Should we be allowed to drink from the cup too?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rutherford2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know some people have come into our parish attempting self-intinction. They are directed to the priest. I will have to investigate this more. I know it is not addressed in cannon law, but it might be addressed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Thanks for the response.
 
His body contains parts of His blood, His blood contains parts of His body - the two cannot be separated.
 
I really like the way the Eastern Orthodox do communion. Everyone gets intinction. The priest (and only the priest) gives out Holy Communion. He takes the bread, dips it in the wine and gives it to the communicant. Everyone kneels and there is a person with a plate underneath the chin of the person receiving. Except for the intinction, this is how we used to receive communion pre Vatican II.
 
Are you worried about the flu while taking Holy Communion? I don’t - we are talking about receiving Our Lord here and I think getting any sickness by receiving Holy Communion is an impossibility. Think of it, something impure cannot come out of something pure.
 
Rutherford2 said:
Jesus wants us to eat his body and drink his blood. But, as you know, during the communion we were only given the bread. Dont you think we should be given the drink too? I am not thirsty. 🙂
Click to expand...
USCCB shows the conditions for such distribution given in the GIRM (for the Latin church):
24. The General Instruction then indicates that the Diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The Diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the Priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.36

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
Click to expand...
In the Byzantine and many other eastern Catholic churches, the reception of both kinds is normal. In the Byzantine it is by spoon with the species of leavened bread cubes and wine that have become the Body and Blood of Christ.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/index.cfm
 
Thanks so much for this information! You saved me some time. I am a extraordinary minister, so I only know what I was told - that some parishes allow for self-intinction. I will have to pass this information on to your heard extraordinary minister!
 
I am not worried about the flu while taking Holy Communion. My immunity is quite robust. My wife has neutropenia, which is a serious immunity disorder with almost no actual neutrophils and an extremely low white blood count. She is advised to stay away from everyone and wear a mask when she is forced to leave the house. She does go to Mass regularly. Her hematologist, who is well-versed in Catholicism, has told her to avoid the chalice. Even our head priest is attuned to this decision. It is by no means a slight on Our Lord or the Precious Blood, but just wiping down the chalice rim and turning it one-quarter of a turn does not rid the rim of communicable diseases. We sit as close to the front as we can so she can hopefully partake in the Precious Blood. If there are too many people in front of her, she must bypass the chalice, unfortunately. I am sure our Lord understands.
 
Also there are people who do not feel comfortable, some who do not know how, to receive on the tongue.
 
If Christ instituted the sacrament as both bread and wine, body and blood, why would we depart from that?
 
Dovekin said:
Personally, I would rather risk getting germs from the “backwash” in the Cup than from the priest sticking his fingers in or near everybody’s mouths.
Click to expand...
I’ve received on the tongue for a very long time. I have only once had a priest accidentally touch my skin. Knowing how to open your mouth to receive is important.

On the other hand, from an EMHC I receive in the hand because they are rarely taught how to properly place the host on the tongue and after a couple of times when they came in contact with my skin, nope. EMHC I receive in the hand.
 
Yeah, it’s also been my experience that the priests are very good at placing a host on the tongue. EMHCs go at it more like they’re putting a coin in a slot, and a lot of times you end up getting a finger in the mouth. I have never had a priest touch my mouth, including in several years of receiving only by tongue as a child before we were permitted communion in the hand in USA.
 
Hodos said:
If Christ instituted the sacrament as both bread and wine, body and blood, why would we depart from that?
Click to expand...
He instituted the Sacrament to the Apostles, who where Bishops ( or more specifically, had Epsicopal Authority). Bishops assiting at Mass have always received from the Chalice.

As part of that same process of Institiuting the Sacrament, Christ commanded the Apostles to continue celebrating this as a Sacrament, instead of as a ‘one off event’ with the command “Do this in memory of Me”.

Since that Instuttion was specifically directed to the Apostles, ( neither you nor I can say Mass), it cannot be assumed that the mode of reception must also apply to the laity.

The Church has never thought so, hence why it has the authority to allow or deny the reception of the Eucharist under both species. If it violated any command of Christ, or even acted contrary to what He taught by word or example, then the Church would not have the authority to regulate it. But it does, so we know that the reception of Holy Communion via a single species does not act in opposition to Christ in any way.
 
Brendan said:
He instituted the Sacrament to the Apostles, who where Bishops ( or more specifically, had Epsicopal Authority).
Click to expand...
Quite an interesting take on the Eucharist. Can you demonstrate in the text where Holy Orders were conferred, or that they were commissioned at that time to be apostles? Can you explain why Judas, who was not commissioned as an apostle was present at the supper?
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Also there are people who do not feel comfortable, some who do not know how, to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
Completely off topic…but I ave a wonderful childhood memory of my mom and dad practicing with me taking my first communion on the tongue with a bag of Doritos in the 70’s…They sat me up on the kitchen counter and we gave it several goes.
Come time for the big event, the first one, fell off my tongue…Father gets another host and I’ll be darned if I didn’t do it again…third time he just picked the host up off the floor and shoved her in there. 😂🤣😂🤣
 
Last edited:
Growing up Episcopalian, I’d find it very weird to not be offered the cup. And Jesus did say to eat his flesh and drink his blood, not to eat his flesh and eat his blood in with it. So i’m pretty pro-cup.
 
Hodos said:
He instituted the Sacrament to the disciples who were not yet Bishops or apostles.
Click to expand...
No, the Last Supper ( where the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders were instituted) was attended by just the Apostles. That is where they both received Holy Orders, and then Holy Communion

No others were offered the Eucharist, nor received the command to “Do this in memory of me”

The great commission is distinct from the commands given as part of Holy Orders, which is why no person who is not in Holy Orders can confect the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top