Receiving the Cup is bad?

[Dorothy]

Thank you for your full explanation, which should erase all confusion about this topic.

 

[CRV]

You’re welcome.

Are both species needed for a valid Communion? Msgr Charles Pope.
" Question: In my parish, holy Communion is offered under both kinds: the host and the chalice. Is it wrong to receive only the host and to refuse the offer of the chalice? Someone told me that Jesus said we must eat his flesh AND drink his blood.

Answer: No. Other than the priest, a Catholic is not required to receive the Eucharist under both species, thus no sin is incurred in not partaking from the chalice.
…
CCC #1390
…
Thus, although receiving under both forms is commendable, it is not required to do so, because the whole Christ is received under one form alone.
…
You also wonder about the meaning of Jesus’ words, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (Jn 6:53). Here, too, it must be emphasized that in receiving the host, we receive the whole Christ: body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus is not divided up in holy Communion. He is fully present in the smallest particle of the host and the smallest drop of the precious blood. Thus in receiving the host you also are partaking of his blood, as he commands."
End of quotes from article.

Those who wish to partake of the Precious Blood, should do so. Those who don’t, do not have to. Receiving both does not equal more Jesus or more grace or more fruits. Being gluten free, in the past I have had to only receive the Precious Blood - for which I was grateful. But if one doesn’t receive the Precious Blood, there is nothing wrong/sinful/received less nor should be seen that one is less Catholic from refraining from the Chalice, than if one received just the Blessed Sacrament alone.

 

[nightshade]

This is why I am so so thankful we have intincture at our Parish for every Mass.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have an “agenda”? News to me…

 

[angel12]

You do realize, don’t you, that we can’t see who has flagged our posts?

 

[Babaganoush]

Why do you care what Michael voris thinks? Receiving both is superior because that is how it was instituted by Christ. He didn’t say take and eat, don’t take and drink. Also the church offered both to everyone for the first millennium. That is the tradition, and it was an error to abandon it. It isn’t the same to receive only one, otherwise Christ would have done away with the redundancy himself.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was a EMHC and served ministering the cup. I was asked to do the cup almost every weekend, because of the lack of EMHC’s.

My wife opposed it for health reasons and I learned the hard way.

I had a bicuspid aortic heart valve, which caused a murmur and had been watched by a cardiologist for the past 15 years.

Anyway, this past May, I ended up with a blood infection which hit that aortic valve and infected it, a condition known as endocarditis. It’s caused from human bacteria, often from having dental work, or other sources from humans.

This ended up swelling the valve and this past July, I had open heart surgery to replace the valve. This was the sickest I’ve ever been in my life. It literally nearly killed me. It’s been ten weeks since surgery and I’m almost back to 100% normal, thank God !

I’m sharing this because the source could have been from the cup. All it would take is a person receiving with a broken tooth, a cavity or other mouth sore. For most people, nothing would’ve happened, but with a bicuspid aortic valve, or other heart murmur, it could kill the person.

I can no longer be a minister of the cup or receive from the cup.

So, anyone who has a heart condition, they really need to speak with their doctor about receiving from the cup and if they have any risks.

Everyone is at risk catching a cold or the flu from receiving from the cup and I have seen people who had colds, receive from the cup. The alcohol in the wine is not strong enough to kill off all the virus germs that can exist on the cup itself or in the wine.

Jim

 

[HopkinsReb]

You do you, I guess.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I do believe it is important for Catholics to know when receiving the host, they receive all of Jesus; body, blood, soul and divinity. Receiving from the cup is not required, we receive His blood in the host.

 

[CRV]

It isn’t the same to receive only one,

I respectfully disagree. You are receving the same Jesus whole and entire under either species.

OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF Doctrinal Formation and Communion Under Both Kinds
"“So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds,… preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent” … the handing down of the dogmatic principles of the Council of Trent has been seen as old-fashioned. The instruction has made clear that, intrinsic to the “fullness of the sign,” is consistency with liturgical books and with the teachings of Trent.

For modern generations, the Council of Trent may not have been mentioned in their doctrinal formation which emphasizes that “nothing is lost by the body being received by the people without the blood: because the priest both offers and receives the blood in the name of all, and the whole Christ is present under either species” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 80, a. 12, ad 3). So, under the species of bread there is also present, by concomitance, the precious blood.
The purpose, then, of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds, is not that the faithful receive more grace than when they receive it under one kind alone, but that the faithful are enabled to appreciate vividly the value of the sign. (Bold & Italics are mine).

Redemptionis Sacramentum
Chapter IV Holy Communion
"So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. (Bold & Italics are mine).

 

[CRV]

Sacrosanctum Concilium

#55 " … That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact …"

(Bold & Italics are mine).

The Council of Trent on Communion

Chapters 1-3

Chapter I " … that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution(k) of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said ; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said ; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.) "

Chapter II

" … Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one(o) species, (p) and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself. "

Chapter III " That Christ whole and entire, and a true Sacrament are received under either species.

It moreover declares, that although, as hath been already said, our Redeemer, in that last supper, instituted, and delivered to the apostles, this sacrament in two species, yet is to be acknowledged, that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament are received under either species alone; and that therefore, as regards the fruit thereof, they, who receive one species alone, are not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation. "

 

[CRV]

Denziner #1725-1729

#1727 For although Christ the Lord at the Last Supper instituted and delivered to the apostles this venerable sacrament under the species of bread and wine (cf. Mt 26,26 f.; Mc 14,22 Lc 22,19 1Co 11,23 ), f., yet, that institution and tradition do not contend that all the faithful of Christ by an enactment of the Lord are bound [can. 1, 2] to receive under both species [can. 1, 2]. But neither is it rightly inferred from that sixth discourse in John that communion under both forms was commanded by the Lord [can. 3], whatever the understanding may be according to the various interpretations of the holy Fathers and Doctors. For, He who said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” ( Jn 6,54 ), also said: “If anyone eat of this bread, he shall live forever” ( Jn 6,52 ). And He who said: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting” ( Jn 6,55 ) also said: “The bread, which I shall give, is my flesh for the life of the world” ( Jn 6,52 ): and finally, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him” ( Jn 6,57 ), said nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread, shall live forever” ( Jn 6,58 )."

1729 Dz 932 Moreover, it declares that although our Redeemer, as has been said before, at that Last Supper instituted this sacrament and gave it to the apostles under two species, yet it must be confessed that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament is received even under either species alone, and that on that account, as far as regards its fruit, those who receive only one species are not to be deprived of any grace which is necessary for salvation [can. 3].

 

[dochawk]

If it’s wrong, it was done wrong in the first few centuries of Christianity…

more than that; even in the western church, until the 14th century ago, when it was suppressed as a disciplinary issue to flush out heretics, and not for theological reasons about reception.

And if it’s wrong, the East is in big trouble . . . Byazntines have been receiving both simultaneously by the spoon since the third century . . .

 

[Brendan]

more than that; even in the western church, until the 14th century ago, when it was suppressed as a disciplinary issue to flush out heretics, and not for theological reasons about reception.
[/quoted

It is always a disciplinary decision to allow or not allow both species. There is no theological reason for requiring both.

That said, the Church suppression of the common use of both species was NOT 'to flush out heretics", but to catechize the faithful against heretical teachings. That is a completely different thing.

 

[steph03]

more than that; even in the western church, until the 14th century ago, when it was suppressed as a disciplinary issue to flush out heretics, and not for theological reasons about reception.
[/quoted

It is always a disciplinary decision to allow or not allow both species. There is no theological reason for requiring both.

You can make a case with Christ’s words when instituting the eucharist…

        Take this, **all of you**, and **eat** of it:
        for this is my body which will be given up for you.

        Take this, **all of you**, and **drink** from it:
        for this is the chalice of my blood,

But the Church has decreed that by receiving the body, you also get the blood so it is not absolutely necessary to receive both every time.

So you could make an argument that it is preferable get both, but getting one is equaly valid.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I find there is much less stress and anxiety in life when I do not watch Church Militant videos or people like Michael Voris.
The Church says that receiving the cup is okay. That is good enough for me.

 

[englands123]

Anyone who thinks it’s wrong to accept the blood of Christ is way off the mark…

To be honest there is no reason not to accept it unless you do not drink alcohol.

It’s a gift from the Lord.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

To be honest there is no reason not to accept it unless you do not drink alcohol.

I’m not saying we can’t or we shouldn’t but there are other reasons besides not drinking alcohol. There is one post above where they can’t take it for health reasons. I would say someone who has a poor immune system should not, or if you have a cold, flu, mouth sores, or the like. One reason I don’t is because of arm twitches on movement. I once went to reach for the cup and almost knocked it out of the extraordinary ministers hand, so someone with difficulty holding the cup would be another reason.

We already receive Christ’s blood in the host is the best reason.

 

[PetraG]

Anyone who thinks it’s wrong to accept the blood of Christ is way off the mark…

To be honest there is no reason not to accept it unless you do not drink alcohol.

It’s a gift from the Lord.

Be careful. Your reply presumes too much.

For instance, I have the happy duty of cleaning the purificators used at our parish. Getting lipstick stains off of the sacred linens is a constant and time-consuming challenge. People who decide that they are not going to receive Holy Communion from the chalice because they want to avoid leaving lipstick or chapstick or just microbes from a disease they might have on either a chalice or on the sacred linens are not going to get an argument from me. I am not suggesting that those wearing lipstick ought to bar themselves from receiving Holy Communion from a chalice, but I would still count it as an act of charity and even perhaps an act of reverence towards the sacred vessels and linens if they decide avoid that. There are many other reasons besides intolerance towards alcohol that someone might elect not to receive Holy Communion from the chalice.

[On that note: If any of you do receive Holy Communion from a chalice while wearing lipstick, PLEASE TRY TO REMEMBER to blot your lips on a tissue beforehand!! Heavier lipstick stains are much harder to remove than light ones. Thank you!!]

It isn’t the same to receive only one, otherwise Christ would have done away with the redundancy himself.

Actually, it is entirely the same, as Church documents already posted have made very clear. This is a very important catechetical point; there should be no confusion about it and no equivocation about it.

It would be like saying that getting married in a plain dress isn’t the same as getting married in a long white gown. There is a sign value in the white gown, just as there is a value in other things that heighten the sense of what a momentous event is taking place in the lives of the bride and groom, but a bride who gets married in a simple ceremony in a plain dress is 100% just as married as one who had a more elaborate wedding. Couples who get married without wedding rings are just as married as those who include an exchange of rings. Enhancing the sign value in a ceremony with a real effect has its place, it is not unimportant, but changing the essence of what is taking place–whether or not the effect of an action is “the same”–is NOT where that importance lies!

 

[steph03]

As I am reading this thread, I am surprised that people seem to all drink from the same Chalice. I had seen this in more conservative Brethren churches (although they would never ever call it a Chalice but instead refer to it as the Cup), but not in Catholics. I know Eastern rites use spoons, while most Catholic churches I know you dip the Host in the Chalice (or for those receiving on the tongue, the priest dips it for you). Anyway, nice reading information…