Passing up receiving God "twice" by refusing the cup?

[Elzee]

Hi everyone,

I friend of mine is an EMHC and gets irritated when people do to receive from the cup. She understands that both the host and blood are the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” so she’s not confused on that aspect or concerned that people are only receiving His body and not his blood if they bypass the cup.

Her rationale is if you have the chance to receive God “twice”, why not? And, if it didn’t matter, then why is it a good thing to be a daily communicant because you “just received God yesterday” - her logic is, therefore, it is better to receive Him twice during Mass than just once.

What are you thoughts on this? This logic doesn’t seem right to me, but I don’t know how to explain it. Or…maybe you agree with her?

 

[otjm]

Christ gave us the Eucharist under both forms; he must have had a reason for doing so. Aside from the relationship of the Eucharist to the Passover Meal, the Church accepts that the Eucharist is both Sacrifice and Sacred Meal.

I have seen nothing whatsoever anywhere officially that the Church thinks or holds that you are receiving twice at a Mass by receiving under both species. In fact, when the Church refers to a second reception, it refers to receiving the second time at a Mass (as in, two distinctly different times of reception).

The Church says that reception under both species is a fuller sign of the Eucharist. Not that you are receiving Christ twice, but that you are receiving Christ as he presented the sacrament to us - under the forms of bread and wine. One does not participate in two meals if one eats and has something to drink at the same meal; it is all one meal.

Theologically Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity in either form. However, if you read the Gospels and the Epistles, they don’t teach the theological issue that was clarified at Trent; they refer to reception under both species. It is not required. However, I have often asked those who refuse the Cup if they would do so, when receiving the Eucharist, if as in passing the Cup they realized that instead of a priest, a deacon or an EMHC holding the Cup, it was Christ himself looking at them. Just a thought.

 

[dixibehr]

Does she think the priest “receives God twice” when he makes his communion in both kinds?

In the Extraordinary form, the priest’s host is broken into three pieces; the smallest is placed in the chalice. Does the priest therefore “receive God 4 times?”

This is one of the silliest things I’ve heard, and you can tell her I said so.

 

[pnewton]

Her rationale is if you have the chance to receive God “twice”, why not? And, if it didn’t matter, then why is it a good thing to be a daily communicant because you “just received God yesterday” -

An equal question would be “Why?” After all, not only does one receive all of Christ, one also has all the grace one is disposed to receive in either species. The comparison to daily communion is not apt. It is unlikely that one’s predispostion will be different while one takes a few steps. However, we do change daily and need all the Grace we can get daily.

As to why not, it is perfectly valid and fine to do so, but there is no Sacramental benefit one way or another.

 

[benedictgal]

The celebrant is the only one required to consume both species. This practice actually goes back to the Levitical priesthood. In Temple Sacrificial worship, the sacrifice was not considered complete until the priest ate his share. A good portion of the oblation was offered up as a burnt offering, consumed by God. Then, the priest ate his share, thus completing the sacrifice. The party for whom the sacrifice was offered also ate their share, but, completion was contingent upon the priest’s consumption.

 

[maryjk]

Hi everyone,
I friend of mine is an EMHC and gets irritated when people do to receive from the cup. She understands that both the host and blood are the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” so she’s not confused on that aspect or concerned that people are only receiving His body and not his blood if they bypass the cup.

So she stands there, holding the Cup, slowly burning inside because people pass her by?

I would tell her to get over it or stop being an EMHC.

I pass the cup if I am not one of the first to receive from it. I have Celiac, and receiving from the Cup after a number of women have received, can make me sick. So I should be sick just so she isn’t irritated?

 

[Elzee]

Does she think the priest “receives God twice” when he makes his communion in both kinds?

In the Extraordinary form, the priest’s host is broken into three pieces; the smallest is placed in the chalice. Does the priest therefore “receive God 4 times?”

This is one of the silliest things I’ve heard, and you can tell her I said so.

Yes- I think she would say the priest is receiving God twice when he receives under both kinds (technically…isn’t he?)
I agree this is silly, but I can’t explain why!

 

[Corki]

I think this EMHC has some issues to resolve.

For a given individual, he/she might feel more fully involved by receiving both. However, it is NOT the case that the person receiving under both species is receiving Communion twice. If that were the case, a person who received under both species could not receive at another Mass the same day while a person who received just the host,could. It is 1,one, uno, singular Communion.

Receiving under both species is all about the recipient and not at all about the Eucharist. Humans may need a fuller sign. Jesus doesn’t need a fuller sign to be fully present. Humans may need to take and eat, get in another line, take and drink. Jesus doesn’t need us to do that to be fully present will ALL of the graces of Communion.

 

[japhy]

One has to understand what the Church actually teaches about receiving Communion under both species. It is, in fact, a single reception of the Sacrament, not a “double” reception. From the Catechism:
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.” {GIRM 240} This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. (Catechism 1390)
There is no additional grace received by receiving under both kinds. You do not receive “more” of Jesus. You do not receive “better”. The only difference that the Church teaches, regarding the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds by a non-celebrant, is that the sign of the Eucharist being a sacred banquet (which was, in historical fact, instituted under two species, bread and wine) is more evident.

Some people feel a spiritual need for the realization of that sign; others do not.

And remember that on Good Friday, we receive only the Host, and that is still a true and “full” act of Communion.

 

[JMJ_coder]

When one receives Communion, whether under one kind or two, it is a participation in one Sacrament. When we receive under either species, we receive the fullness of the Sacrament – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, certainly it is a fuller symbol to receive under both kinds, but it is not required for reception of all the grace available from this most glorious Sacrament.

Query: in the amount of time it takes to go from reception of the consecrated Host to reception of the Precious Blood (minus the time your still receiving the Sacrament - i.e., chewing/swallowing), is that amount of time so long that you need a “recharge” (for lack of a better word) of sacramental grace? Note: reception under both kinds doesn’t give you a double “charge” (anyone have an ecclesial thesaurus handy?) of grace.

Does she think the priest “receives God twice” when he makes his communion in both kinds?

In the Extraordinary form, the priest’s host is broken into three pieces; the smallest is placed in the chalice. Does the priest therefore “receive God 4 times?”

This is one of the silliest things I’ve heard, and you can tell her I said so.

Don’t forget the Purifications afterwards – what are we up to a half-dozen? And tally more if a Host drops and Father has to consume that one himself.

 

[Lainey63]

Another answer to your question is some people cannot drink from the cup…ie alcoholics in recovery.

 

[Thomas63116]

As quoted above, receiving under both kinds reflects a “more complte” expression of the sign/sacrament. However, by receiving under both kinds we do not “receive God twice” or “receive more of Jesus” any more than we receive “more of Jesus” if we have a larger host than a smaller host.

While your friend’s reasoning is a bit flawed, I can understand her broader point. Why would someone receive only under one kind when receiving under both kinds is the “more complete” expression of the sacrament. As someone who only receives the host, not the cup, my personal reasons are a strong distaste for alcohol and hygenic concerns.

I would hope that my brothers and sisters in Christ respect my decisions in this regard, as I respect theirs, rather than questioning my motivations or judging me. Your friend may also want to prayerfully consider where her feelings of annoyance are coming from (Is it a genuine desire to see people participate more fully? A sense of wounded pride that not everyone receives from her as an EMHC? Some of both? Either way, is she a bit too focused on the speck in her neighbor’s eye?)

 

[palmas85]

I would have to question her reasons for being upset. As an Extraordinary Minister she has a very specific function. Very specific indeed. She is neither a Priest and is merely helping out.

Is she upset that people often pass by the Cup because they feel that for one reason or another they don’t need it? Maybe she sees this as a lack of theological understaning on their part. After all, the Priests have to receive under both species, why not everyone, right? I mean we are all priests in one sense or another correct? That idea seems quite prevalent in many areas.

Or is it as I somehow suspect she personally feels slighted at the perceived affront to her. Just imagine, there she is, helping out in a vital function and she is just being passed by by all these ingrates who don’t understand just how important she is in the scheme of things… It is an outrage, an utter outrage.

From what I have seen over the years more than a few, not a majority by any means, but more than a few Extraordinary Ministers seem to fit into this particular mold for one reason or another.They feel that they are vitally important to the operation of the Mass and without them and their presence, we would all suffer.So they feel deprived , neglected as it were by someone passing them by.

I would like to think the second option is not true, but I somehow suspect that it is more in line with what is really going on than is the first.

And I am very sad to say that. I truly am.

 

[jediliz]

when I receive Communion @ my sister’s Parish where they offer the Cup, I do not partake of the Cup because I already have received the Host and that contains the Body, BLOOD, Soul and Divinity. I am not used to the Cup (I don’t think very many parishes in my Diocese offer it).

 

[Elzee]

Let me clarify - the person in no way feels slighted that she’s being passed by. Not at all. It’s just a perception on her part that people are not receiving as much of God as they could and she can’t understand why people would pass up the chance.

 

[LilyM]

Theologically Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity in either form. However, if you read the Gospels and the Epistles, they don’t teach the theological issue that was clarified at Trent; they refer to reception under both species. It is not required. However, I have often asked those who refuse the Cup if they would do so, when receiving the Eucharist, if as in passing the Cup they realized that instead of a priest, a deacon or an EMHC holding the Cup, it was Christ himself looking at them. Just a thought.

No, for lots of reasons - might be alcoholic, might be celiac, might be concerned about germs.

More to the point, by your logic if there were two ministers each offering the cup, and instead of a priest, deacon or EMHC holding them it was Christ would you refuse to go and receive from both? How about if there were dozens like at a Mass at St Peters or something? Your logic doesn’t fly.

 

[LilyM]

Let me clarify - the person in no way feels slighted that she’s being passed by. Not at all. It’s just a perception on her part that people are not receiving as much of God as they could and she can’t understand why people would pass up the chance.

That’s a flaw in her thinking - people receive the fulness of Christ in just the Host as well. They don’t receive more by receiving the Chalice as well. That’s WHY the Chalice isn’t offered at every Mass, in fact that’s why it wasn’t offered to the laity at all for many centuries, to underline the fact that we receive more than a sufficiency just in the Host and in no way receive ‘more God’ when we receive from the chalice as well.

Think of a wedding - some people get married in a very very simple ceremony, no flowers, no dozens of bridesmaids, no expensive wedding dress, no gajillions of guests. Are they less married than someone who goes the whole hog? Not a bit. Are they really missing out on anything because they chose the simpler ceremony? No - and for some couples it’s actually the better option because some get so hung up on the externals that they miss the true meaning of the sacrament.

Or put it another way - refusing the cup is a bit like passing up on dessert after an extremely generous, delicious and filling meal. Ie you’ve already had more than enough and would not especially get greater benefit from eating more, even though it might be available for those who feel that a meal just isn’t a meal without the dessert.

 

[IrishAm]

By her logic, if the priest or EMHC need to break the host (so there is enough for all recipients, for example), or some people take a little sip of His blood and others gulp from the chalice, are some recipients receiving “less of Jesus” or “more of Jesus” than others? Of course not.

If this irritates her, what must she think of those who prefer to only receive from a priest and always bypass EMHCs whatever they are offering!!

 

[dixibehr]

in fact that’s why it wasn’t offered to the laity at all for many centuries,<<

Only in the Roman rite.

to underline the fact that we receive more than a sufficiency just in the Host and in no way receive ‘more God’ when we receive from the chalice as well.<<

Following this line of reasoning, all the Priest needed to do was simply to receive in one kind.

Actually, historically the Chalice was more “avoided by” the laity than “not offered to the laity”.

But this is too complex a topic for computer boards.

 

[LilyM]

in fact that’s why it wasn’t offered to the laity at all for many centuries,<<

True, my apologies for overlooking my Eastern brothers and sisters

to underline the fact that we receive more than a sufficiency just in the Host and in no way receive ‘more God’ when we receive from the chalice as well.<<

Following this line of reasoning, all the Priest needed to do was simply to receive in one kind.

Not so. The priest is bound by Christ’s command at the Last Supper to ‘do this’, meaning ‘take and drink’ as well as ‘take and eat’. He was instituting both the priesthood and the sacrament at that time, since only the 12 were with Him.

So the priest needs to do so because Christ commanded it thus to the Apostles, who were the first priests. The laity aren’t under the same obligation - it’s not like all His disciples were there. We simply have to ‘eat My flesh and drink My blood’ as instructed in John 6 - a different scenario, and one that we fulfil by simply partaking of the Host.

Actually, historically the Chalice was more “avoided by” the laity than “not offered to the laity”.

But this is too complex a topic for computer boards.

I never said that this wasn’t the case, it doesn’t mean the laity aren’t entitled to pass on the chalice or are receiving in an inferior way in passing up the chalice.

Main point being there are good and sufficient reasons for the laity not to receive the Chalice if they choose not.