why are some rejecting the cup

[aimee]

If you are in a Catholic church nobody is “taking” anything, they are receiving, and no one is receiving bread and wine. Whether they receive under the form of bread or under the form of wine or both they are all receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, sacramentally present whole and undivided in the sacred species. They have their own reasons, they are not obligated to explain them to you, and their communion is not diminished if they receive only under one form. Why does this concern you? nobody is “refusing” anything. I am working out a bad cold and will not be receiving from the cup, or shaking hand at the sign of peace, this weekend out of consideration for my fellow parishioners. Is this somehow any business of yours?

I’m sure the op was just curious…

kindness goes a long way:ehh:

 

[twosweetgirls]

But doesn’t the alcohol in the wine kill most germs?

 

[Rockymom]

At a meeting at our parish once, a doctor/parishoner said that there is not enough alcohol to kill the germs. He said he would not receive it because of that.

So, take that for what it is worth.

 

[jmcrae]

The last thing I need is to be pulled over during a routine traffic stop and have the police officer smell alcohol on my breath.

Another excellent reason to stay for the coffee hour after Mass.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

No, for the same reasons edward_george gave. I don’t think laypeople should be handling the sacred chalice.

 

[Corki]

My other reason–and my chief concern–for not receiving under both forms is a theological issue. Years ago, laymen were forbidden the cup in order to more greatly underline the fact that Christ is present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity under either form alone. There are a great many people nowadays who do not believe this; some think that you must receive both–and some, sadly, do not even believe in the Real Presence (the latter is a whole other matter though). In order to make that doctrine abundantly clear, it would seem like a good idea to me to return to the practice of only receiving under one form.

-ACEGC

In a way it’s symbolic of modern times. People want communion with Christ but don’t feel obliged to partake of the blood of Christ which washes away sins. They are not really aware of their sinfulness and don’t feel they need to be forgiven.

This post proves edward’s point above. I am sorry but this demonstrates an understanding of both Communion and forgiveness of sin that are not based in Catholic teaching.

 

[Lepanto]

Are You an Utraquist?

By Karl Keating

At weekday Masses in the Catholic Answers chapel, Communion is by intinction and thus under both kinds. On Sundays, at my parish, I receive only the host and not from the cup, which is to say I receive under one kind only. If someone were to ask me why, and if I felt mischievous, I might reply, “Because I’m not an Utraquist, of course!” My questioner would respond, “Huh?” Then I’d give him a short lesson in history and sacramental theology.

Rest of article:
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701lw.asp

 

[Cathryn]

In a way it’s symbolic of modern times. People want communion with Christ but don’t feel obliged to partake of the blood of Christ which washes away sins. They are not really aware of their sinfulness and don’t feel they need to be forgiven.

Applying this judgement to fellow Catholics that decide to receive Holy Communion under one species makes no sense at all and is very judgmental. Catholics receive Jesus Christ , Body , Blood, Soul, and Divinity by receiving the Sacred Host. The idea that these Catholics believe they don’t need the blood of Christ is wrong. They believe they are receiving Blood, Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Someone else brought up that many who walk by the chalice have their eyes down and look guilty. After receiving Holy Communion, eyes cast down most likely is reverence, humility, and prayer to the Jesus Christ who they are carrying back to their pew.

 

[anthony022071]

This post proves edward’s point above. I am sorry but this demonstrates an understanding of both Communion and forgiveness of sin that are not based in Catholic teaching.

The wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ,which is the blood of the new covenant,and which was shed so that our sins may be forgiven. It behooves Catholics to acknowledge this and to receive the wine in memory of Christ.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I brought this topic up in the ‘Traditional Catholic Forum’ to much chagrin…

I always partake of both species ‘when’ both are offered. I need all the Jesus I can get my hands on!

 

[Cathryn]

The wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ,which is the blood of the new covenant,and which was shed so that our sins may be forgiven. It behooves Catholics to acknowledge this and to receive the wine in memory of Christ.

With regard to Communion under one or two species, everyone’s preference must be respected.

 

[lak611]

The wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ,which is the blood of the new covenant,and which was shed so that our sins may be forgiven. It behooves Catholics to acknowledge this and to receive the wine in memory of Christ.

There is nothing symbolic about the Sacred Host or Precious Blood. The substance of either species is Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) complete in either species. The accidents remain, but the substance is changed at the Consecration.

 

[anthony022071]

Applying this judgement to fellow Catholics that decide to receive Holy Communion under one species makes no sense at all and is very judgmental. Catholics receive Jesus Christ , Body , Blood, Soul, and Divinity by receiving the Sacred Host. The idea that these Catholics believe they don’t need the blood of Christ is wrong. They believe they are receiving Blood, Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Someone else brought up that many who walk by the chalice have their eyes down and look guilty.  After receiving Holy Communion, eyes cast down most likely is reverence, humility, and  prayer to the Jesus Christ who they are carrying back to their pew.

I just suggested that the avoidance of the wine was symbolic of the modern attitude – namely,communion with the Church,the body of Christ,but without the acknowledgement of the need to be forgiven of sins. I’m not saying that that is the reason why some people avoid the wine.

Why be a minimalist about Holy Communion? Jesus commanded the disciples to drink the cup,and he told them what it meant. That ought to be reason enough to drink it. The bread is the body and the wine is the blood,and the one does not symbolize the other. They should not be considered interchangeable in significance,even if it is true that Christ’s body,blood,soul and divinity are present in either. The drinking of the wine is a fundamental gesture of the mass,and it ought to be observed.

 

[anthony022071]

With regard to Communion under one or two species, everyone’s preference must be respected.

It shouldn’t even be considered a matter of preference. The wine is essential to the mass and what it represents is essential to the faith.

 

[lak611]

The bread is the body and the wine is the blood,and the one does not symbolize the other. They should not be considered interchangeable in significance,even if it is true that Christ’s body,blood,soul and divinity are present in either.

From the USCCB:

1. Christ is “truly, really, and substantially contained” (18) in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine. (19)

1. The Council of Trent teaches that “the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words].” (20)

1. The Church also teaches and believes that “immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united.” (21)

 

[jmcrae]

There is nothing symbolic about the Sacred Host or Precious Blood. The substance of either species is Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) complete in either species. The accidents remain, but the substance is changed at the Consecration.

Although it is not merely symbolic, like all Sacraments, this Sacrament is a sign that does or is the thing that it signifies - and the Church has often acknowledged that there is greater sign value in receiving under both species rather than just one - even though you are not getting “more Jesus” you are receiving a fuller sign when you receive under both species.

For that reason, it is my personal practice to receive under both species whenever it is available. (I have absolutely no fear of germs, or cooties, etc. - it’s Jesus, after all. )

 

[lak611]

Although it is not merely symbolic, like all Sacraments, this Sacrament is a sign that does or is the thing that it signifies - and the Church has often acknowledged that there is greater sign value in receiving under both species rather than just one - even though you are not getting “more Jesus” you are receiving a fuller sign when you receive under both species.

For that reason, it is my personal practice to receive under both species whenever it is available. (I have absolutely no fear of germs, or cooties, etc. - it’s Jesus, after all. )

What you have said is correct (and I receive under both forms when they are offered). I was addressing another poster who seems confused about Transubstantiation; he mentions “drinking the wine”. After the Consecration, the substance is Jesus, not wine. Wine is the accident.

 

[anthony022071]

There is nothing symbolic about the Sacred Host or Precious Blood. The substance of either species is Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) complete in either species. The accidents remain, but the substance is changed at the Consecration.

The bread and wine are symbols,along with having the real presence of Christ.

 

[lak611]

The bread and wine are symbols,along with having the real presence of Christ.

What you have described is Consubstantiation, the Lutheran belief of the Body and Blood of Christ existing along with the elements of bread and wine. The Catholic belief is that the substance is completely changed to the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Mary1973]

I sing in the choir. There is something in the wine which causes a reaction in my throat. This affects my ability to sing.