The Precious Blood in the Cup

[27lw]

In my experience, it is unusual that a communicant would pass by another minister distributing the species of bread? But in those rare circumstances, making a sign of reverence would be appropriate.

tee

At our parish, we have 3 people per side (a total of 6) who are distributing Communion. So if I take Communion from the priest, for instance, I pass 2 EMHCs.

 

[thewanderer]

I have a question that might sound silly. I became Catholic 6 years ago, and when I was in RCIA, I was taught that even if we do not receive the chalice, we should at least bow (make a sign of reverence) as we walk past. I try to do this when I am visiting other parishes, since our own parish does not offer the chalice. However, today I wondered whether we should be making a sign of reverence to the other patens holding the Body of Christ when we pass by? Why would we do that for the Precious Blood, but not the Body? Or was I taught the wrong thing about bowing to the Chalice of the Precious Blood?

Hi, I posted this earlier, it is from the GIRM and according to this there is no requrement to bow before the chalice if you are not receiving. It can be a wonderful personal devotion, but is not required.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the precious blood. (GIRM 160)

 

[Halligator]

Not a problem for me (I’m sure I do other things that appall my fellow communicants), since I receive in both species if offered. (As is the custom in my home parish)

I was visiting another parish with a friend. We both received in both species, but we were in the minority. Sitting (well, kneeling) near the back, I observed about 70% or more of the parish received only the consecrated Host.

I have always wondered (not judged, just wondered) why so many folks choose to receive in only one species when both are offered. Can anyone share insight with me? Thanks.

Arthur

 

[tee_eff_em]

Not a problem for me (I’m sure I do other things that appall my fellow communicants), since I receive in both species if offered. (As is the custom in my home parish)

I was visiting another parish with a friend. We both received in both species, but we were in the minority. Sitting (well, kneeling) near the back, I observed about 70% or more of the parish received only the consecrated Host.

I have always wondered (not judged, just wondered) why so many folks choose to receive in only one species when both are offered. Can anyone share insight with me? Thanks.

Arthur

If you search these fora, I expect you will find many threads on the subject.

Speaking only for myself:

• 
  *]I am not an utraquist, and
  ]I am not in the habit of sharing a common cup with a hundred or two relative strangers.
  
  (* When intinction is an option, I happily partake both species – if only it were offered more frequently)
  
  tee

 

[Halligator]

Thanks for your insight.

I am not an utraquist…

Speaking only for myself: nor am I. I doubt you’ll find many followers of a Protestant heresy first promulgated around the year 1414 on this board;

…I am not in the habit of sharing a common cup with a hundred or two relative strangers…

Here’s where we differ. I am in that communal habit, where it’s offered. Although in my case, it’s more like five or six hundred friends and neighbors.

I acknowledge that some are concerned with spreading infection. I’ve been sharing a common cup for more than forty years, and have never gotten sick from it.

YMMV.

Arthur