Receiving the Cup is bad?

[phil19034]

In the US, self-intinction is forbidden.

If I’m not mistaken self-intinction is forbidden for all laity, world wide - not just in the USA

You can only receive via intinction on the tongue, from a ordained member of the clergy.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I agree, though I don’t have a source handy; I’m almost certain this is a worldwide restriction.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I live in the US, so I only know the rules that apply to us.

 

[phil19034]

I live in the US, so I only know the rules that apply to us.

I wasn’t arguing with you. I was simply adding on.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

My $0.02 worth, if anyone is interested:

Generally speaking, I like MV, enjoy his show, when I discovered it on Roku one evening (home by myself, son was with mother), I was having stomach issues and couldn’t sleep, was wandering Roku and found CM. Stayed up half the night watching MV and was very, very happy to have discovered his channel — the pain and gastric disturbance didn’t matter anymore. I don’t share his negative views on the SSPX, and his use of “Protties” to describe Protestants is discourteous and won’t build any bridges to reach them. I do admire the way he owned his past gay lifestyle, and manifested his repentance for it, when he was on the verge of being “outed” by some in the Church. His style can be rough but there’s much more to like, than not to like, about MV and CM.

I have no intrinsic issue with communion under both kinds — in fact, in the Eastern church, there is no other way to receive it, and their method of intinction makes communion in the hand impossible. I’m good with that. I have less of an issue with receiving the cup from a layperson, than with receiving the host (which I flatly refuse to do), as there is no problem of a layperson (actually two, the EMHC and the communicant) handling the Body of Christ, and no danger of sacrilege through unseen particles sloughing off the host and ending up wherever. Indeed, for someone with celiac disease, receiving from the cup only seems like a no-brainer — no need to provide for a special low-gluten host.

In the Church of the 1950s and before, there was the mentality of “the priest must receive, but the laity may receive, or they may not”. Indeed, missals would refer to the possibility of having no communicants other than the priest:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Clearly, we do not have that mindset anymore. Keep in mind that there was a communion fast from midnight onwards before Pius XII in 1957, and a fast of three hours until 1964.

 

[PetraG]

Especially RED lipstick , the ones that last 24hrs … Ladies, if you choose to wear lipstick to Mass, please choose a different color or at least not one of those 24hr lasting types. Thankyou!!

The darker red pigments are really stubborn, but that dark, nearly black, lipliner is even worse. Terrible. A penance for all the unintentional harm I have done in my life, lol!!

Better yet… if you are wearing lipstick, please refrain from receiving the Precious Blood.

Thank you

The reason I am not willing to go that far is that I know that many of us women do not feel “dressed” if we don’t wear lipstick. We feel as if we are going out not entirely “groomed” or looking as if we don’t care. I’m not willing to say that women who take the trouble to really dress their best for Mass, including lipstick, should not receive under both species. As one of us who do the work (and I don’t happen to know any men who do this particular work, although they have to be out there), I would say that I can cope with this inconvenience but just that the lighter shades are far less of a problem.

The other thing: When the chalice is offered to the faithful, it is very often an extraordinary minister who is assisting with that. Please, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion: Don’t wipe the cup hard! It drives the stain into the linen! And don’t wipe twice on the same section of the purificator, not even if it is the edge of the cup used by the same communicant! That also seems to push the stain into the threads instead of leaving them on the surface of the fabric, and that is where the real trouble starts.

If you really want to be angels, please stay away from the seams of the purificator and sections near the embroidery. The seams, with more than one layer of fabric, trap stains more often. The threads of embroidered sections are more delicate and also tend to trap the stain farther in.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Better yet… if you are wearing lipstick, please refrain from receiving the Precious Blood.

Thank you

I find it very refreshing when women choose not to wear lipstick or makeup. I very much like the idea of looking like oneself at all times. I was so relieved when my hair grew so thin that the only way it looks right is if I wear a buzzcut. Much cooler, no more need for combing or shampoo, yet one more hack to make life simpler.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BTW I should add, although I can no longer receive from the cup, it is a spiritual blessing to do so.

I will receive from the cup should I be at a small service, but not at regular Mass on Sundays.

Jim

 

[Mi_Rose]

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

I drink alcohol. I do not drink wine because I have a sulfite intolerance which has landed me in the hospital before. Be careful what you assume.

 

[godisgood77]

1). He is 1000% in error on this.

2). I would recommend staying far away from Michael and his content. He was forbidden by his Bishop from using the word ‘Catholic’ to describe his work. I believe he is poison to the brain.

 

[dochawk]

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

At this stage, it would be more than merely disciplinary for byzantines to change.

In practice, we do give only the Blood to infants until they’re old enough. We also provide the Body alone, set aside instead of added to the cup, for alcoholics, and latin hosts for those with allergies (also often used for alcoholics).

That said, we have added all of the host to the cup before the people receive every time since (at least) the third century.

It would be like saying that getting married in a plain dress isn’t the same as getting married in a long white gown.

FWIW, clergy were actively opposed to white and yellow gowns when they became the style, as purity isn’t something that should have to be advertised, but should be the norm . .

I know Eastern rites use spoons,

To be clear, It is dropped in the open mouth, not eaten from the spoon…

 

[PetraG]

FWIW, clergy were actively opposed to white and yellow gowns when they became the style, as purity isn’t something that should have to be advertised, but should be the norm . .

Queen Victoria was going against fashion when she chose white, and her example made it popular.
Some writer made up the idea that the choice of white was traditional “from earliest ages” and symbolized purity. When the fashion started, it meant nothing of the sort. It meant the Queen wanted to wear a color she liked better than the colors that other upper-class women had chosen before her, and being the Queen, well, she got what she wanted and everyone else imitated her. Queen Victoria loved the dress and wore it on multiple occasions after she married. (She also used silk and lace manufactured in England, a point not lost on her nation’s approving textile industry.)

As to the point of the thread, it is another instance of something taking on a meaning that it doesn’t necessarily have.

 

[englands123]

Obviously if there are personal reasons not to accept the cup that’s up to the individual that goes without saying my friend.

An example being a recovering alcoholic…

If someone is fearful of drinking form the cup because ( another’s illness ) that I find sad.

If you are worrying about cleaning a cup after lipstick for example. Please refrain from those duties. That’s not attack on you or anyone else.

The blood of Jesus ( chalice ) cleansing ones own soul is beautiful in all his Glory.

The body of Christ ( bread ) cleansing ones body is beautiful also.

It’s not what goes in to the mouth that can determine a person but what comes out !!

I’ve seen lipstick on a cup and not for one moment would I discredit the offering. If a person before me had all cold sores over their face I would still gladly drink from the cup after them.

Sorry if anyone thinks differently.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

And I should clarify, we do not dip into the chalice… There are separate vessels used for the wine. Never paid attention as to how it ends up in these cups, but will watch more carerully next sunday…

It is not wine. It is the blood of Christ at this point.

Which form of Catholic Church do you attend? That might help us understand the intinction custom there.

 

[steph03]

steph03:

And I should clarify, we do not dip into the chalice… There are separate vessels used for the wine. Never paid attention as to how it ends up in these cups, but will watch more carerully next sunday…

It is not wine. It is the blood of Christ at this point.

Which form of Catholic Church do you attend? That might help us understand the intinction custom there.

regular Roman Catholic OF in Canada

 

[jimXroberts]

It wasn’t bad at the Last Supper. It wasn’t bad for the first 1,100 years of the Church’s history. Receiving Holy Communion from the chalice was largely withdrawn from the laity in the 12th century and was restored as part of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Michael Voris appears not to like any of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Jesus Christ is truly present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in every part of the Sacred Elements. It is not compulsory to extend receiving Holy Communion from the cup to the laity and it is not compulsory for individuals to so receive if it is available. Describing the receipt of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as “bad” sounds to me like a cause for excommunication.

 

[JimG]

The main caution in distributing communion under both species is not to consecrate too much wine. Once consecrated, it cannot be reserved in the tabernacle, as can the hosts. It must all be consumed at that Mass.

 

[GKMotley]

My Anglican son in law, when serving as server for the Mass, often was called to consume the remaining Blood.

 

[PetraG]

My Anglican son in law, when serving as server for the Mass, often was called to consume the remaining Blood.

The minister of Holy Communion (whether ordinary or extraordinary) also consumes the remaining Precious Blood if there is any that has not been consumed by the faithful when all have received Holy Communion. If it is “often” the case that there is a substantial amount remaining, however, the sacristans are usually instructed not to provide so much in the future.

Since the first outbreak of H1N1 in our area, it is also often the case that Holy Communion is only offered under one species when there is a flu outbreak. I think that those who have an intolerance to consuming anything containing wheat alert the sacristans, and in that case a small amount is consecrated for those communicants only.

 

[HopkinsReb]

GKMotley:

My Anglican son in law, when serving as server for the Mass, often was called to consume the remaining Blood.

The minister of Holy Communion (whether ordinary or extraordinary) also consumes the remaining Precious Blood if there is any that has not been consumed by the faithful when all have received Holy Communion. If it is “often” the case that there is a substantial amount remaining, however, the sacristans are usually instructed not to provide so much in the future.

In my Episcopal church growing up, one of the ushers would do a headcount early in the service. When they brought up the bread and wine before the offertory, the bread would have a slip of paper with the attendance on it. They had it down to a science.