why are some rejecting the cup

[japhy]

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 It can be withdrawn at the local level by reason of even a small danger of profanation.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.

The Council of Trent also considered the “concession of the Chalice”. From Session XXII, Decree 3:Moreover, whereas the same sacred and holy Synod, in the preceding Session, reserved unto another time, for an opportunity that might present itself, two articles to be examined and defined, which (articles) had been proposed on another occasion, but had not then been as yet discussed, to wit, whether the reasons by which the holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread, laymen and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to any one soever; and, whether, in that case, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation, or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions; and what are those conditions; It has now,–in Its desire that the salvation of those, on whose behalf the request is made, may be provided for in the best manner,–decreed, that the whole business be referred to our most holy lord, as by this present decree It doth refer it; who, of his singular prudence, will do that which he shall judge useful for the Christian commonweal, and salutary for those who ask for the use of the chalice.

And yes, after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Consilium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), Communion under both kinds was allowed in certain circumstances, and under certain conditions. Consider Sacramentali Communione from 1970, which says:
To the end that the fullness of the sacramental sign in the eucharistic banquet would be more striking for the faithful, Vatican Council II decreed that in certain instances, to be determined by the Apostolic See, the faithful could receive communion under both kinds. This was without prejudice to those dogmatic principles laid down by the Council of Trent to teach that Christ, whole and entire, as well as the genuine sacrament are received under the form of either bread or wine.

…

1. Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. …

…

1. The necessary catechesis must precede admission of the faithful to communion under both kinds in order that they will have a clear knowledge of the meaning of this rite.

 

[peary]

I do not receive the Cup during Communion because - being quite frank here - I do not want to have my lips touch a cup that’s been lipped by hundreds of other people! Sorry!

 

[ontologysue]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. No matter what the Councils say, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. No matter what the Councils say, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

Quote=ontologysue
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.

---

Talk about separating the Church from Christ–and supposedly there is no crisis. Your words are prime example --a crises exists.

 

[japhy]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. No matter what the Councils say, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

From the Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapter I (That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species):
Wherefore, this holy Synod, – instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself, – declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John, – however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood, – that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord: for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
And Chapter II (The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist):
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself.

 

[drforjc]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. No matter what the Councils say, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

Christ also gave Peter the power to bind and to loose.

 

[Brendan]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. ** No matter what the Councils say**, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

The Councils speak with the Authority of the Holy Spirit, are you honestly claiming that the Trinity is confused?

 

[Servulus]

Christ also gave Peter the power to bind and to loose.

Absolutely correct.

Part of that “binding and loosing” in the present instance includes setting the times and places and circumstances for this option to be made available.

In far too many churches, these requirements are ignored (for whatever reason) and the option is offered every time or any old time, each constituting an instance of disobedience.

There are those who simply choose not to participate in that disobedience. For them it isn’t a question of fullness of sign or acceptance of Trent - just simple obedience.

 

[joanofarc3]

The Church is the Bride, not the Bridegroom. No matter what the Councils say, Christ institutued the Eucharist in both kinds.

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.

 

[ontologysue]

---

Talk about separating the Church from Christ–and supposedly there is no crisis. Your words are prime example --a crises exists.

The Church Militant is not in beatific union with Christ, that is the state of the Church Triumphant. I think Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics can be quilty at times of acting as if everything the church says at any given moment in history, equals God saying it. That’s rediculous, and to acknowledge that fact, using the intellect God gave us, does not portend a crises in the church.

There is an institutional element to the Church and many times in the past the sin, pride and corruption of its members, have had very detrimental effects on the mystical Body. I agree, that dogmatically, the WHOLE Church, including the Eastern, have in the long history of Tradition, preserved the Truth, but to deny that in her institutional manifestation in the world she has been capable of imperfection, sin and corruption, is not using the powers of discernment the Holy Spirit instills in the human heart.

The mystical Body IS in union with Christ and I would contend is far broader than most Romans or Othodox are willing to admit.

For example, suppose you were a Spanish Catholic at the time of the inquisition, Our Lord might be telling you in prayer something quite different from the actions of the Church at the time; if you refused to discern through humble prayer Our Lord’s will, simply because you blindly, (and comfortably, I might add, as in so doing you would be relieved of the sometimes arduous task of wrestling with your conscience, ) accepted every action of the church as God’s will, you would be complicit in the cruelty perpetrated on other souls.

The church in the whole stream of time corrected her mistakes, which is what Tradition teaches, but to say, her actions and/or teachings on non dogmatic things is always 100% equal to God is a misunderstanding of Tradition and the gospel imperative given to Peter by Our Lord.

This understanding is simple common sense, not a crises.

 

[beenthere]

Some Churches Dip The “host” Into The “wine” And Offer It To The People That Way…
It Is The Most Hygenic Way, Why Can’t They All Do That?
Why Should There Be So Much Discussion About It?
And So Much Misunderstanding?
Aren’t We Blessed ? To Have Such A Gift From The Lord?

 

[beenthere]

Some churches dip the “Host” into the “Wine” and offer it that way.
It is the most hygenic way, for those who are worried… can’t all the churches offer it that way? The other catholic churches have the small indiviual cups, wine or juice, for your preference…
We should all be grateful for the Gift, our Lord has given us, and use our common sense, instead of finding fault about this or that…
What a blessing we all have.
Are you praying for those who have no one to pray for them?

 

[beenthere]

Some churches dip the “Host” into the “Wine” and offer it that way.
It is the most hygenic way, for those who are worried… can’t all the churches offer it that way? The other catholic churches have the small indiviual cups, wine or juice, for your preference…
We should all be grateful for the Gift, our Lord has given us, and use our common sense, instead of finding fault about this or that…
What a blessing we all have.
Are you praying for those who have no one to pray for them?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Has anyone in the history of the Catholic Church ever received just the cup only?

 

[japhy]

Has anyone in the history of the Catholic Church ever received just the cup only?

Yes, I’m sure people with Celiac Disease have done so.

 

[anthony022071]

---

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.

That doesn’t make it a crisis. The Church has allowed the use of the wine,as it did for the first 12 centuries. So the only excuses for not receiving the wine when it is offered are allergies,phobias,personal disapproval of Vatican 2 and clinging to a needless prohibition,personal minimalism,or irrational fears about ultraquist heresy. Unless you’re afraid that you might become an ultraquist yourself,there’s no reason to avoid the wine.

As long as tradtionalists are concerned about the observance of all the other traditions – the Latin liturgy and hymns,the Gregorian chant,the kneeling and genuflecting,the incense – they may as well receive both the bread and the wine,since those are the only things that Christ told the apostles to do in memory of him. None of the other traditions of the mass were commanded by Christ – only the bread and wine.

 

[Brendan]

That doesn’t make it a crisis. The Church has allowed the use of the wine,as it did for the first 12 centuries. So the only excuses for not receiving the wine when it is offered are allergies,phobias,personal disapproval of Vatican 2 and clinging to a needless prohibition,personal minimalism,or irrational fears about ultraquist heresy.

You forgot “rational fears of the ultraquist heresy”

well receive both the bread and the wine,since those are the only things that Christ told the apostles to do in memory of him. None of the other traditions of the mass were commanded by Christ – only the bread and wine.

Yes, we all agree that Christ commanded the Bishops who were present with him to partake of both species, and we fully agree that Bishops should do so

 

[Walking_Home]

That doesn’t make it a crisis. The Church has allowed the use of the wine,as it did for the first 12 centuries. So the only excuses for not receiving the wine when it is offered are allergies,phobias,personal disapproval of Vatican 2 and clinging to a needless prohibition,personal minimalism,or irrational fears about ultraquist heresy. Unless you’re afraid that you might become an ultraquist yourself,there’s no reason to avoid the wine.

As long as tradtionalists are concerned about the observance of all the other traditions – the Latin liturgy and hymns,the Gregorian chant,the kneeling and genuflecting,the incense – they may as well receive both the bread and the wine,since those are the only things that Christ told the apostles to do in memory of him. None of the other traditions of the mass were commanded by Christ – only the bread and wine.

---

The crisis is embedded in your own words.

 

[Apryl]

Well – sometimes the truth offends. By the way — it would not have gotten to this pt. – If some people were not dead set to find fault with the non–reception of the Chalice.

It may offend, but sometimes, the truth doesn’t need to be spelled out.

I agree with the idea of people being dead-set against receiving the chalice… but what’s wrong with that? If one doesn’t want to receive from the chalice, why does that offend?

Those that find fault with non-reception of the chalice are another issue. Grossing me (and others) out, won’t make them understand that reception from the chalice is not required.

Take it… don’t take it… but it is still a beautiful thing.

 

[peary]

I can only speak for myself. I prefer to receive under both forms…but only when a Priest distributes communion by intinction. There are a few reasons why I pass up the cup otherwise. One is that I’m deathly afraid of dropping it, spilling it, etc. The other is that there is never enough precious blood for everyone who wants to to receive. I know that the host is both body and blood (and soul and divinity) and so is the precious blood. however, not everyone does and I know that it may hurt some people’s consciences if the Precious Blood ‘runs out’ before it is their turn. Therefore, I leave the Precious Blood for those whose consciences demand it.

When a priest distributes by intinction there is no reason to worry about spilling the Precious blood (as the host is dipped into the precious blood and placed directly into your mouth by the priest), there is no worry about running out of the precious blood (everyone receives it, but in smaller amounts), it eliminates the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it eliminates the risk of someone receiving the host in the hand and NOT consuming it, etc.

Yeah, but then you have to deal with those small spoons the eastern rite and orthodox use to feed you with communion.