Sharing the Chalice

[marvin]

I heard recently that in the pre-Vatican II Mass that the chalice was not shared with the congregation.

Could any of you knowledgable folks tell me why the congregation did not drink from the chalice. I am very interested in the older rite and am trying to learn as much as I can about it.

Any resources anyone could suggest would be helpful as well.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I heard recently that in the pre-Vatican II Mass that the chalice was not shared with the congregation.

Could any of you knowledgable folks tell me why the congregation did not drink from the chalice. I am very interested in the older rite and am trying to learn as much as I can about it.

Any resources anyone could suggest would be helpful as well.

The very ancient practise was to distribute the precious blood.

There were several reasons why this was changed, one of which was the expense of imported wine in northern regions, another was the fact that the laity could only drink by touching the sacred vessel, which was felt to be incompatible with the dignity of the Eucharist. Then of course the chance of an accident is much greater with a liquid than with a solid.

The sxiteenth century reformers had a strong case in restoring the chalice to the laity - not everything they said was totally wrong - with the result that the matter became a totem. In was only at Vatican II that the practise was restored.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I heard recently that in the pre-Vatican II Mass that the chalice was not shared with the congregation.

Could any of you knowledgable folks tell me why the congregation did not drink from the chalice. I am very interested in the older rite and am trying to learn as much as I can about it.

Any resources anyone could suggest would be helpful as well.

The consecrated bread and wine are both fully Jesus Christ - His body, divinity and soul. In this sense they are essentially the same, and it’s only the accidends (their appearance) that make them different. For this reason it is not needed that we recieve communion under both kinds. The Roman Church traditionally practices communion under one kind, though during certain time periods the Popes ordered communion under both kinds such as to combat a heresy. But after the heresy was weakened the tradition was brought back.

Now, for some odd reason (a reason I don’t understand) in England (and perhaps other places) communion under both kinds is pretty standard in the Novus Ordo masses. I don’t like it. You will however not see it in traditional parishes and during TLM.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The consecrated bread and wine are both fully Jesus Christ - His body, divinity and soul. In this sense they are essentially the same, and it’s only the accidends (their appearance) that make them different. For this reason it is not needed that we recieve communion under both kinds. The Roman Church traditionally practices communion under one kind, though during certain time periods the Popes ordered communion under both kinds such as to combat a heresy. But after the heresy was weakened the tradition was brought back.

Now, for some odd reason (a reason I don’t understand) in England (and perhaps other places) communion under both kinds is pretty standard in the Novus Ordo masses. I don’t like it. You will however not see it in traditional parishes and during TLM.

Making the option to receive under both forms makes it possible to take part in the instructionS of Christ - Take and eat, Take and drink. This option does not change that either form, in itself, is the full Sacrament.

 

[Phemie]

The Roman Church traditionally practices communion under one kind, though during certain time periods the Popes ordered communion under both kinds such as to combat a heresy. But after the heresy was weakened the tradition was brought back.

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. While the symbol of the meal is fuller with both species, either one alone is fully Communion.

I receive under both species unless I’m feeling ill and don’t wish to transmit a cold to anyone else but I don’t feel I’ve missed out if I go to a parish which doesn’t give Communion under both species – my hometown parish still only gives Communion under one species.

 

[palmas85]

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. While the symbol of the meal is fuller with both species, either one alone is fully Communion.

I receive under both species unless I’m feeling ill and don’t wish to transmit a cold to anyone else but I don’t feel I’ve missed out if I go to a parish which doesn’t give Communion under both species – my hometown parish still only gives Communion under one species.

You would be surprised at how many people these days believe that you have to receive under both species in order to receive the full benefits of Holy Communion.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Making the option to receive under both forms makes it possible to take part in the instructionS of Christ - Take and eat, Take and drink. This option does not change that either form, in itself, is the full Sacrament.

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.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

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.

With that reasoning no laity should receive communion at all.

 

[Walking_Home]

You would be surprised at how many people these days believe that you have to receive under both species in order to receive the full benefits of Holy Communion.

---

I agree. All signs and indications say there has been a “re-birth” of that error which led the Church to withdraw the Chalice from the laity.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

With that reasoning no laity should receive communion at all.

No, He instructed that we all have to eat his flesh and drink his blood long before the Last Supper (John 6). This is of course done without consuming His Precious Blood.

Basically you have two options:

• either the instructions Jesus made during the Last Supper were given to the whole Church (including the lay members) and the Roman Chuch is dissobedient by not following these instructions.
• or the instructions were not for the whole Church and thus communion under one kind is perfectly allright.

 

[puzzleannie]

I heard recently that in the pre-Vatican II Mass that the chalice was not shared with the congregation.

.

it was allowed on certain occasions such as for the newly married couple during a nuptial Mass, sometimes for first communion and other times with pastoral permission.

One reason was logistics and fear of what does happen frequently now, spilling and other irreverance toward the Precious Blood. I will also hazard a guess that in mission territories wine was not always easy to come by, so reserved for the priest’s communion and used sparingly.

The other reason is to emphasize the Christ is fully, sacramentally, truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, wholely in the Sacred Body, wholely in the Precious Blood, so to receive under either form is complete reception of the undivided Christ. In their well-intentioned attempt to emphasize the “sign value” of receiving under both species, the bishops I fear have unintentionally set the stage for a loss of understanding of that reality.

In the Eastern Churches reception has always been under both forms, usually by intinction.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

it was allowed on certain occasions such as for the newly married couple during a nuptial Mass, sometimes for first communion and other times with pastoral permission.

One reason was logistics and fear of what does happen frequently now, spilling and other irreverance toward the Precious Blood. I will also hazard a guess that in mission territories wine was not always easy to come by, so reserved for the priest’s communion and used sparingly.

The other reason is to emphasize the Christ is fully, sacramentally, truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, wholely in the Sacred Body, wholely in the Precious Blood, so to receive under either form is complete reception of the undivided Christ. In their well-intentioned attempt to emphasize the “sign value” of receiving under both species, the bishops I fear have unintentionally set the stage for a loss of understanding of that reality.

In the Eastern Churches reception has always been under both forms, usually by intinction.

SPILLING HAPPENS FREQUENTLY NOW??

 

[puzzleannie]

SPILLING HAPPENS FREQUENTLY NOW??

spilling, dribbling, spitting, dripping, glass chalices breaking, children or infirm elders dropping the chalice, children saying “eeeew” when they receive because they have not had a chance to taste wine before 1st communion–oh yeah, I’ve seen it all, not common thankfully, but too common for proper reverence. IMO communion under both species should be distributed by intinction only, using vessels made for the purpose, by priests and deacons.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

spilling, dribbling, spitting, dripping, glass chalices breaking, children or infirm elders dropping the chalice, children saying “eeeew” when they receive because they have not had a chance to taste wine before 1st communion–oh yeah, I’ve seen it all, not common thankfully, but too common for proper reverence. IMO communion under both species should be distributed by intinction only, using vessels made for the purpose, by priests and deacons.

So you experience translates to a blanket use of ‘frequently’?

 

[AJV]

it was allowed on certain occasions such as for the newly married couple during a nuptial Mass, sometimes for first communion and other times with pastoral permission.

I’m guessing this was only after 1965 when instructions for this mode of reception were issued?

 

[adamsaj]

SPILLING HAPPENS FREQUENTLY NOW??

it isn’t just spilling. when you drink somthing there is very probible that drops will cling to the outside of your lips. these can then be wiped off and desicrated easily.

Making the option to receive under both forms makes it possible to take part in the instructionS of Christ - Take and eat, Take and drink. This option does not change that either form, in itself, is the full Sacrament.

you cannot interpret Christ’s words in that way. the Council of Trent infallibly declared that communion under one species fufills Christ’s command fully. to say otherwise is heresy

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m guessing this was only after 1965 when instructions for this mode of reception were issued?

according to family members of that generation it was allowed, with proper permissions, for the couple who married in a nuptial Mass at least in the 40s and 50s I don’t know about earlier, and was uncommon enough to be remembered. also according to family members who have been to ordination of relatives, when a priest was ordained his family were allowed to receive from the chalice, whether at the ordination Mass, or at his first Mass, I am not sure.

 

[AJV]

according to family members of that generation it was allowed, with proper permissions, for the couple who married in a nuptial Mass at least in the 40s and 50s I don’t know about earlier, and was uncommon enough to be remembered. also according to family members who have been to ordination of relatives, when a priest was ordained his family were allowed to receive from the chalice, whether at the ordination Mass, or at his first Mass, I am not sure.

Thank you :tiphat:

 

[puzzleannie]

So you experience translates to a blanket use of ‘frequently’?

I believe I said “spilling and other irreverence” and yes I see irreverance with regard to the Precious Blood frequently, although as I also said, actual spilling is thankfully not common but I have sadly seen that as well, once an entire chalice as a frail elderly person took the heavy chalice and dropped it. She no doubt felt terrible about it, and it was cleaned up properly insofar as able, but nonetheless the desacration happened.

Not in my parish, thanfully, but in former parishes and in my travels I see this a lot, especially before the discipline on use of multiple chalices was clarified, namely, spillage, dribbling and dripping while filling the chalices from a carafe of Consecrated Wine, very common, and the purificators used consequently not treated properly. Same thing when EMHCs were purifying chalices, lots of abuse. Glad that has been addressed. Most common is just dribbling while drinking, then the communicant wipes his mouth or chin with the back of his hand, even allowing drops to fall on the floor.

When the Altar Society purchased new chalices recently they actually ordered samples, and practiced serving and drinking, to find out which design worked best, some just serviceable for multiple use in this manner, no matter how beautiful they look.

the worst I have seen is due to a couple who served as EMHCs in our former Ohio parish, and were deputized to return the chalices to the sacristy for purification (at that time, or in that place it was not done by the priest on the altar), they allowed their preschool aged granddaughter to carry the chalice, upside down, dripping. I observed this on at least two occasions, remonstrated with the couple, got my ears pinned back, went to the priest, the liturgy committee, anyone who would listen, but the most I got was that the child was no longer allowed to touch the vessels, although she did cavort about the sacristy while they were doing their work.

I noticed on another thread a poster says that reception under both forms was allowed pre-Trent, usually in monasteries, but almost always by intinction.

 

[NMJenny]

I think one of the reasons that only the Host was given in Communion was simply a practical one. In the 1940s and 50s, the churches were packed at every Mass (this was when over 75% of Catholics went to Mass each Sunday, in contrast to the 25% today), and there was usually only the one priest who was giving Communion. Offering the laity the Cup as well as the Host would have extended Communion time to such an extent as to delay the start of the next Mass. That could have caused real problems–when I was in college, for instance, there were Masses every hour from 5am to noon, the Church was small, and at every Mass there were people standing in the vestibule and even out in the street! (At one Mass, the priest actually announced that anyone who was too far from the Church to see the altar should not consider that they had assisted at Mass. ) And the parish only had two priests, so having both of them at all the Masses to offer the Host and Cup both would have been very difficult.

Of course in those days it was no problem that only the Host was received, because all Catholics knew that in the Host they were receiving both the Sacred Body and Blood…