People not partaking in wine during the Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bev17243
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t like wine, I don’t like alcohol in general, and I don’t like drinking out of a cup with 50 other people. Hence, I receive the body only at communion.
 
The_Curt_Jester said:
Please, don’t bother. I’ve heard that argument before and it doesn’t cut water. All it means is that certain people really don’t feel satisfied in receiving Our Lord under one species. This is something derived from personal feelings rather than doctrine.

I should mention here that I have no problems with those with celiac disease receiving from the chalice. There are practical reasons for people to receive that way, but they are not the norm and there is certainly no fuller meaning to receiving both, otherwise celiacs would be missing out on something.
Click to expand...
I find it quite disturbing that you are so dismissive of a ruling that is clearly stated in the GIRM, and therefore an official part of the Church’s teaching. Your views, whilst interesting, have no authority and the “norm” - whether we like it or not - teaches us that receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign. That doesn’t mean that we all need to receive under both kinds; the GIRM explains why it is perfectly acceptable to receive under one or both kinds, so we should not make judgements either way about how our fellow Catholics receive. Your argument above seems to be that your feelings have more weight than others and this is unnacceptable.

The argument about transmaission of germs from the Chalice has been disproved. During the swine flu endemic in Europe, tests in Germany showed that precious metal has a solid resistance to bacteria and the chances of picking up any infection is practically zero.
 
TheCurtJester

There is a difference between something being a fuller sign and being a fuller reality. Saying that receiving under both species is a fuller sign does not mean that one receives Christ more fully. Rather it is referring to an external sign. Men are both material and spiritual beings, because of these we need visible signs to help direct our thoughts and prayers to the invisible truths. This is why we use pictures etc to aid in our prayers. Similarly, while receiving under both species does not add to the reception of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, it can add to the completeness of the external sign to aid the person who receives recognize that they have indeed received all aspects of Christ.

Having said that, this external sign is not helpful for everyone.
Personally, I usually only receive the consecrated host, and that for a number of reasons, some of which have already been said. The germ thing still does turn me off from time to time. I am a little uncomfortable with how common EMHC have become. And last, though certainly not least, I am used to only receiving the consecrated host and find that my recognition of and focus on my reception of Christ is not significantly aided by receiving under both species.

While some people do not ever receive under both species, others find it a helpful practice for special occasions, as a fuller sign which separates that occasion from others.
 
wayman said:
  1. If one chooses to receive only in the form of the host, after receiving, should one bow or genuflect before the Chalice containing the Blood of Christ when passing by? What about if the chalice is being offered only a few feet from where the Host is being offered?
.
Click to expand...
I can’t quote anything official but I was told by a priest that it is not necessary to receive from the chalice, even if it is offered. I have found this information on a number of blogs where liturgy is discussed.

I genuflect in front of it when returning to my pew, or make a profound bow if it is crowded and I’m worried about tripping people behind.

Hope this helps.
 
I do not receive the Most Precious Blood. The physical matter of wine contains histamines, and I wish to avoid a wheezing, sneezing, weeping event during communion. I cannot take antihistamines, due to a narrow angle glaucoma.

I am the musician every other Sunday. Unless I receive communion with the altar servers, I have no opportunity to receive later.
 
I get the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ by taking only the host. I am not bowing as I pass the precious blood since I already have the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in my mouth. Its not like the blood is a different Christ, it is the same Christ that is in my mouth. I also will not drink from the Chalice because I don’t see the point since I get Jesus completely in the host. If that is unpopular with you Anna then I am sorry that you feel that way. You should also apologize to True for being rude.
 
thewanderer said:
TheCurtJester

There is a difference between something being a fuller sign and being a fuller reality. Saying that receiving under both species is a fuller sign does not mean that one receives Christ more fully. Rather it is referring to an external sign. Men are both material and spiritual beings, because of these we need visible signs to help direct our thoughts and prayers to the invisible truths. .
Click to expand...
I agree that the Church provides for, and encourages the use of sign. But it is always something that we are called to move beyond.

The Church defines the reception of both species to be a fuller sign. We all agree on that.

The question then becomes, what does the Church mean by it being a ‘fuller sign’, what does the Church mean by something being a ‘sign’ at all.
  • Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden, SJ
We can see what the Church means when we consider a street sign. A sign that says “Main St.” tells us where we can find Main Street or that we have arrived at Main St.

A Sign, therefore, has value only when one is searching for the greater reality (Main St) or is unsure if one has arrived\achieved that reality ( if one is, or is not on Main St)

Likewise the Sign value of recieving both species indicates (points towards) the greater reality of the Eucharist, that Christ is Present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

But if one has found that greater realtity of the Eucharist ( of which there can be NO greater reality) and if one is sure of that reality, then the sign has little meaning.

That doesn’t not mean that the sign value is of value to other, but our GOAL is to move past the need for sign and to focus on the reality.

When one is sure of the reality ( that we are driving along Main St) we don’t need to look for the signs telling us that.

Likewise, with the Eucharist, once we are sure of the Reality of what we are recieving, the sign value, by necessity decreases.

St. Paul also noted this as well.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
Click to expand...
-1 Cor 1:22-23

St. Thomas also looked for signs of Christ’s Resurrection, to place his fingers in the nail holes, and his hand in his side. But we are called to look for the Reality and not to focus on the sign,

The Sign value of both forms are useful to grow in understanding, but we are called to actually DO the growth in understanding so that we have no need of sign.

The value and purpose of a sign is to lead us to something else, we can follow the sign TO the reality that it indicates, but once we have recieved that reality, the sign should, by definition, have little value to us.

We will know that we are on Main Street 🙂
 
thewanderer said:
TheCurtJester

There is a difference between something being a fuller sign and being a fuller reality. Saying that receiving under both species is a fuller sign does not mean that one receives Christ more fully. Rather it is referring to an external sign. Men are both material and spiritual beings, because of these we need visible signs to help direct our thoughts and prayers to the invisible truths. This is why we use pictures etc to aid in our prayers. Similarly, while receiving under both species does not add to the reception of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, it can add to the completeness of the external sign to aid the person who receives recognize that they have indeed received all aspects of Christ.

Having said that, this external sign is not helpful for everyone.
Personally, I usually only receive the consecrated host, and that for a number of reasons, some of which have already been said. The germ thing still does turn me off from time to time. I am a little uncomfortable with how common EMHC have become. And last, though certainly not least, I am used to only receiving the consecrated host and find that my recognition of and focus on my reception of Christ is not significantly aided by receiving under both species.

While some people do not ever receive under both species, others find it a helpful practice for special occasions, as a fuller sign which separates that occasion from others.
Click to expand...
Okay, here are some answers to that. First, in the NO Mass, many of the outward signs that were in the TLM were removed. So why all the emphasis on one extra external sign (which isn’t extra as I’ll explain later) when the NO is all about removing many external signs(as told to me by an anti-TLM theologian)? It’s a contradiction to say the least. It could be more believable if the NO had kept all the externals of the TLM and only just added an extra. Why the liturgical cut and delete?

Secondly, the priest receives both the Host and from the chalice. This is the external sign and it need only be done once. This is present in the TLM, of course, thus there is no extra external sign present in the NO that is not in the TLM.

Third, I’ve stated before and I will again, that receiving under both species is resulting in many people starting to believe that they have to receive under both species to receive the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is a danger to the Faith. I know of a priest (he celebrates the NO) who has eliminated reception from the chalice by the laity because he saw it undermining the Faith among his parishioners. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of his article which he wrote.

In response to the person who said that precious metals have a solid resistance to germs, you better make sure the chalice isn’t crystal, clay, ceramic, or or of some such materials. I know a priest who had a whole collection of those. I’m not sure I buy that precious metals don’t retain bacteria, but I’d have to do some research on the subject.
 
There seems to be an assumption that when receiving only one specie it is the Body of Christ. Several people in our parish only receive the Blood of Christ, foregoing the Host. They too receive then entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the sacrament. It was not denied above, but I though I would point this out.

I only receive the Blood of Christ (consecrated wine) when I am acting as an EMHC. I do this as a sign of my belief that the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord is present completely in either specie.

The documents cited above indicate that the fuller sign is if both species are offered, not that both must be received.
 
If I was to go to a Papal Mass, would Holy Communion be offered to all under both species for the greater “sign value?”. Or, would they forgo the “sign value”?
 
Cathryn said:
If I was to go to a Papal Mass, would Holy Communion be offered to all under both species for the greater “sign value?”. Or, would they forgo the “sign value”?
Click to expand...
The ones I have seen televised only distributed both species to the concelebrating priests.
 
If I was to go to a Papal Mass, would Holy Communion be offered to all under both species for the greater “sign value?”. Or, would they forgo the “sign value”?
 
If I was to go to a Papal Mass, would Holy Communion be offered to all under both species for the greater “sign value?”. Or, would they forgo the “sign value”?
 
My Aunt is a Celiac, and only can partake in the Blood. No one gives her any issues about it. My mother on the other hand, by choice, only takes the Host. I partake in both unless I am at the EF Mass where the Chalice/Cup is not offered to the laity.
 
Brendan said:
I agree that the Church provides for, and encourages the use of sign. But it is always something that we are called to move beyond.

The Church defines the reception of both species to be a fuller sign. We all agree on that.

The question then becomes, what does the Church mean by it being a ‘fuller sign’, what does the Church mean by something being a ‘sign’ at all.
  • Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden, SJ
We can see what the Church means when we consider a street sign. A sign that says “Main St.” tells us where we can find Main Street or that we have arrived at Main St.

A Sign, therefore, has value only when one is searching for the greater reality (Main St) or is unsure if one has arrived\achieved that reality ( if one is, or is not on Main St)

Likewise the Sign value of recieving both species indicates (points towards) the greater reality of the Eucharist, that Christ is Present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

But if one has found that greater realtity of the Eucharist ( of which there can be NO greater reality) and if one is sure of that reality, then the sign has little meaning.

That doesn’t not mean that the sign value is of value to other, but our GOAL is to move past the need for sign and to focus on the reality.

When one is sure of the reality ( that we are driving along Main St) we don’t need to look for the signs telling us that.

Likewise, with the Eucharist, once we are sure of the Reality of what we are recieving, the sign value, by necessity decreases.

St. Paul also noted this as well.

-1 Cor 1:22-23

St. Thomas also looked for signs of Christ’s Resurrection, to place his fingers in the nail holes, and his hand in his side. But we are called to look for the Reality and not to focus on the sign,

The Sign value of both forms are useful to grow in understanding, but we are called to actually DO the growth in understanding so that we have no need of sign.

The value and purpose of a sign is to lead us to something else, we can follow the sign TO the reality that it indicates, but once we have recieved that reality, the sign should, by definition, have little value to us.

We will know that we are on Main Street 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure why you think that it is likely that anyone get to the point of no longer needing signs in this life. I agree that the purpose of a sign is to point to the reality, but in this life it is very easy for people, even those who understand church teachings, to be distracted etc. The continued presence of a sign is an aid, a reminder, that constantly calls us focus on the reality. Also, in this life the only way we would know that we are on Main Street is through sensation and the recognition that that particular combination of sensations means we are there. As humans it is important to incorporate such physical signs in a continued manner. It is only in heaven that we will have no need of e ternal signs.
 
The_Curt_Jester said:
Okay, here are some answers to that. First, in the NO Mass, many of the outward signs that were in the TLM were removed. So why all the emphasis on one extra external sign (which isn’t extra as I’ll explain later) when the NO is all about removing many external signs(as told to me by an anti-TLM theologian)? It’s a contradiction to say the least. It could be more believable if the NO had kept all the externals of the TLM and only just added an extra. Why the liturgical cut and delete?

Secondly, the priest receives both the Host and from the chalice. This is the external sign and it need only be done once. This is present in the TLM, of course, thus there is no extra external sign present in the NO that is not in the TLM.

Third, I’ve stated before and I will again, that receiving under both species is resulting in many people starting to believe that they have to receive under both species to receive the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is a danger to the Faith. I know of a priest (he celebrates the NO) who has eliminated reception from the chalice by the laity because he saw it undermining the Faith among his parishioners. Unfortunately, I no
longer have a copy of his article which he wrote.

In response to the person who said that precious metals have a solid resistance to germs,
you better make sure the chalice isn’t crystal, clay, ceramic, or or of some such materials. I know a priest who had a whole collection of those. I’m not sure I buy that precious
metals don’t retain bacteria, but I’d have to do some research on the subject.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know why you’re bringing up the NO. I realize that our discussion is already slightly off topic, this thread is about reasons we don’t receive, and that I helped lead it there, but please, if you want to question the motivation behind the choices of which signs were left in and which were not, start a new thread or join one that is currently discussing the changes in general after Vatican II.

I am not claiming to explain the reasonings behind all of those changes, nor am I defending them in my attempt to explain how a more complete sign is present.

The more complete sign is not just in seeing someone else receive, signs are not only visible. If that were the case I would agree with you that the sign would be no more complete when the Eucharist is distributed under both species. The interesting thing is that the physical qualities of a liquid can help be a sign that recalls the person who receives under both species to the fact that it is more than just an empty lifeless body that is being received. After all, blood is the symbol of life. What’s interesting is that I was just talking to friend of mine who really finds that he is better able to focus on and appreciate the reception of his Lord when he receives under both species. The explanation of the sign that I gave is not coming from some abstract theologian trying to imposed value on it, rather from someone For whom it actually is helpful.

As to the problem of receiving under both species leading to a belief that one receives a fuller reality through the reception under both species, while this can and does occur it is not because of receiving under both species as such, but because of a lack of catechesis that sometimes goes along with it. To see that it can’t be true that receiving under both species is bad and leads to failure to understand the reality present one need only look to the eastern churches where people receive by intinction.
 
I love receiving the Body AND Blood of Christ.

If anyone else only wants to or can take only one of the species that’s OK with me.

I also like taking communion on the tongue but don’t mind other people taking it by the hand since the Catholic Church says it’s OK and the first masses were like that.

I took communion one time by intinction at a Maronite Church–it was great too.

I think that taking BOTH kinds by the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail would be the BEST way to take communion but I respect other ways–as long as the Catholic Church says ANY way of receiving is OK then it’s great and OK with me.

I’m just thankful that God’s children are able to receive communion.
 
thewanderer said:
I’m still not sure why you think that it is likely that anyone get to the point of no longer needing signs in this life. I agree that the purpose of a sign is to point to the reality, but in this life it is very easy for people, even those who understand church teachings, to be distracted etc. The continued presence of a sign is an aid, a reminder, that constantly calls us focus on the reality. Also, in this life the only way we would know that we are on Main Street is through sensation and the recognition that that particular combination of sensations means we are there. As humans it is important to incorporate such physical signs in a continued manner. It is only in heaven that we will have no need of e ternal signs.
Click to expand...
That is not true and I am surprised to hear a Catholic making that claim. Are you honestly trying to say that the only way that you will know that you are receiving the living Christ is by taste?

Or is it a claim of empiricism, where our knowledge of what the Reality of the Eucharist is come from the visual form of reading the Catechism or by the audial form of hearing instruction on the subject?

The former would be incorrect, as it is strictly the accidental properties that one is experiencing. The latter would be a valid claim

And the fact remains, by the definition of ‘sign’, we are called to move past and to focus on the reality. The example of St. Thomas is relevant here. He needed the sign to believe in the Resurrection. Once the sign was recognized and it pointed to the reality of the Resurrection, St. Thomas no longer needed it. We are called to do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top