and drink, that is fulfilled.

To understand that, you have to understand the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

What is present before us is the Substance of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Christ is living, His Flesh is alive, and His Blood courses through His veins. ’

What our senses experience is different from the actuality.

Our senses see Bread and Wine, while the reality is a whole living person.

In consuming this living person (Christ) we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That is the definiton of ‘drinking’, is it not, to consume that which is liquid.

Our senses do not experiece the reality of what we are doing, but the reality is there, nonetheless.

We eat His Flesh, we drink His Blood, even if our senses tell us otherwise. Just as our sense of sight sees only Bread, when the reality is different.

That is the nature of Transubstantiation. Our senses do not tell us what the reality is. But the reality is there nonetheless.

Both elements need to be mixed not just one for your statement to be valid.
After Consecration both species contain the entire Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity!
One that receives only the Host or the Precious Blood receives the Complete Risen Lord.
Those that highlight one “Body” over the other “Blood” do a disservice to the Eucharist.

 

[Joe_5859]

There’s a historical component, too. Following the Council of Trent, receiving Communion in both species became much more infrequent. This was basically the Church’s response to the incorrect teaching some were putting forth that a person had to receive both species in order to really receive Jesus. Oh really? Well now you can’t receive under both species.

Following Vatican II, it has been somewhat the opposite. Receiving under both species was so rare that many people incorrectly thought the laity were not allowed to receive the Precious Blood or that there was no value in doing so. So now the practice has become more encouraged and widespread as a “fuller sign” of Communion.

But since it is still somewhat recent that this shift has taken place, not everyone is used to and/or comfortable doing so. Different parishes have different things going on, too. In the parish I grew up in, the only time the Precious Blood was offered was at 1st Communion. Then, in the mid-90s, they decided to start offering the chalice at every Mass. Well, the parishioners were so unaccustomed to receiving the Precious Blood that probably only 5% of the congregation received. I was an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at the time and whenever I distributed the chalice, I would end up with a lot left over.

My present parish offers Communion under both species, but most weeks I skip the cup. Carrying a squirming kid, I’d rather not risk him making a grab for the chalice. Others mentioned health concerns, too. So there are many reasons that contribute to this.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

How could any of us ever determine what part of Jesus was in each species, if each weren’t sufficient in itself? Just think about it!

 

[Brendan]

Both elements need to be mixed not just one for your statement to be valid…

Actually, they do not. The mixing is not something that restores Christ to life, but a visual represntation of the Ressurection for us.

Each species, though consecrated seperately is the Living Christ, so the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in the Eucharist.

 

[arkwright]

I was utterly confused, and so was my girlfriend. We just kind of sat there wondering why they’d partake of the body, and not the blood.

You were right to be confused .

Jesus did say , " Take this and eat of it…Take this and drink from it ."

The Church authorities who do not allow this are disobeying Jesus .

Where it is allowed the communicants who do not do as Jesus said are disobeying him , unless serious health matters prevent it .

The command of Jesus is simple and straightforward , " Eat and Drink " .

 

[thewanderer]

There’s a historical component, too. Following the Council of Trent, receiving Communion in both species became much more infrequent. This was basically the Church’s response to the incorrect teaching some were putting forth that a person had to receive both species in order to really receive Jesus. Oh really? Well now you can’t receive under both species.

Following Vatican II, it has been somewhat the opposite. Receiving under both species was so rare that many people incorrectly thought the laity were not allowed to receive the Precious Blood or that there was no value in doing so. So now the practice has become more encouraged and widespread as a “fuller sign” of Communion.

But since it is still somewhat recent that this shift has taken place, not everyone is used to and/or comfortable doing so. Different parishes have different things going on, too. In the parish I grew up in, the only time the Precious Blood was offered was at 1st Communion. Then, in the mid-90s, they decided to start offering the chalice at every Mass. Well, the parishioners were so unaccustomed to receiving the Precious Blood that probably only 5% of the congregation received. I was an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at the time and whenever I distributed the chalice, I would end up with a lot left over.

My present parish offers Communion under both species, but most weeks I skip the cup. Carrying a squirming kid, I’d rather not risk him making a grab for the chalice. Others mentioned health concerns, too. So there are many reasons that contribute to this.

Very well put!!

Although it does seem as though the old problem is resurfacing… what with all the threads on here where people sound as though they believe it is necessary to receive both, or that one receives more grace, or recceives Christ more fully, none of which are true.

 

[arkwright]

:

what with all the threads on here where people sound as though they believe it is necessary to receive both, .

Jesus commanded that both the Body and the Blood be received in the forms of bread and wine .

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

You were right to be confused .

Jesus did say , " Take this and eat of it…Take this and drink from it ."

The Church authorities who do not allow this are disobeying Jesus .

Where it is allowed the communicants who do not do as Jesus said are disobeying him , unless serious health matters prevent it .

The command of Jesus is simple and straightforward , " Eat and Drink " .

What you are saying is a condemned heresy. You do NOT have to communicate under both species and you are certainly NOT disobeying Jesus if you only receive the Host.

Communion under one species works because in each species is contained the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

• PAX

 

[thewanderer]

Jesus commanded that both the Body and the Blood be received in the forms of bread and wine .

So you are claiming that the Catholic Church is wrong in its doctrine that the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ are present under each species??

And that the Catholic Church was wrong to limit the reception for many years to simply under the form of the Bread??

I would be very careful about such line of thinking. The claim that what Christ meant was that each person must receive under both species is your own personal interpretation of that scripture passage. We must not interpret Bible passages on our own in ways which contradict Church teaching. This particular interpretation contradicts the Church teaching. Therefore we know it is not the correct interpretation. I’m sorry, but I will take the Church’s interpretation over yours.