Priest Withholds Eucharistic Cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregscot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gregscot

Guest
Today at Mass we did not have the chalice. The priest and deacon did, but it was not offered to the laity. The priest stated afterward that we did not have enough Eucharistic ministers at this particular Mass time. And when we do not have enough Eucharistic ministers then we do not off the chalice. I think he was trying to make a point because the past few weeks he has been commenting that our parish is in need of more Eucharistic ministers.Is it right to withhold the chalice? I have looked through the canon law online, but I am not sure if this is covered.
 
You receive Christ, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in either the Host or the Chalice. The only reason to offer the chalice to the faithful is that it is a fuller sign of the Eucharist. Not a fuller reality, a fuller sign. Offering the chalice is always optional. Some bishops are asking that during flu season, the chalice not be offered, and many confused people are very upset. It’s only been about 20 years or so that the chalice has been routinely offered to the people, for the very reason that many incorrectly assumed that both forms (bread and wine) had to be received in order to receive the whole Christ.

So, in your parish, no problem.

Betsy
 
It is perfectly OK to limit the Chalice to the Priest and the Deacon. While receiving from the Chalice is a fuller sign of the heavenly banquet, it is not necessary for the congregation to receive the Blood of Christ since we receive Christ fully, Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity when we receive only the Host.
 
Gregscot said:
Today at Mass we did not have the chalice. The priest and deacon did, but it was not offered to the laity. The priest stated afterward that we did not have enough Eucharistic ministers at this particular Mass time. And when we do not have enough Eucharistic ministers then we do not off the chalice. I think he was trying to make a point because the past few weeks he has been commenting that our parish is in need of more Eucharistic ministers.Is it right to withhold the chalice? I have looked through the canon law online, but I am not sure if this is covered.
Click to expand...
This is how it is every Mass at our parish. The chalice is never offered to anyone other than the priest and EMCH’s. No big deal.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess it irked me because the last time he mentioned the shortage of EMHC’s he said that the Mass would be longer without more of them. I was thinking "when has convenience ever played a role in our faith? I do not care if the Mass takes longer. "
 
Gregscot said:
Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess it irked me because the last time he mentioned the shortage of EMHC’s he said that the Mass would be longer without more of them. I was thinking "when has convenience ever played a role in our faith? I do not care if the Mass takes longer. "
Click to expand...
Our parish has recently stopped offering the chalice and using EMHCs. The Mass starts at 10 a.m. and today, even after putting away the collection and recording a Mass intention, I drove away from the church at 10:50. That was with choir, 4 hymns and most of the responses sung. Granted ours is not a huge parish, but a few minutes added to the Communion procession is not a major problem.
 
Gregscot said:
Today at Mass we did not have the chalice. The priest and deacon did, but it was not offered to the laity. The priest stated afterward that we did not have enough Eucharistic ministers at this particular Mass time. And when we do not have enough Eucharistic ministers then we do not off the chalice. I think he was trying to make a point because the past few weeks he has been commenting that our parish is in need of more Eucharistic ministers.Is it right to withhold the chalice? I have looked through the canon law online, but I am not sure if this is covered.
Click to expand...
…on a simular note, may I ask please if it is normal for people to take the Eucharisy but walk straight past the cup? I see this every sunday at mass, but obviously I’m not taking communion myself (I only watch the others)… so I was just wondering, is that normal? 🤷
 
Gregscot said:
Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess it irked me because the last time he mentioned the shortage of EMHC’s he said that the Mass would be longer without more of them. I was thinking "when has convenience ever played a role in our faith? I do not care if the Mass takes longer. "
Click to expand...
That’s a great sentiment, when you consider we are receiving GOD Himself in the Eucharist, it shouldn’t matter if we have to queue around the block in order to receive Him should it?

I think your post is also interesting because of the idea of the Priest as Jesus feeding His flock- i.e. the Priest in Persona Christe. I have heard the EMHC should be, as the name suggests, extraordinary, but they have instead become the norm and in many ways replace the priest…Having attended the EF Mass a few times I am starting to grow increasingly concerned about receiving Jesus standing up. What does this say to our young people? Sure you can go to Holy Communion with reverence, but this is GOD we’re talking about here…I just feel more comfortable on my knees before Him! Know what I mean?
 
Zundrah said:
…on a simular note, may I ask please if it is normal for people to take the Eucharisy but walk straight past the cup? I see this every sunday at mass, but obviously I’m not taking communion myself (I only watch the others)… so I was just wondering, is that normal? 🤷
Click to expand...
I havent taken from ther cup since I quit drinking 24 years ago. It is not only normal for people to pass on the cup it is perfectably accpetable.
 
estesbob said:
I havent taken from ther cup since I quit drinking 24 years ago. It is not only normal for people to pass on the cup it is perfectably accpetable.
Click to expand...
I suppose if you were an alcoholic then it is a good idea to pass on it. But is it okay to pass on it even if you have no excuse to? Isn’t that just as important as the host?
 
Gregscot said:
Today at Mass we did not have the chalice. The priest and deacon did, but it was not offered to the laity. The priest stated afterward that we did not have enough Eucharistic ministers at this particular Mass time. And when we do not have enough Eucharistic ministers then we do not off the chalice. I think he was trying to make a point because the past few weeks he has been commenting that our parish is in need of more Eucharistic ministers.Is it right to withhold the chalice? I have looked through the canon law online, but I am not sure if this is covered.
Click to expand...
the topic has been discussed in several recent threads, esp. as it relates to not using the chalice for laity during flu season, and all the relevant laws have been quoted many times. No, there is no requirement for the laity to receive from the cup, only the celebrant must receive under both species. Jesus is fully completely truly sacramentally present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, entire and undivided in both species, so the faithful receive him entire and undivided when they partake either of the consecrated host or the Precious Blood.

Our pastor suspended the practice of offering the chalice to the laity a few years ago because the EMHCs were so elastic with their time, you never knew when Mass began if there would be ministers at all, and it was impossible to plan properly. He also stated that if the Precious Blood is offered it should be made available to all, the situation where some can receive but we “run out” should be avoided, and it was becoming impossible to accurately judge how much wine to consecrate.

search for the several concurrent threads on this topic as our generous and knowledgeable CAFers have all the citations at their fingertips (or mousetips).
 
Gregscot said:
I guess it irked me because the last time he mentioned the shortage of EMHC’s he said that the Mass would be longer without more of them. I was thinking "when has convenience ever played a role in our faith? I do not care if the Mass takes longer. "
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, your parish should consider not using EMHCs at all. 🙂
 
Zundrah said:
I suppose if you were an alcoholic then it is a good idea to pass on it. But is it okay to pass on it even if you have no excuse to? Isn’t that just as important as the host?
Click to expand...
There is no requirement that we receive under both species when offered. Both are complete in themselves.
 
estesbob said:
There is no requirement that we receive under both species when offered. Both are complete in themselves.
Click to expand...
Okay then, I was just curious is all.

…you people are so lucky to be able to take Christ communion. I mean just to think that if I ever died tomorrow, I still hadn’t eaten the flesh of the Lamb!
 
Zundrah said:
But is it okay to pass on it even if you have no excuse to? Isn’t that just as important as the host?
Click to expand...
It seems we have a thread about receiving under both kinds EVERY WEEK now.

There is nothing wrong with receiving under only one kind. There is nothing wrong with “pass[ing] on” the Chalice if you have received the Host. It is not disrespectful to God, it is not a failure to heed Christ’s command, and it is not an incomplete Communion.
 
Zundrah said:
Okay then, I was just curious is all.

…you people are so lucky to be able to take Christ communion. I mean just to think that if I ever died tomorrow, I still hadn’t eaten the flesh of the Lamb!
Click to expand...
We need to make a very important distinction here. Catholics receive Holy Communion. We do not take. Unfortunately, to take would put us in line with Adam and Eve who took, snatched, if you will, at divinity when they partook of the fruit of the tree of life. We receive in humility and love. We don’t snatch the Holy Eucharist.

The other important thing to consider is that Jesus is entirely and completely present in either species, even in the small fragment of the Sacred Host. St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us of this important Truth in Lauda Sion:
Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.
Click to expand...
And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.
Click to expand...
Something else to consider is that we are not required to receive Holy Communion under both species. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:
[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
Click to expand...
Thus, while havng them constitutes a “fuller sign”, that does not necessarily mean that it should both species should not be distributed at every Mass.
 
Right. I only receive the host; I’m 53, that’s the way I first received. While I’m not an alcoholic myself there is a family history of difficulty and so when the cup became available (and it has not always been in every parish I’ve attended) I have not received from the cup. I understand that it is a ‘fuller sign’ but it is not a ‘fuller Jesus’, and even though I have no ‘reason’ NOT to receive, I equally have no reason, or should I say compulsion, TO receive. I don’t think of myself as 'walking past Jesus in the cup. ’ because I have received the host, that is to say, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus in the host already. How could I be ignoring Him or going past Him when I’ve already received all of Him?
 
Reception under both species has a superior sign value to one species and it is definitely encouraged (although certainly not mandated) by the Church. To me it also uses my senses of taste and smell to reinforce that I am receiving His Precious Blood. An extremely powerful experience to me and many, many others that cannot be glibly dismissed as not being important. Not mandated? Yes. Not important to a great many? No.

If your parish wants to make the effort and commitment of recruiting and properly training qualified EMsHC (in the absence of sufficient clerics and instituted acolytes) then I see that as a very positive thing given the Church’s encouragement of Holy Communion under both species.

On the other hand I think your pastor’s move is prudent if there are not enough qualified and well-trained individuals to properly distribute Holy Communion. I would never use this as a recruiting tool however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top