V
vin_dedvukaj
Guest
Since the chalice is consecrated, wouldn’t be inapropriate for the laity to touch it ? this what I’ve herd before so I was just wondering.
Last edited:
- Status
J
JulianN
Guest
No, if the chalice is offered, it’s fine for the laity to receive from it. However, given the pandemic, it’s likely to be a very long time before it will be offered at Mass.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Churches are also consecrated. Are we not permitted to go in? Religious and clergy are consecrated. May we never shake their hands?
Just making a point…
Just making a point…
P
phil19034
Guest
Using the rubrics of the 1962 missal, yes it would very very inappropriate
Using the rubrics of the 1969 missal, no, the laity may touch the sacred vessels.
While I have received the Precious Blood many times, I have to admit, I really don’t know how (theologically) we were able to jump from 1962 to 1969 regarding this topic.
Using the rubrics of the 1969 missal, no, the laity may touch the sacred vessels.
While I have received the Precious Blood many times, I have to admit, I really don’t know how (theologically) we were able to jump from 1962 to 1969 regarding this topic.
D
dochawk
Guest
It wasn’t so much a jump from 1962 to 1969, but a return to the practice from 33 to 1300 or so . . .
The cup was withheld for disciplinary, not pastoral or theological, reasons.
The real question is why it took seven centuries to restore normative praxis . . .
P
phil19034
Guest
That’s not what I meant. I mean touching the chalice. It’s my understanding that Latin Catholics didn’t touch the chalice back in 1300 ADphil19034:
It wasn’t so much a jump from 1962 to 1969, but a return to the practice from 33 to 1300 or so . . .
The cup was withheld for disciplinary, not pastoral or theological, reasons.
The real question is why it took seven centuries to restore normative praxis . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
I’ve never given thought or looked into how the cup was received; merely the fact that it was, until it became necessary to flush out a group of heretics.
O
otjm
Guest
As the the theological issue - it was disciplinary, and so subject to being changed should the Church see fit. And it saw fit.
The theological reason it had been forbidden, if you will, is that it was done in major part as a visible rejection of an heretical movement within part of Protestantism that one had not properly received the Eucharist if one did not receive from the Cup.
And it was finally decided that such issue being something in the range of 500 years old was no longer a compelling reason to prohibit the laity from receiving both, so we returned to a practice that was part of the reception of Communion for centuries.
O
otjm
Guest
Like dochawk I don’t know enough of the history as to when the issue of a consecrated object took on the disciplinary rule that laity could not touch it - or for that matter, when chalices were consecrated.
In either event, it is a disciplinary rule.
W
whatistrue
Guest
How would one receive from the chalice without touching it at least with one’s lips? Seems like a spill waiting to happen.
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m talking about with the hands. In the ordinariate, most people receive the chalice with the deacon or sub-deacon holding the chalice. Yes, they have the option to hold it themselves, but most receive it kneeling while the deacon or sub-deacon holds it.
W
whatistrue
Guest
That’s not what you said. But that is a minor matter. Drinking from a vessel held by another presents, to me, a higher risk of spillage.
P
phil19034
Guest
But it is what I meant.
LOOK, I’m not arguing with the laity receiving from the Chalice. I will receive from the Chalice when offered (assuming I’m sitting up front and not sick).
What I’m asking is this: how did we jump from lay people are never allowed to touch any of the sacred vessels in 1962 to lay people are allowed to touch them in 1969? In 1962, only clergy could purify the sacred vessels, the laity could not help. In 1969, not only could the laity touch the Chalice to receive, but they could not help the priest to purify the sacred vessels outside of mass.
My question is how did the Church make that theological jump? How is this theologically justified? I’m not attacking it - I’m seriously asking because I don’t know the answer.
In regards to spillage, that’s why the server holds the paten under the chin
W
whatistrue
Guest
I take great care to make sure that my meaning is explicit in my writing, because I know that the actual text is the only way I can get my ideas across in this format. Even then, I don’t always succeed.
Is it truly a theological jump or, as I believe others have said, disciplinary?
So now you have three people in very close proximity to each other and to a tilted chalice with the Precious Blood inside. Not my idea of a stable situation, but that’s okay because it isn’t my decision.
P
phil19034
Guest
Discipline is often based on theological and/or scriptural principles. My question is why was it a mortal sin in 1962 but not one in 1969?
I know the theological argument for why eating meat on Fridays outside of Lent isn’t a sin anymore, but I don’t know the theological argument for why lay people can now touch the sacred vessels.
The Church doesn’t change discipline without justification. I simply don’t know what the justification is that allows lay people to touch the sacred vessels.
There is really nothing more to my question.
I know it’s hard to envision, but it really isn’t all that difficult because the communicate is kneeling at the altar rail. Once you see it in action, you realize it’s not as awkward as it sounds.
G
Genesis315
Guest
There’s nothing per se wrong with laity touching vessels used to hold the Blessed Sacrament or even the Blessed Sacrament itself (obviously, since it must be touch by many of our body parts to consume it).
However, in order to increase the reverence for the sacrament and to really emphasize its special-ness, the Church set aside special vessels and instituted special disciplines about its and their handling. Even when those disciplines were in place, there were exceptions when needed.
But what the Church has instituted, the Church can modify or change, since it is the same Church.
That being said, whether relaxing these disciplines has led to a better appreciation for and reverence for the sacraments or not is debatable (I would say they have not given falling belief in the real presence since they’ve been relaxed…).
Along those lines, receiving both species has been common in many times and places. For good reasons (such as those now) it was restricted to one species which became the custom in the West. Certain heretics, called Utraquists (and later some Protestants), said receiving both was required, so deviating from the custom of not receiving from the cup was often used as a sign of protest or dissent or heterodoxy. That’s the main reason it wasn’t re-instituted sooner. It was restored later when it was no longer associated so directly with heresy.
That being said, I’m not comfortable receiving from the cup with how it is usually offered these days personally.
However, in order to increase the reverence for the sacrament and to really emphasize its special-ness, the Church set aside special vessels and instituted special disciplines about its and their handling. Even when those disciplines were in place, there were exceptions when needed.
But what the Church has instituted, the Church can modify or change, since it is the same Church.
That being said, whether relaxing these disciplines has led to a better appreciation for and reverence for the sacraments or not is debatable (I would say they have not given falling belief in the real presence since they’ve been relaxed…).
Along those lines, receiving both species has been common in many times and places. For good reasons (such as those now) it was restricted to one species which became the custom in the West. Certain heretics, called Utraquists (and later some Protestants), said receiving both was required, so deviating from the custom of not receiving from the cup was often used as a sign of protest or dissent or heterodoxy. That’s the main reason it wasn’t re-instituted sooner. It was restored later when it was no longer associated so directly with heresy.
That being said, I’m not comfortable receiving from the cup with how it is usually offered these days personally.
Last edited:
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
Would everyone having their own paper straw make it better?
In all seriousness, Christ said:
7 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Each disciple “touched” the vessel, because that is what Christ was saying, take this cup and drink.
So, no…it is in no way wrong, it is an awesome privilege to be able to do so… by grace.
Now, if one is in mortal sin and takes the cup, well…that is a hole ‘another can o’ worms.
In all seriousness, Christ said:
7 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Each disciple “touched” the vessel, because that is what Christ was saying, take this cup and drink.
So, no…it is in no way wrong, it is an awesome privilege to be able to do so… by grace.
Now, if one is in mortal sin and takes the cup, well…that is a hole ‘another can o’ worms.
Last edited:
- Status