why are some rejecting the cup

[lak611]

Someone raised a good question. What DOES happen when and if the juice is spilled on the ground? Or, what happens if someone accidently drops the wafer? I have been in several churches in the Philippines where there were no doors. Dogs would sometimes come in and visit. There was no way to keep them out. What would happen if someone dropped a wafer and a dog would run over a consume it? What happens to species at that point? (another can of worms )

Ken

If a Host is dropped, the priest, deacon or EMHC picks it up and consumes it. Because it is Jesus, it will not be left there for anyone or anything to defile it.

Spilled Precious Blood is blotted up with the Purificator and then the area is cleaned by the priest after Mass is over.

 

[palmas85]

It is not an excuse, and bread alone is not sufficient. John 6:51-55.

I cannot for the life of me understand how any Christian who believes in the Real Presence, for other than medical reasons, would ever show disinterest at receiving from the cup.

And I cannot understand how someone who claims to be a Catholic and accept the doctrine and beliefs of the Church would ever dare to say that bread, by which I must assume you mean the Body of Christ, is not sufficient.

 

[anthony022071]

---

Do you believe one species is not sufficient.

I know is that one species is sufficient for receiving Christ,but to
use that fact as a reason to withhold the wine is lame.
It’s silly for the wine to be withheld just in order to emphasize the theological point that one species is sufficient.

 

[anthony022071]

Sorry my friend, it is not an excuse.

One is sufficient.

It is an excuse,and a lame one. We already know that one species is sufficient to receive Christ,but that’s not the issue.
The point is that the wine is one of the Eucharistic signs that Christ gave us as a tradtion to keep,so it must be of some importance to him that we receive it.

 

[palmas85]

It is an excuse,and a lame one. We already know that one species is sufficient to receive Christ,but that’s not the issue.
The point is that the wine is one of the Eucharistic signs that Christ gave us as a tradtion to keep,so it must be of some importance to him that we receive it.

I don’t really see how since they are both the same, the only difference being to OUR senses that one appears as bread and the other appears as wine. Neither really are what they appear to be. Both are equally the same. They are both the Body and Blood of Christ. So how would receiving both be any different than receiving only one? And yes, I know the Church says to do so is a fuller sign, whatever that means. It does not say however that it is important or necessary to receive both or that it is better to receive under both. It only says it is a fuller sign, a term which I have yet to see defined very well.

Maybe you could expalin exactly what that term means.

 

[Walking_Home]

I know is that one species is sufficient for receiving Christ,but to
use that fact as a reason to withhold the wine is lame.
It’s silly for the wine to be withheld just in order to emphasize the theological point that one species is sufficient.

---

Not when we have the correct grasp --that the Host also contains the Blood—therefore nothing is being withheld. What is of concern–is the ideology that sees it as a problem when the Cup is not offered or received. It would seem—this would fit in with the type of errors Trent spoke of.

 

[anthony022071]

---

This is not about being “minimalists”—for we receive no less Christ in one species —then by receiving both. The greater “sign” value of both species does not in any way or form --offer more grace —this is the core of the matter.

Again,the fact that we receive Christ fully in one species is not the issue – we already know that. The point is that we ought to receive the wine because it is a sign that Christ gave for us to remember him by. The bread alone is sufficient,but that does not make the wine superfluous. But to act like the wine is superfluous is to be minimalistic.

 

[Walking_Home]

Again,the fact that we receive Christ fully in one species is not the issue – we already know that. The point is that we ought to receive the wine because it is a sign that Christ gave for us to remember him by. The bread alone is sufficient,but that does not make the wine superfluous. But to act like the wine is superfluous is to be minimalistic.

---

anthony022071—you are arguing against the Church and Her Council. Do you not see that you are walking on thin ice here. As I said in my prior----this ideology would have been the type addressed by Trent.

 

[anthony022071]

---

Not when we have the correct grasp --that the Host also contains the Blood—therefore nothing is being withheld. What is of concern–is the ideology that sees it as a problem when the Cup is not offered or received. It would seem—this would fit in with the type of errors Trent spoke of.

The sign of the wine that Christ wants us to drink is being withheld. It is not ideology for a Catholic to want churches to offer what Catholics for the first 12 centuries were offered. If someone is in doubt that one species is enough then they only need be told that one is enough by someone more theologically knowledgeable;it does not need to be demostrated by withholding the wine.

 

[anthony022071]

---

anthony022071—you are arguing against the Church and Her Council. Do you not see that you are walking on thin ice here. As I said in my prior----this ideology would have been the type addressed by Trent.

Specify for me where I am arguing against the Church,or what ideology I am espousing. The restrictions on the wine made by Trent were loosened by Vatican 2. I said that the wine is not superfluous;I did not say that it was necessary to receive the full grace of Christ.

 

[Walking_Home]

Specify for me where I am arguing against the Church,or what ideology I am espousing. The restrictions on the wine made by Trent were loosened by Vatican 2. I said that the wine is not superflous,I did not say that it was necessary to receive the full grace of Christ.

---

Review your own posts . The restrictions were loosened–but Trent is still binding. The Church leaves it to each person to recieve in the manner She has given—the Host alone, both species when offered, or the Cup alone in certain circumstances. When one starts coming up with arguments in some form or another against reception via one species—yes this is ideology that puts one on thin ice.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t really see how since they are both the same, the only difference being to OUR senses that one appears as bread and the other appears as wine. Neither really are what they appear to be. Both are equally the same. They are both the Body and Blood of Christ. So how would receiving both be any different than receiving only one? And yes, I know the Church says to do so is a fuller sign, whatever that means.

The Host alone or the Chalice alone is only half of the sign.

The full sign of Holy Eucharist is the Host and Chalice together, so when we receive both, we are making the full sign - being a full witness to Jesus Christ, rather than just half of it.

Obviously, any part of the sign, no matter how small, is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, whole and entire. Nothing can diminish Him. You could receive a microscopic crumb of the Host, and it would be sufficient. But God does not call us to be minimalists - we are not called by God to ask, “How little can I get away with?” but rather, “How much can I do? How far can I go?” We should want to go to the outer limits of possibility, rather than confining ourselves to as little as we can possibly get away with.

 

[JimG]

Yes, there has been a trend since Vatican II, to use the signs of the sacraments in the fullest possible way. This includes receiving communion under both species. It also includes the use of immersion for baptism rather than pouring. And in some places, the anointing for confirmation consists of pouring the oil all over one’s head and spreading it all over the face and arms.

These are all fuller sacramental signs; that is good. As long as we keep in mind that a sacrament is valid–it works–even with a lesser sign. The sign points to the underlying reality: that is the essential. There is always a danger in trying to become too trendy.

For example, in some places during the middle ages, the trend was adoration of the elevated host–not particularly to receive, but only to see. Often the priest was forced to hold the host above his head for long periods of time just to meet this demand. While it reflected a certain aspect of Eucharistic devotion–a good thing–it was still a trend which emphasized non-essentials.

 

[Brendan]

The Host alone or the Chalice alone is only half of the sign.

The full sign of Holy Eucharist is the Host and Chalice together, so when we receive both, we are making the full sign - being a full witness to Jesus Christ, rather than just half of it.

Obviously, any part of the sign, no matter how small, is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, whole and entire. Nothing can diminish Him. You could receive a microscopic crumb of the Host, and it would be sufficient. But God does not call us to be minimalists - we are not called by God to ask, “How little can I get away with?” but rather, “How much can I do? How far can I go?” We should want to go to the outer limits of possibility, rather than confining ourselves to as little as we can possibly get away with.

If we follow your logic, you should look for the largest host and take the biggest ‘gulp’ from the chalice.

Remember, a sign is just that, something that points towards a deeper reality.

A road sign (Main St.) is not the Road itself, it’s purpose is just to direct and instruct. It points towards the road, letting you know what it is. But the sign is not the road. The Road is distinct from the sign.

The same is true the both species being a fuller sign. That is certainly true. It would be like the “Main. St” sign being in bigger letters and lit up. But it still remains just a sign. The reality that it points towards is equally in both species. Once you have gained a single species, you have gained the reality that the sign points towards.

Some might need the fuller sign to note the road, others do not. It hardly becomes a Christian to claim that not needing the ‘big letters’ and ‘lights’ to note that the Eucharist is present is somehow being ‘minimalistic’.

God creates and uses signs, there is little doubt of that. But He does so, not as an end themselves, but to aid us in our journey towards Him.

So don’t seek the Sign, seek the Substance, the deep reality that the sign points towards. And if one has the Substance, the sign has already done it’s job.

 

[jmcrae]

If we follow your logic, you should look for the largest host and take the biggest ‘gulp’ from the chalice.

Remember, a sign is just that, something that points towards a deeper reality.

A road sign (Main St.) is not the Road itself, it’s purpose is just to direct and instruct. It points towards the road, letting you know what it is. But the sign is not the road. The Road is distinct from the sign.

The same is true the both species being a fuller sign. That is certainly true. It would be like the “Main. St” sign being in bigger letters and lit up. But it still remains just a sign. The reality that it points towards is equally in both species. Once you have gained a single species, you have gained the reality that the sign points towards.

Some might need the fuller sign to note the road, others do not. It hardly becomes a Christian to claim that not needing the ‘big letters’ and ‘lights’ to note that the Eucharist is present is somehow being ‘minimalistic’.

God creates and uses signs, there is little doubt of that. But He does so, not as an end themselves, but to aid us in our journey towards Him.

So don’t seek the Sign, seek the Substance, the deep reality that the sign points towards. And if one has the Substance, the sign has already done it’s job.

A Sacrament is not a sign that points to something else, though.

A Sacrament is a sign that is or does the thing that it signifies. It doesn’t point to something else - it is the thing that it signifies. The pouring of water in Baptism is the washing away of sins; it doesn’t just signify it - the priest in the Confessional is Jesus Christ forgiving you of your sins; he doesn’t just signify it - and the bread and wine are the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Brendan]

The Host alone or the Chalice alone is only half of the sign.
.

One more thing.

You statement was pretty interesting, where exactly did you determine that each species was one half of the sign.

The Church itself has taught only that both species is a “fuller” sign, giving no percentages to each species.

How exactly did did you determine that relationship?

 

[jmcrae]

One more thing.

You statement was pretty interesting, where exactly did you determine that each species was one half of the sign.

The Church itself has taught only that both species is a “fuller” sign, giving no percentages to each species.

How exactly did did you determine that relationship?

The host is one part. The chalice is the other part.

1 part + 1 part = 2 parts, which = the whole. 1 of 2 (1/2) is half.

 

[Brendan]

A Sacrament is not a sign that points to something else, though.

A Sacrament is a sign that is or does the thing that it signifies. It doesn’t point to something else - it is the thing that it signifies. The pouring of water in Baptism is the washing away of sins; it doesn’t just signify it - the priest in the Confessional is Jesus Christ forgiving you of your sins; he doesn’t just signify it - and the bread and wine are the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Correct, Each species, by itself is a Complete Sign, in that it that the Grace indicated is accomplished. One gets no more Grace from recieving both species than one whould from only a single Species (by definition, as we are recieving Christ who IS Grace).

As you yourself noted before, each Species is FULLY the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Therefore, if the sign presented by the reception of two species was “fuller”, then the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity would be “fuller”, but that is clearly impossible.

So if one species alone is a Full Sacramental Sign, what exactly does the Chruch mean when it says 'fuller sign". It can’t be refering to Signs of the Sacrament, because those are accomplished.

Therefore, it must be a seperate sign that is fuller. Which is exactly the case; it is a sign of our PARTICIPATION in the Sacrament.

But that is seperate from the Sacramental Sign itself. And that is one that DOES point towards a deeper Reality, the participation of ourselves in the Body of Christ. But as I mentioned above, this IS something that is pointed towards, a deeper reality. And thus, the need for ‘fullness’ will depend on the individual.

Now what does it mean to ‘participate’ in the Eucharist. It doesn’t mean having both species, that, as we mentioned, is the sign, not the reality. What it means is to accept the Christ one is recieving into one’s heart.

Have you read Cardinal Arinze’s letter, where he describes the reception of the Eucharist by one species to be the common means of distribution in the Church, This is by design. Because it encourges a Catholic to particpate in the Eucharist via their catechesis, and to recognize the simple sign of partitication as they recive the Full Eucharistic Sign in a single species.

Far too often, I find Catholics who ‘miss’ the chalice when it’s not offered (perhaps at a different parish). It means they seek the sign more than they do the reality,

 

[Brendan]

The host is one part. The chalice is the other part.

1 part + 1 part = 2 parts, which = the whole. 1 of 2 (1/2) is half.

Either you don’t even get what you just wrote to me, or else you you agree with me that the Sign is seperate from the Sacrament

In the Sacrament, the Sign accomplishes the Grace of the Sacrament. If you believe that the Sign talked about by the Church is the same as the Sign of the Sacrament, then what you are saying is that each species only accomplishes half of the Sacrament.

Now, if you, like I do, hold that the Church is talking about a different, distinct sign that both species refer to, then your response makes sense.

In which case, my previous post about the sign pointing towards a reality fully applies.

Which one is it?

 

[Sir_Knight]

The host is one part. The chalice is the other part.

1 part + 1 part = 2 parts, which = the whole. 1 of 2 (1/2) is half.

According to that logic, we have THREE Gods – Father, Son & Holy Spirt … but we don’t! Even though The Father is ALL-God and the Son is ALL-God and the Holy Spirit is ALL-God, we still have only ONE God and not three.

Thus, even though the Host is only ONE part, it is still complete. Just as with the chalice.