why are some rejecting the cup

[Neil_Anthony]

I never receive the Precious Blood. For a couple of reasons 1) I’m clumsy and afraid i’ll spill some on my face/shirt 2) I think it’s unhygenic, not just for me, but for the person who has to drink from the cup after I slurped from it.

Good thing that by receiving the Host, we are receiving not just the Body of Christ but his blood, soul and divinity too!

 

[bpbasilphx]

<>

If and only if the words of the Lord, “Drink of this, ALL of you…” have no meaning.

 

[pray4peace]

I receive the cup most of the time, but there are times when I don’t, and this would be if I am sick, flu season, people coughing and showing signs of colds, and if the line is backed up.

I feel most comfortable receiving, if I am sitting in the first few pews, as this can cut down on chances of catching something.

Blessings

 

[japhy]

But we do receive bread and wine.

Jesus not only said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, he also said that his body is true bread and his blood is true wine.

If the wine is absent after consecration,then no one can say that they avoid drinking from the cup because they are allergic to wine. Rather,they would be allergic to Christ.

The conversion of bread and wine does not mean that they cease to exist.

Wrong on all four counts, I believe.

I challenge you to produce the Scripture wherein Jesus says his body is true bread and his blood is true wine. Perhaps you’re confusing it with John 6:55 (“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”) We do not receive bread and wine. We receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine. That means that only the “accidents” (or characteristics, if you will) of the bread and wine remain: the substance of bread and wine are completely replaced by the substance of the glorified Jesus Christ.

Some “accidents” of the bread and wine are their color, flavor, texture, etc. Thus, the Host does not feel like flesh, nor the Precious Blood taste like iron.

Trent, Session 13, Canon 2: “If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.”

Here’s a resource you might find helpful: catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=386

 

[drforjc]

<>

If and only if the words of the Lord, “Drink of this, ALL of you…” have no meaning.

Or… if the Church chooses to interpret them differently than you do

 

[Cristiano]

When do the accidents no longer remain present?

At the moment of the Consecration, when the priest raises the element up. At this moment, it is customary in many parishes for the Altar server to ring a bell to signify that the Consecration has taken place.

I think that in the rush we got some confusion. The substances of bread and wine disappear at the moment of the Consecration. No bread or wine left, only their accidents (appearance).

The accidents of bread and wine together with the substance of Jesus (body , blood, soul , and divinity) disappear when we digest them (usually within 10 minutes from receiving them).

For those 10 minutes we have the greatest privilege of sharing His divinity.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think that in the rush we got some confusion. The substances of bread and wine disappear at the moment of the Consecration. No bread or wine left, only their accidents (appearance).

The accidents of bread and wine together with the substance of Jesus (body , blood, soul , and divinity) disappear when we digest them (usually within 10 minutes from receiving them).

Does the term ‘accidents’ include things like calories, vitamins, alcohol, etc? Do the accidents of the wine still provide physical nourishment and intoxication?

 

[jmcrae]

I think that in the rush we got some confusion. The substances of bread and wine disappear at the moment of the Consecration. No bread or wine left, only their accidents (appearance).

The accidents of bread and wine together with the substance of Jesus (body , blood, soul , and divinity) disappear when we digest them (usually within 10 minutes from receiving them).

For those 10 minutes we have the greatest privilege of sharing His divinity.

Right - thanks for clearing that up!!

I misread the question.

 

[Cristiano]

Does the term ‘accidents’ include things like calories, vitamins, alcohol, etc? Do the accidents of the wine still provide physical nourishment and intoxication?

No it does not include the calories, vitamins and alcohol that you would find in the bread and wine. However, you can still receive physical nourishment (some saints lived on Communion alone for years) and become intoxicated (that is another example of the accident as in smell or color)

 

[lak611]

Does the term ‘accidents’ include things like calories, vitamins, alcohol, etc? Do the accidents of the wine still provide physical nourishment and intoxication?

Yes. All of the things you mentioned are accidents.

 

[anthony022071]

Wrong on all four counts, I believe.

I challenge you to produce the Scripture wherein Jesus says his body is true bread and his blood is true wine. Perhaps you’re confusing it with John 6:55 (“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”)

When Jesus said his flesh was food he meant bread,an image which had a figural significance.

6:32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.

6:34. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.

6:35. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

We do not receive bread and wine. We receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine.

To say that we receive Christ under the species,or forms,of bread and wine is to say that we receive bread and wine. The liturgy itself refers to the body of Christ as bread.

“When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.” (1 Cor 11:26)

That means that only the “accidents” (or characteristics, if you will) of the bread and wine remain: the substance of bread and wine are completely replaced by the substance of the glorified Jesus Christ.

The accidents or characteristics are what we perceive,not the converted substance. There’s nothing wrong with using the language of appearances.

newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

< The question may eventually be reduced to this whether or not the sacramentality is to be sought for in the Eucharistic species or in the Body and Blood of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority of theologians rightly respond to the query by saying, that neither the species themselves nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but the union of both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the Altar. The species undoubtedly belong to the essence of the sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of the sacrament. Equally certain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of our souls but Christ concealed beneath the appearances. >

 

[arcd_71350]

personally i don’t for health reasons. I’m very sickly, and I don’t want to contract germs. Plus Jesus is present equally in each one.

-Allison

 

[ronnette]

Might I suggest, in a spirit of love, that those who would throw around responses like “lame excuse” and “no real reason”, at those who deal with concerns over infectious illness, please consider their words with a bit more charity? There are several psychiatric and neurological disorders that can cause this particular fear and avoidance as a symptom- frequently, an uncontrollable symptom. It is not kind to pass dismissive, judgmental commentary on those who struggle in this way. If you wouldn’t berate someone with arthritis for not kneeling, please consider extending the same thoughtfulness toward persons with any illness.

Also, I’d like to add that this particular fear, from a medical standpoint, is valid and definitely not always caused by irrational thought or emotion. Bacterial meningitis is becoming enough of a threat for the government to have recently launched the FightMeningitis.com public service campaign. Even flu still claims fatalities. Strep throat is lethal to certain classes of cardiac patients and those with certain cancers. And many of our grandparents remember a time when, if the Church had universally allowed both species, an ill-timed sip after the wrong stranger could’ve landed you in an iron lung. Certain strains of tuberculosis are now highly resistant to the most potent antibiotic drugs known to modern chemistry. Given that well-established [by the CDC and WHO, I might add] medical fact, anyone who still believes that “Alcohol just kills the germs!” is woefully ignorant.

It is not a lack of faith, reverence or rationality to protect and defend one’s physical health in the face of preventable disease transmission. And if abstaining from one species were sin, the Church wouldn’t be offering both species to the faithful on a voluntary basis. There would be a Canon requirement that everyone drink the Blood.

Please do not judge those of us who protect ourselves from these risks. Many of our reasons are truly compelling. Thanks.

 

[Starbuck1]

All of these are good arguments, but why don’t we want to do that which Jesus established? Jesus gave the disciples the bread and the cup. I don’t read in scripture that any of the disciples refused one or the other. If drinking out of the cup was going to be bad for us, why would Jesus ask that it be done?

Ken

 

[HenryV]

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

First of all it’s not bread and wine any more it’s Christ and according to Catholic teaching, as opposed to Protestant, you recieve the entire Christ under either species.

 

[Walking_Home]

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

Quote=Starbuck1
My wife doesn’t like red wine (or alcohol for that matter, unless it is a sweet mixed drink), but she would tolerate a sip of the cup if was done for the Lord. I don’t find the wafer very tastey either, but I eat it. My wife is easily choked on dry food and has choked on the wafer (host), but it hasn’t stopped her from continuing to take the elements.

I’m not trying to offend anyone, but it seems that some of these excuses are a little lame.

Ken

---

Your profile says protestant–yet it seems as if–you and your wife are receiving communion in a Catholic Mass. I do hope this is not the case.

 

[palmas85]

Yes,I read them. But we do receive bread and wine. To deny the existence of the bread and wine after consecration is absurd – it’s like denying the validity of sensory experience. Jesus not only said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”,he also said that his body is true bread and his blood is true wine. The body and blood of Christ take the form of bread and wine,and that is the palpable form in which we consume him. To say that we don’t receive bread and wine is like saying we don’t receive Christ. So there need be no dichotomy between what our senses tell us and what we know by faith.

If the wine is absent after consecration,then no one can say that they avoid drinking from the cup because they are allergic to wine. Rather,they would be allergic to Christ.

Interesting post. Thought provoking. Yet completely wrong. Sorry. Nothing remains of the bread and wine after consecration except their appearance to **our **senses. Thats it. Appearance is not the test for reality. You do not receive bread and wine in a Catholic Mass. You receive the Body and Blood of Christ. It just looks like bread and wine and our bodies will react to them as bread and wine due to our utter inability to comprehend them as what they truly are and how they came to be there…

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All of these are good arguments, but why don’t we want to do that which Jesus established? Jesus gave the disciples the bread and the cup. I don’t read in scripture that any of the disciples refused one or the other. If drinking out of the cup was going to be bad for us, why would Jesus ask that it be done?

Ken

The Last Supper was with a small(ish) group of people who all knew each other really well.

 

[marci]

Also, I’d like to add that this particular fear, from a medical standpoint, is valid and definitely not

 

[RitaM]

People are much more likely to spill when taking, drinking from, and returning the chalice than they are when simply receiving the host on the tongue or in the hands. If I drop the host, I’ll pick it up and consume it or the priest can put it back in the tabernacle or something, but how do you clean up if the chalice spills? Does your wet-vac become a tabernacle? What if you spill on your shirt?