why are some rejecting the cup

[Sir_Knight]

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

Never developed a taste for coffee – prefer Mountain Dew but they don’t serve that.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

This is not about the reality of transubstantiation. This is about the importance of the gesture of,yes,drinking the wine. The blood of Christ resides under the form of the wine,as that quote you posted says.

 

[lak611]

This is not about the reality of transubstantiation. This is about the importance of the gesture of,yes,drinking the wine. The blood of Christ resides under the form of the wine,as that quote you posted says.

If you understood Transubstantiation, you would say that you are drinking the Blood of Christ, not drinking wine. See this article.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

I wasn’t referring to the substance of the Eucharist,I was referring to the fact of the form that the Eucharist takes – bread and wine.

 

[anthony022071]

If you understood Transubstantiation, you would say that you are drinking the Blood of Christ, not drinking wine. See this article.

There’s no dichotomy between the Eucharist as blood and as wine,just as there’s no dichotomy between Christ as God and as man.

 

[lak611]

There’s no dichotomy between the Eucharist as blood and as wine,just as there’s no dichotomy between Christ as God and as man.

After the Consecration, the bread and wine are changed to the Body and Blood of Christ. Bread and wine no longer remain. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: “This is my body”. These words form, not a theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: “You are a major”, or, “You are a captain”, which would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: “This is my body”, the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: “This bread contains my body”, or, “In this bread is my Body.” Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my blood”, i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.

 

[Cathryn]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

 

[Roguemelody]

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

Amen! I love your way of thinking

Normally, only the host is offered in our parish. Only certain occasions is the Chalice offered to everyone. And I always take it.

Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity is present equally in both. Whatever some people’s reasoning may be for not receiving both when offered (or not receiving all-together), is their own.

If they’re sick, allergic, have a phobia…whatever the reasoning…none of my business. I’d rather use my time at Mass for praising and thanking God for the privilege of being able to celebrate with His Church and for His gift of the Eucharist then eyeballing other people and being nosy!!

Anyway, that’s my two cents

 

[anthony022071]

Bread and wine no longer remain.

I’d rather go with what I hear the priest say at mass.

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

This does not suggest the absence of bread and wine.

 

[anthony022071]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

Yes,but why? Why would a Catholic not also receive the wine?
Why avoid so fundamental a gesture? Phobias and allergies are no good reasons to avoid it.

 

[Cathryn]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

Yes,but why? Why would a Catholic not also receive the wine?
Why avoid so fundamental a gesture? Phobias and allergies are no good reasons to avoid receiving the blood of Christ.

Those who receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone, for what ever reason, are receiving the blood of Christ. (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ)

 

[lak611]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

Yes,but why? Why would a Catholic not also receive the wine?
Why avoid so fundamental a gesture? Phobias and allergies are no good reasons to avoid it.

Those of us who do receive from the Chalice are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, not wine. Those of us who only receive the Host are receiving the same Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. We do not receive “bread” and “wine”. Have you read the links I provided regarding Transubstantiation?

 

[Ahimsa]

They too are tabernacles of the Eucharist for as long as the accidents remain present.’

When do the accidents no longer remain present?

 

[JDHallKY]

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

During the EMHC training I went through at my parish, my pastor mentioned something about the USCCB asking the American Medical Association for a formal opinion on this. He pointed out that, of course, following the cosecration, what is present is the Precious Blood, not wine. But, based on the opinion of the AMA, the bishops concluded that the accidental (in the sense of “accidents”, not “substance”) alcoholic properties, along with a wipe of the rim of the cup after every sip would be enough to almost entirely prevent the transfer of diseases, *provided *that the faithful who are suffering noticeable symptoms refrain from partaking.

So, the American bishops usually encourage the Precious Blood to be offered, balanced with a request that anyone who believes they may be sick not receive it. And, of course, anyone who is scared of catching something can receive only the Host.

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

 

[Sarabande]

During the EMHC training I went through at my parish, my pastor mentioned something about the USCCB asking the American Medical Association for a formal opinion on this. He pointed out that, of course, following the cosecration, what is present is the Precious Blood, not wine. But, based on the opinion of the AMA, the bishops concluded that the accidental (in the sense of “accidents”, not “substance”) alcoholic properties, along with a wipe of the rim of the cup after every sip would be enough to almost entirely prevent the transfer of diseases, *provided *that the faithful who are suffering noticeable symptoms refrain from partaking.

So, the American bishops usually encourage the Precious Blood to be offered, balanced with a request that anyone who believes they may be sick not receive it. And, of course, anyone who is scared of catching something can receive only the Host.

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

Yes. I agree. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many people receive while still sniffling and coughing and handling the cup after sneezing into their hands or wiping their nose. I guess that’s fine, but the last few times I received the Precious Blood, I got really sick, and I wasn’t sick before then. The last time, I actually got mono. (This was in college and at our Newman Center where everyone were young, college students). I did receive the Precious Blood on my wedding day, though, but my husband and I were the first to receive it after our priest who wasn’t sick. Where I attend mass now, they only provide the Body of Christ, so we do not have this issue.

 

[chrisb]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.

Yes,but why? Why would a Catholic not also receive the wine?
Why avoid so fundamental a gesture? Phobias and allergies are no good reasons to avoid it.

Grace and Peace,

It seems to be an old-school thang…

 

[Sarabande]

I’m just wondering… how do alcoholics handle this? We have alcoholics in my family, although most of them aren’t Catholic and the ones who are Catholic do not receive the Precious Blood. Yes, it is truly the Blood of Christ, but there are properties of alchohol in it, so what does the Church say in terms of those who are alcoholics or how do alcoholics who choose to receive the Blood handle this?

 

[lak611]

I’m just wondering… how do alcoholics handle this? We have alcoholics in my family, although most of them aren’t Catholic and the ones who are Catholic do not receive the Precious Blood. Yes, it is truly the Blood of Christ, but there are properties of alchohol in it, so what does the Church say in terms of those who are alcoholics or how do alcoholics who choose to receive the Blood handle this?

They do not receive from the Chalice. There was a poster on another thread who received from the Chalice on an AA retreat because mustum, not regular wine was used. This is what alcoholic priests use. It contains such a minute quantity of alcohol that it is insignificant. It is not grape juice, though. Grape juice is not valid matter for the Eucharist.

 

[Sarabande]

They do not receive from the Chalice. There was a poster on another thread who received from the Chalice on an AA retreat because mustum, not regular wine was used. This is what alcoholic priests use. It contains such a minute quantity of alcohol that it is insignificant. It is not grape juice, though. Grape juice is not valid matter for the Eucharist.

Thank you!!! I did not know this.

 

[lak611]

Thank you!!! I did not know this.

You’re welcome.