Not recieving the Blood of Christ

[larsont7]

What percentage of people would receive at Mass if ONLY the precious blood were offered?

68.4%. I could be off by a little, but I’m pretty sure I’m right. Of course, we all know that 87.3% of statistics are made up right on the spot.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I understand why some faithful choose not to recieve from the cup, but I usually sit near where the cup is being offered… After my time in prayer i can’t help but notice those that pass by the cup. They hurry past, without acknowledging that our Lord is present there too! Sometimes i feel like stopping them and saying “hey…stop and at least notice He is there” with a bow. Am I wrong? I pray for them, and understand that they have just recieved the Body of Christ, but wish they would at least show a little reverance. What is your opinion?

My opinion is that you should spend more time in prayer after receiving our Lord and stop paying attention to and judging what others are doing after all you have just received our Lord.

Peace,
Mark

 

[otjm]

The Church that Christ founded has said definitively that when we receive the Host, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the species of bread alone.

I cannot imagine Christ standing there holding the “Cup” when he is fully present within those who have already received Him.

Christ has appeared to a number of people (read the story of Divine Mercy). If Christ can be present in the Eucharist (and we believe He is) then, if I recall correctly, Sr. Faustina had some of her visions in the chapel - where the Eucharist would be in the tabernacle. So it should not be the least hard to imagine my question.

So that is not exactly a stretch.

And I think you get the point I am making. It was the Protestant breakup that pushed Trent hard to make the statement BBS&D. Prior to that, reception was allowed under both species. We are returning to that, in large part because the Protestant Reformation is about 500 years old and the issue is essentially a non-issue in terms of anyone insisting we have to receive under both species to actually receive the Eucharist.

So I go back to my point; please indulge me - if Christ appeared and offered the Cup, would you look at Him and say “No thanks!”?

Other than someone having a problem with alcohol, or it being high flu season, I am mystified why people would refuse. Christ did not say “Eat or drink”; He siad Eat…(and) drink". While the mass and the Eucharist is primarily sacrifice, the Church also teaches that it is a sacred meal, and even goes further to say the sign is most efficacious when reception is under both species.

 

[otjm]

Exactly. And I find it insulting when some suggest that we somehow receive “less” of Christ when we only receive the Sacred Host (not saying it’s happening on this thread, but I have seen it in the past). Does receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord twice under two different forms somehow grant us more graces? No.

I choose to receive only under one form because I fear an accidental spillage of Our Lord’s Precious Blood. Forget about germs or catching colds; I am no germaphobe. My main concern is about one drop of the Blood of Christ falling off my chin onto the floor (and as clumsy as I am with my drinks at home, this is definitely a possibility).

No one is saying you receive less. In the Gospels, Christ doesn’t tell the apostles to eat or drink; they do both, and so did the early Church. In fact it continued (with some periods of only the Host) up until Trent made a pronouncement in opposition to some of the Protestant staements by a few that one had to receive both. And in the Eastern rites it continued on to this day.

Perhaps you should actually read what the Church teaches about reception under both species - they are the ones who say it has greater sign value; and I would presume you would not be insulted by their teaching.

and given that you would be approaching the Cup with a bit more focus than some drink at home, that should be no problem. I have yet to see anyone ever spill. That does not mean that it does not happen; but the frequency is beyond miniscule.

 

[NickD]

I do not receive the Most Precious Blood for a number of reasons. I don’t want to spill. I prefer to preseve the reception of the Blood to the celebrant, as he consummated the Sacrifice. I prefer to not receive from an EMHC. Honestly, it just adds another unncecessary adventure for me.However, I do genuflect if I go near/walk past a chalice while returning to my pew

 

[Filii_Dei]

I apologise, but this discussion sounds quite strange to me. It appears that everybody’s replies depict the offering of the Chalice as a common phenomenon. That intrigues me, because I have never seen it done in my diocese, and I was not even aware such a practice existed till the day I actually studied the rubrics of Mass.

In any case, if (hypothetically) I were to attend a Mass where it was offered, I would take it for two simple reasons:

1. 
   *]It is there to be taken. I do not think the Chalice is there to sit pretty and glimmer under the lights. The Mass of Paul VI permitted Communion under the species of wine for a reason, and the priest consecrated the Chalice for a reason, and I feel that I would be disrespecting the acts of both Venerable Paul VI and my priest by refusing it simply because “the Host is enough”. Yes, I know it does not really cause offense, but it seems a pitiful waste to me.
   *]It fulfills the meaning of both eating His body and drinking His blood. Yes, yes, I know that the Host alone is already fully both the Body and Blood of Christ, and I do not “receive more of Jesus”, but to me it just brings out the significance of the act better.
   
   I am aware that taking the Chalice it is “not a traditional practice”, but it just suits me better. It’s not like I’m going to demand it when I attend my fortnightly local EF mass.
   
   That being said, we should be mindful that those who do not take the Chalice probably do so for good reasons, and we must not be quick to pass judgement upon them. Some may be afraid of germs, many are (rightly) fearful of accidental spillage, others do not recognise it as tradition, and the remaining are simply not used to it. As Catholics, we must be open to these perspectives, for they are all embraced by the Church. We do not know their souls any better than God does.

 

[petronus]

You have just received the Host; and as you start to return to your seat and are passing the Cup, you realize that instead of a priest or a deacon or an EMHC holding the Cup, that it is Christ Himself holding the Cup, looking at you and saying to you “This is My Blood”.

Are you going to say to Christ “Oh, thank you, but I have already recevied You, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity so no thank you.”?

If Christ Himself were standing there offering you the Cup, would you still pass by?

You are right .

Jesus commanded us to receive him under both forms of bread and wine .

His words could not be more clear . We should obey him .

 

[JackieMom]

I have never in more than 30 years received from the chalice. I simply do not share drinking vessels with large groups of strangers.

However, after I receive the Eucharist, I bow my head and keep it bowed until I pass the chalice, in aknowledgement of the sacred contents.