why are some rejecting the cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starbuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Walking_Home

You see—I have come across some who believe – intinction is still spiting the gospel—since Christ said to eat and to drink (two different actions) and to them receiving by intinction does not fit Christ’s command.

Those people you have come across don’t really get the concept of Transubstantiation.

The specific interactions of our thoats on the accidents do not matter anymore than the speicific interaction of our eyes with Eucharist.

Tell them not to confuse accidents with Substance.

Although I am doing what I can — The extent of these errors --is greater than what I can accomplish on my own. It will take the action of many ---- to control and suppress the falsehood being spread. You see —people are being indoctrinated with these errors far and wide. Since the Neocatechumenals teach reception via intinction is contrary to the dictates of the Gospel and the Liturgy—the same is said of reception via one species alone.

Part of the Neocatechumenal objective is to get the general Catholic population to see reception via one species as somehow being “deficient”. Here I will say this: I am not stating anyone who participated in this thread is a full fledged member of the Neocatechumenal Way—but this thread ( +prior threads) does reflect --how far their influence has already gone.

They compare reception of one species alone as going to the well of grace (Holy Communion) with a basket — while receiving both species is going with a bucket. (water runs threw a basket)
(The Neocatechumenals are doing the same with baptism—pouring = the basket, while submersion = the bucket)

A solution to the “problem” the responsible speaks off—is the breaking up (take over) of diocese and parishes --into the smaller Neocatechumenal “communities” --that accomodate the Neocatechumenal “ideology”–and reflect the small christian “communities” of the “early” Church.

This is only part of what the Neocatechumenal Way is undermining — within the Church.

Interview with the responsible of the Neocatechumenal Way –
Giuseppe Gennarini

korazym.org/news1.asp?Id=15805
Peraltro, il problema di come attuare la distribuzione delle due specie è un problema molto più grande di noi, che investe tutta la Chiesa e rappresenta oggi una delle questioni più complesse che vi siano. Si è tentato negli anni passati di distribuire il vino usando un cucchiaino (ed è stato un disastro), si è provato con la cannuccia (ed è andata ancora peggio),** c’è stato un tentativo con l’intinzione, che però è contraria non solo al dettato del Vangelo, ma anche agli stessi libri liturgici.** Ora si sta provando con il calice, ma è chiaro che in una chiesa grande i fedeli non vogliono comunicarsi con il calice… Insomma, la questione è seria ed è davvero difficile trovare un modo modo che aiuti ad attuare la distribuzione delle due specie. All’interno della piccola comunità, la distribuzione del calice, è invece fattibile, perché il numero dei fedeli è limitato e tutti si conoscono.

Babelfish translation

Moreover, the problem of as putting into effect the distribution of the two species it is a problem many larger than we, that the Church invests all and today represents one of the more complex issues that are. It has been tried in the years it passes you to distribute to the wine using a teaspoon (and has been a disaster), it has been tried with the cannuccia (and has gone still worse), has** been an attempt with the intinzione, than but it is contrary not only to the dictation of the Gospel, but also to the same liturgici books.** Hour is being tried with the goblet, but it is clearly that in a large church the faithfuls do not want to communicate themselves with the goblet… Insomma, **the issue is serious **and is indeed difficult to find a way way that aids to put into effect the distribution of the two species. To the inside of the small community, the distribution of the goblet, is instead feasible, because the number of the faithfuls is limited and all are known.
 
It came to my attention during the Mass tonight that some members are taking the bread but not the wine. They just walk past the person holding the cup of wine and smile at them. Why would they refuse the wine?
Ken
There’s no point in receiving from the Chalice except to give it a: supperlike appearance as the CCC says. John Paul II said that to touch the sacred vessels is a *privilige *of the ordained. Inserting this practice is a waste of time and money, spreads germs, not to mention downplays the fact that we receive both the Body and Blood under the appearance of the bread.
 
Well, here is my two cents worth. Hubby and I do not take from the cup for 2 reasons, one health reasons and 2 we do not take Communion from anyone but a priest, and we are grateful to have that choice. God Bless.
 
There’s no point in receiving from the Chalice except to give it a: supperlike appearance as the CCC says. John Paul II said that to touch the sacred vessels is a *privilige *of the ordained. Inserting this practice is a waste of time and money, spreads germs, not to mention downplays the fact that we receive both the Body and Blood under the appearance of the bread.
Another good point. I wish all Catholics could read the encyclicals on the Holy Eucharist by Pius XII and John Paul II.
 
Well, here is my two cents worth. Hubby and I do not take from the cup for 2 reasons, one health reasons and 2 we do not take Communion from anyone but a priest, and we are grateful to have that choice. God Bless.
Would you receive from a deacon? He is also an ordinary minister.
 
Would you receive from a deacon? He is also an ordinary minister.
No, because we know all the deacons personally that are in our area and they are so liberal it is pathetic, one does Bible studies and does not even use a Catholic Bible at all. There are a very few deacons in our diocese that I would consider taking Communion from, but those are very few. God Bless.
 
It is my understanding that the Cup is optional. The offering of wine to the laity only began after Vatican II, and the documents state that although it is not a necessity since Christ is fully present in the Eucharist, theologically it is more complete if we partake of the Cup as well as the Bread.
 
um no because if you only receive the Host, and not the chalice, you’re still receiving the body, blood, soul, and divinity–Christ is not divided but complete in each of the species, so you are not receiving any more benefit from receiving both rather than just one. you’re not getting any more completeness of Christ from both rather than just the one, and you’re not receiving any more grace from both rather than one.
 
Partaking of the Chalice is more complete if one prefers to emphasize “supper.” This is not exactly a Catholic approach, as this is the Sacrifice, not a supper re-enactment. (This is not to say that everyone who partakes of the Chalice does not believe in the True Presence.)

Commentary of the Gospel of St. Matthew 26:27

Drink ye all of this: This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the *all *then present; and they all drank of it, says St. Mark (14, 23). But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice: any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion and at the same time bid the apostles do so, in these words (Luke 22,19), Do this for a commemoration of me.

If this was presented already, I apologize for the repetition.
 
If Jesus wills that I die from germs received from receiving the Euhcarist by both kinds then I will happily accept that death.

If Jesus is able to calm the seas I believe He will be able to sustain me or recieve my soul at my death regardless of a few germs being in the Eucharist!

Why do people have such little faith?

But more than that why are some people so Fastidious at avoiding germs from the Eucharist and not be as fastidious in avoiding germs in all other contexts?

Let’s get real! Jesus did not rebuke His own disciples for eating without washing their hands–don’t tell me that He wills people to practice and even greater amount of hygiene awareness and avoid germs connected to His own Body and Blood!

I’ll tell you this–if a discple of Christ would gladly wipe his blood and sweat drenched brow as Veronica did as He went to the Cross–don’t tell me that same peson would kill themselves avoiding germs from the cup of the most Precious Blood!

Some people might buy that! I don’t!

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with receiving only one kind.

I am saying that there is something wrong with not receiving the cup because of germs! That’s just a Wrong reason and I don’t buy it!
 
Ken,
I say that it is always good to ask questions & I think that you have had some good answers. Some responses, however, seem a bit judgemental of others. Beware to judge harshly, lest you be measured with the same stick. As imperfect humans, we tend to judge quickly by one’s clothes or gestures (bowing or not). Each of us has a personal relationship with Christ and only He knows what is in our hearts.

And DaveBj, I find your quote about protestants offensive. I have a protestant background, but am humbled to have found the many graces of the Catholic Church most especially His Presence in the Eucharist. Insulting other faiths is no way to share our amazing & beautiful faith of the Catholic faith.

Blessings…catholicmom4
 
It is my understanding that the Cup is optional. The offering of wine to the laity only began after Vatican II, and the documents state that although it is not a necessity since Christ is fully present in the Eucharist, theologically it is more complete if we partake of the Cup as well as the Bread.
It was restored after Vatican II. In the Early Church, and for at least the first 1200 years, everyone received under both species, all the time.
 
It was restored after Vatican II. In the Early Church, and for at least the first 1200 years, everyone received under both species, all the time.

The Chalice was **allowed **after Vat II. It can be withdrawn at the local level by reason of even a small danger of profanation. The Church Herself can withdraw the Chalice overall – if She sees fit.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop.** It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.**
 

The Chalice was **allowed **after Vat II. It can be withdrawn at the local level by reason of even a small danger of profanation. The Church Herself can withdraw the Chalice overall – if She sees fit.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop.** It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.**
I don’t think anyone here is demanding it, if it isn’t being offered. Just trying to encourage people to receive the whole gift, when it is being offered.
 
I don’t think anyone here is demanding it, if it isn’t being offered. Just trying to encourage people to receive the whole gift, when it is being offered.

Right there— in those words–you are diminishing that Christ is whole and entire in each individual species. The implication is —one receives “less” by receiving one species than the “whole” of receiving two .
 
Right there— in those words–you are diminishing that Christ is whole and entire in each individual species. The implication is —one receives “less” by receiving one species than the “whole” of receiving two .
Like a broken hologram, Christ is fully present in one part of the sign, but the full sign is still the full sign. I am not “denying” any truth of the Faith. The Chalice is not an “extra” added on to the Eucharist by some modernist liturgy coordinator - it is part of the whole that was given to us originally by Christ Himself, and used by the Church for the majority of its history. The denial of the Chalice to the people was a temporary aberration, caused by extreme circumstances of vandalous Protestants combined with ignorant peasants. But the crisis is over, and it’s time to get back to normal.
 

Like a broken hologram, Christ is fully present in one part of the sign, but the full sign is still the full sign. I am not “denying” any truth of the Faith. The Chalice is not an “extra” added on to the Eucharist by some modernist liturgy coordinator - it is part of the whole that was given to us originally by Christ Himself, and used by the Church for the majority of its history. The denial of the Chalice to the people was a temporary aberration, caused by extreme circumstances of vandalous Protestants combined with ignorant peasants. But the crisis is over, and it’s time to get back to normal./QUOTE]​

I disagree — the crisis lay dormant until the right conditions have made it possible for it to come to life. Calling the withdrawl of the Chalice and “aberration” only serves to point that a crisis exits.
 
I disagree — the crisis lay dormant until the right conditions have made it possible for it to come to life. Calling the withdrawl of the Chalice an “aberration” only serves to point that a crisis exits.
If the Protestants are storming into your church and knocking over the priests when they distribute the Eucharist, or if the ignorant are draining down the whole cup, thinking they’re at a booze party, then yes, you have a crisis, and you need to deny the Chalice to your people.

Most places I’ve seen aren’t in that situation, though. 🤷
 
If the Protestants are storming into your church and knocking over the priests when they distribute the Eucharist, or if the ignorant are draining down the whole cup, thinking they’re at a booze party, then yes, you have a crisis, and you need to deny the Chalice to your people.

Most places I’ve seen aren’t in that situation, though. 🤷

Shrug all you want----if there was no crisis—there would not be 23 pages of discussion on receiveing under one species vs. receiving both—the term “minimalist” would not have come into the picture.
 
The Chalice is not an “extra” added on to the Eucharist by some modernist liturgy coordinator - it is part of the whole that was given to us originally by Christ Himself, and used by the Church for the majority of its history.
Thank you! I’ve been getting pretty tired of seeing all these opinions reiterating ad-infinitum that the whole body and soul of Christ are in one species.

Christ instituted the eucharist in both kinds…period, end of story. I will listen to Him…and hope the Church soon comes around to encouraging both kinds for all the reasons articulately stated by jmcrae.

I have heard on EWTN several times that Benedict is going to encourage getting back to tradition here where practicable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top