Sharing the Chalice

  • Thread starter Thread starter marvin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure you can say that. Don’t forget that this was an instruction given to the Apostles, the first priests (during the first mass). Priests indeed have to recieve under both kinds during the Mass.
It is generally the Protestants who object to something that was “given or done to the Apostles” to attempt to prove that it was restricted to them. The history of the Church shows that it was the norm for a long time to receive under both species.
 
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=322341&Forums=8&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=sacrarium&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=8&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Eucharist and Real Presence Question from on 01-02-2002:

I would like some clarifications on the doctrinal teachings about the Holy Eucharist in light of some tapes I’m listening to.

1- For Christ to remain in the Eucharist under the signs of bread or wine (validly consecrated), does this require that the properties or accidents of the original bread and wine remain? The speaker notes that the “dust” from the Eucharist (possibly on the priest’s hands or maybe on the floor after a communicant receives in the hand) is probably not Jesus since these particles are imperceptible as bread, however a small crumb WOULD be Jesus since this appears as bread. I’m having a tough time understanding how the Real Presence could be so blatantly subjective when the fact is, Christ is truly and substantially present in all subdivided parts of the consecrated bread, given that the smallest individual “molecule” of breadish properties remain.

2- What must occur for Jesus to cease existing under the sacramental sign of bread or wine? And when would this occur, i.e. consecrated hosts that become moldy, when the Eucharist is digested, etc? When do the properties cease to be those of the original matter since this is often a slow chemical process, which I understand to mean the point at which it no longer remains Christ?

3- Please clarify for me what it means for Jesus to be WHOLLY present under the signs of bread and wine, yet this is not the WHOLE Christ. I understand that the WHOLE Christ is our Lord Who lives glorified in Heaven. However, I lack understanding of the fullness of His bodily presence (nerves, blood, brain, bones, etc.) which truly exist as the subject of the Blessed Sacrament.

thank you and God bless

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 01-03-2002:

These are all good question, to which I hope I will give satisfying and accurate answers.

First, we must consider the nature of the Eucharist as a sign. Indeed, what is a sign? A sign points to something else. When the consecration of the bread is completed, the entire substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, leaving only the accidents (the empirical properties - what we can perceive). That means that bread is no longer there, Christ is there (whole and entire, by the way, the only way He can be anywhere). The accidents or properties remain by a continuous miracle, not inhering in any sustance. That is awesome! They are only there in order to point out “Here is Christ!” So, when we see what would commonly be called bread or bread crumbs, the visible signs tells us “Here is Christ”. When we can no longer say this is bread or this is bread crumbs, then, that is no longer true. Subjective, as you use it has bad connotations, but it is a human judgment that we still see “bread”. The signs do not exist for the mice or the small creatures or material molecules, but for men, so a reasonable man’s judgement is in fact important. If we can’t say we see bread, then God is telling us “Christ is no longer present”. The issue is macroscopic, not microscopic. I suppose we could quibble over at what point we can dismiss the specks on the hands after Communion. Its reasonable to conclude that if we have handled the Host what we see on our hands is from the Host and therefore “bread” crumbs, albeit small ones. Admittedly there is a danger of scrupulosity, unreasonable fear of irreverence, but a check of the palms after Communion, and consciousness that God is not out to trick us into sacrilege by itsy-bitsy consecrated particles, should be sufficient antidote. Reasonable diligence is the standard, as in most things.

In keeping with the above, the Presence ceases when by common estimation it can no longer be called “bread” or “wine” - through digestion or corruption. However, an obligation still remains. The Church obliges us to dilute the Species sufficiently that this is clearly so. Thus, corrupted Hosts should be dissolved in water (or even burned), and Consecrated Wine diluted beyond recognition as “wine,” then fittingly disposed of in the sacrarium (the special sink that empties directly in the ground) or the ashes buried. The presumption would favor the species being the Eucharist until this is done.

🤓 🤓 🤓
 
The Latin Church should abolish eucharistic ministers and receiving Holy Communion from the chalice unless one has Celiac’s disease.

We don’t need three or four of the laity walking up onto the altar to hand out Communion. Father can do that by himself.
If Communion under both species was good enough for Christ, and good enough for the Apostles who distributed Communion under both species, and ggod enough for the early Church, then why is it no longer good enough for the Church?
 
There is no way to avoid absolutely every possible chance of a spill. Even priests can do it.
1 hr-

The chance of spillage increases with each additional person that touches the chalice. I believe J_G’s point to be maintaining minimal chance of spillage, which is accomplished by having the priest alone drink.
If Communion under both species was good enough for Christ, and good enough for the Apostles who distributed Communion under both species, and ggod enough for the early Church, then why is it no longer good enough for the Church?
otjm-

With all due respect, your argument is weak. Communion under one species was good enough for the Fathers at Trent. Why is it not good enough for you? You see, arguments like this are not persuasive, nor informative.

It is better to argue from a theological standpoint (e.g. whether there are spiritual benefits to be gained from both species) or even practical concerns (e.g. the possible contraction of diseases).
 

Seems you are saying —people receive “more” spiritual benefits receiving the Chalice vs. receiving just one species.
 
1 hr-

The chance of spillage increases with each additional person that touches the chalice. I believe J_G’s point to be maintaining minimal chance of spillage, which is accomplished by having the priest alone drink.
No, it doesn’t; the chances are the same. This one could be argued all over the place; in all the years I have seen Communion under both species, I have never seen a chalice spilled. I have seen hosts drop off tongues when I was an altar boy pre-Vatican 2; the same argument could be made as to reception of the host. Neither, if they occur as an accident, is a sacrilige.
otjm-

With all due respect, your argument is weak. Communion under one species was good enough for the Fathers at Trent. Why is it not good enough for you? You see, arguments like this are not persuasive, nor informative.

It is better to argue from a theological standpoint (e.g. whether there are spiritual benefits to be gained from both species) or even practical concerns (e.g. the possible contraction of diseases).
The issue of Trent is irrelevant to the discussion, as Trent’s decision was to counteract a specific heretical position. Further, the Church does not now require one to receive under both species. So the argument I made is not as weak as you would presume. Communion under one species does provide one with full reception of Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity. As the Church says, Communion under both species is a fuller sign of what Christ gave us.

The issue of disease continues to make the rounds through the Internet, sans any verifiable case of anyone contracting anything. the point remains; anyone who does not wish to receive under both species is not required to. and I have yet to hear from anyone that they contracted anything by receiving from the Cup.

Better theologians than anyone on these fora have decided that it is to our benefit to have Communion under both species; the Eastern rite Churches in union with Rome have had it since the time of Christ. We have had an interlude in which we didn’t. I fail to see what the problem is.

And I have previously posed this question elsewhere in these fora, but I will do so again: if, when anyone herein were approaching Communion found that Christ himself had appeared at the Mass and was offering the Cup, would you refuse it then from Him personally?

Theologically, you would certainly be justified in doing so. So would your choice be to be theologically justifed, and look Christ in the eye and say “No, thank you”? Or would you, when Christ held up the chalice to you and said “This is My Blood” say “Amen” and receive?

It makes no difference to me; I do not have an agenda of making everyone receive.
 
Actually, you’ve got it backwards. It was to combat the heresy that you hadn’t fully received Christ UNLESS you received under both species that Rome ordered communion only under the species of bread. It’s now that everyone understands that whether you receive only under the species of bread, only under the species of wine, or both species you are fully receiving Christ, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. I receive under both species unless I’m feeling ill and don’t wish to transmit a cold to anyone
First of all the reason of combating heresy, the reason for respect for the sacred vessles, the reason of less likelyhood of spills, the reason of the expence and rarity of wine, are all valid and correct. The Church Fathers had much more respect than most people today.

Secondly I totally disagree that people understand that they are receiving Jesus completely under one form. No. They think that it is OK to just recieve the body, but they like to recieve both the body and blood. Do you see people bowing or kneeling when they pass by or recieve the precious blood? No, most people walk right past it (if they are not receiving) and don’t even give it a second thought. I must confess that I did until I saw an old woman bow every time she passed. Now I do.

My family just took a trip to CA where we went to mass at a small church in Huntington Beach called Mary by the Sea. The priest was 81. The church was so old it had a communion rail. (For those who do not know this is a railing about that once separated the congregation from the sanctuary. There would be a step up into the sanctuary and then about a foot into the sancutary would be the communion rail. People would kneel on the step and the priest would give them Holy Communion on the tongue. This kept the people out of the holy of holies and also kept the Eucharist in. It was also a very fast and effective way for one or two priests to destribute Holy Communion to many people.) Anyways everyone knelt at the communion rail to recieve Our Lord and most of the people bowed as they passed the precious blood. A second priest came out to help the pastor distribute Holy communion so that the Extraordinary ministers did not need to touch Our Lord (they distributed the precious blood). It was one of the most beautiful masses I have been to in a long time.
They have a TLM, but we could not make that.
I understand the purpose of the Extraordinary minister. Our church has 30,000 member families (that is families not people and those are just the registered families). We have one vigil mass and I think 6 masses on Sunday. Two of the masses are held in two different places at once. This is the occasion where extraordinary ministers are necessary. We are so short of priests as it is.
But at the same time that I understand the necessity for EM, I don’t like them because more often than not they are not at all mindful of what they are doing and when I go to recieve on the tongue they often drop the host hoping that it hits my tongue.

This is why they need patens.
 
No, it doesn’t; the chances are the same. This one could be argued all over the place; in all the years I have seen Communion under both species, I have never seen a chalice spilled. I have seen hosts drop off tongues when I was an altar boy pre-Vatican 2; the same argument could be made as to reception of the host. Neither, if they occur as an accident, is a sacrilige.
Actually, the chances are not the same. Assume that the probability of spillage when a person drinks from the chalice is x (where 0<x<1). The probability that one person (say, the priest) drinks and does not spill is 1-x. If two people drink, the probability that they do not spill is (1-x)^2. For three people, (1-x)^3. Since 0<x<1, 0<1-x<1. Squaring a number between 0 and 1 results in a lower number. Therefore, the probability of no spillage decreases with each additional partaker. In other words, the probability of spillage increases with each additional person that drinks.

You can argue this “all over the place”, but even if you do I will be forced to respectfully inform you of your error.

Note that if x varies between persons, and it likely does, my proof still holds. If 0<x<1 and 0<y<1, (1-x)(1-y) is still less than 1-x and so the chance for spillage increases.
And I have previously posed this question elsewhere in these fora, but I will do so again: if, when anyone herein were approaching Communion found that Christ himself had appeared at the Mass and was offering the Cup, would you refuse it then from Him personally?
Theologically, you would certainly be justified in doing so. So would your choice be to be theologically justifed, and look Christ in the eye and say “No, thank you”? Or would you, when Christ held up the chalice to you and said “This is My Blood” say “Amen” and receive?
It makes no difference to me; I do not have an agenda of making everyone receive.
You have completely misunderstood my Trent example. It was constructed to demonstrate to you that “x was good enough for y, it’s good enough for you” does not follow and therefore constitutes a weak argument… I am NOT accusing you of heresy against Trent by any means.

Regarding your hypothetical “what if Christ appeared to you and offered you His Blood?”: certainly I would take it. Again, your argument is not persuasive, because what we are debating is whether it is necessary for the Church to let laypeople drink from the Chalice, not whether someone should refuse when offered.

Regarding your caveat: I do not suspect you of a hidden agenda.
 
And I have previously posed this question elsewhere in these fora, but I will do so again: if, when anyone herein were approaching Communion found that Christ himself had appeared at the Mass and was offering the Cup, would you refuse it then from Him personally?

Theologically, you would certainly be justified in doing so. So would your choice be to be theologically justifed, and look Christ in the eye and say “No, thank you”? Or would you, when Christ held up the chalice to you and said “This is My Blood” say “Amen” and receive?

It makes no difference to me; I do not have an agenda of making everyone receive.

Our Lord Christ Does appear in each and every Mass and He Does offer to us all that He has to offer-- complete in each individual species.

You say – you have no agenda — but your own words say otherwise.
 
First of all the reason of combating heresy, the reason for respect for the sacred vessles, the reason of less likelyhood of spills, the reason of the expence and rarity of wine, are all valid and correct. The Church Fathers had much more respect than most people today.
If you are going to reference Church fathers, please quote. The Church has survived for 2000 years with Communion under both species - as the East has had it for that long - and the West for something less than that, as Trent, about 500 years ago, determined that at the time it was not in the best interest. Since then, the Church has decided that it is in the best interest to allow it. There is very little likelyhood of spills, which evidenced by the extremely low incidence of them.
Secondly I totally disagree that people understand that they are receiving Jesus completely under one form. No. They think that it is OK to just recieve the body, but they like to receive both the body and blood. Do you see people bowing or kneeling when they pass by or recieve the precious blood? No, most people walk right past it (if they are not receiving) and don’t even give it a second thought. I must confess that I did until I saw an old woman bow every time she passed. Now I do.
I agree that catechesis has been sorely lacking, as it is sorely lacking about a whole lot of issues. The cure for that is proper catechesis, not elimination of receiving the Cup. As to the issue of of bowing when passing in front of the Cup, that is not in the GIRM. It is akin to the issue of holding hands during the Our Father in that it is not regulated. That is, it is neither required or prohibited. One should be reasonably permitted to do so, but one is definitely not required to do so - one has just received and one does not bow to oneself - just as the priest, if carrying the Host in a monstrance and passing a tabernacle would not bow to the tabernacle.
 
Quote=(name removed by moderator)
I believe the concern for spilling is far outweighed by the spiritual benefits of making the precious blood available.

Yet in reality there really is no difference in spiritual benefits in the “sign” of communion under both vs. receiving under one.
[/quote]
 

Our Lord Christ Does appear in each and every Mass and He Does offer to us all that He has to offer-- complete in each individual species.

You say – you have no agenda — but your own words say otherwise.
Don’t play cute; you know exactly what I was saying by appearance.

Yes, I most certainly have an agenda, and I am not about hiding it. I want people to think, not just react with a knee-jerk reaction.

Do I think that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of what Christ did, both at the Last Suppear and at Calvary? Absolutely.
Do I believe the truth of John 6? Absolutely.
Do I believe the theological explanation of Trent? Absolutely.

And I stand by my question: If Christ were to physically appear at Mass during Communion, and handed the Cup saying “This is My Blood”, how many would receive it, and how many would pass by?

Theologically, every one who passed by would be justified. Absolutely no question. But that is not the question I asked. If the question does not make you uncomfotrtable with the choice you are making, excellent. If it does, then you need to ask yourself why?
 
Disciplinary issues may be debated without being disobedient.
  1. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has stated that the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion is permissible for pastoral reasons when necessary. Under a spirit of obedience, that is all I need to hear.
I’d rather hear more. See above.
  1. I reluctantly became a EMHC several years ago a my pastor’s request. We have a large parish (over 9000 members) and typically Mass goes more than an hour even with the use of anywhere from 3 to 11 EMHCs (depending on the Mass). In the past years, I have seen the precious blood spilled one time and one time only. I have seen the consecrated host dropped repeatedly.
Interesting data but too inconclusive.
I believe the concern for spilling is far outweighed by the spiritual benefits of making the precious blood available.
The actual spiritual benefits are the same, as I’m sure you know. Having both is “a clearer sign” but when the priest drinks from the chalice, the sign is clear for all to see.
As for irreverence, the fact unfortunately is that the lack of reverence exists with those receiving under only one species, in my observations, far far more than it does with those receiving both.
I appreciate your intention but any average person could say the exact opposite. Not persuasive.
 
I quote respectfully from otjm:
Don’t play cute; you know exactly what I was saying by appearance.
There is no need to be unpleasant.
Theologically, every one who passed by would be justified. Absolutely no question. But that is not the question I asked. If the question does not make you uncomfotrtable with the choice you are making, excellent. If it does, then you need to ask yourself why?
Because apparition is a rare occurrence, usually significant of an important event, and so I would assume that there is some reason it occurred. Thus, I would reason that there is some special reason why I should drink, and would feel uncomfortable not doing so.

This does not need to result in the conclusion that the chalice should be offered for the laity during every Mass.
 
Don’t play cute; you know exactly what I was saying by appearance.

Yes, I most certainly have an agenda, and I am not about hiding it. I want people to think, not just react with a knee-jerk reaction.

Do I think that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of what Christ did, both at the Last Suppear and at Calvary? Absolutely.
Do I believe the truth of John 6? Absolutely.
Do I believe the theological explanation of Trent? Absolutely.

And I stand by my question: If Christ were to physically appear at Mass during Communion, and handed the Cup saying “This is My Blood”, how many would receive it, and how many would pass by?

Theologically, every one who passed by would be justified. Absolutely no question. But that is not the question I asked. If the question does not make you uncomfotrtable with the choice you are making, excellent. If it does, then you need to ask yourself why?

It doesn’t make me uncomfortable --because I don’t go falling into the presumption of using and manipulating our Lord Christ in such a manner.
 
Here we go again… and again let this enlighten us all…

The TLM teaches us the Catholic Faith.

The reason why only the celebrant drinks from the chalice, and lay people receive the Host only is because the Church teaches us that Christ is received whole and entire under either form. The action of not receiving from the chalice teaches us that very fact and shows it to all.

Ken
 

The “sign” does not offer you any greater spiritual benefit over receiving one species. It is getting close to heretical to even consider that the sign of both – garners more over the reception of one.
 
Secondly I totally disagree that people understand that they are receiving Jesus completely under one form. No. They think that it is OK to just recieve the body, but they like to recieve both the body and blood. Do you see people bowing or kneeling when they pass by or recieve the precious blood? No, most people walk right past it (if they are not receiving) and don’t even give it a second thought. I must confess that I did until I saw an old woman bow every time she passed. Now I do.

I notice this every time I see a specific person kneel to receive on the tongue, genuflect to the empty tabernacle as he passes in front yet not even glance at the chalice as he walks by. Having had discussions with him I know for a fact that he believes that Jesus is fully present each species even if he strongly disagrees with anyone but the priest receiving the Precious Blood.
 
Here we go again… and again let this enlighten us all…

The TLM teaches us the Catholic Faith.

The reason why only the celebrant drinks from the chalice, and lay people receive the Host only is because the Church teaches us that Christ is received whole and entire under either form. The action of not receiving from the chalice teaches us that very fact and shows it to all.

Ken
I think you might want to clean up some of the images you are writing – the celebrant receives under both forms while laity receives under one. Your wording looks like celebrant gets one species and laity gets the other splitting up what has been consecrated.
 
From newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm :
“It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in I Cor., xi, 28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the “breaking of bread” in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary…”

I remember reading from some other Catholic source that the Church also decided to stop administering the Blood of Christ to the laity because of the Black Death that Europe endured.

Anyway, that link I provided is great for an in depth history about Holy Communion under both the Blood and Bread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top