why are some rejecting the cup

[thiscatholickid]

I would be, too, except that there are those for whom it could be a health issue.

I think it would be very appropriate for those who do not receive the chalice to make a profound bow as they pass by it. I know one gentleman who does this, and it is very edifying - there is an entire sermon encompassed in that simple gesture. (He is unable to receive the Chalice due to a health problem.)

If the priest and his altar servers set the example of not just bowing but genuflecting, the whole church usually follows him.

At our church, anyone who doesnt genuflect when passing the tabernacle is usually the one getting the most handshakes after mass. Since its the equilavent of holding up a big flashy sign that says “Interested in Catholicism”.

But then again, there is no issue of the cups, because its a TLM and our priest consumes the Precious Blood by himself.

 

[palmas85]

I never said that the Church mandates it. But why would Latin-rite
traditionalists,of all people,have a problem with bringing back a tradition begun by Christ?
Christ gave only two commands for the eucharistic meal: “Take this,all of you,and eat it”,and “Take this,all of you,and drink it”.
The whole mass is centered upon the Eucharist,and yet one of the two Eucharistic signs has been withheld from the laity for several centuries,on the excuse that one is sufficient.

Sorry my friend, it is not an excuse.

One is sufficient.

 

[brittrossiter]

Sorry my friend, it is not an excuse.

One is sufficient.

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.

 

[japhy]

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

John 6:50-51 seem to say that it is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

According to church teaching, which alone has authority to interpert scripture correctly, it IS sufficient as pointed out in this thread …

        *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***.

-- Catechism of the Catholic Church #1390.
​

 

[Digitonomy]

one of the two Eucharistic signs has been withheld from the laity for several centuries,on the excuse that one is sufficient.

That’s not the reason. There are many things that would be sufficient that the Church chooses not to do. The excuse was that some were holding to the heresy that one was not sufficient.

 

[marci]

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.

Did you read the post quoting the Counsil of Trent? By saying that one Species is not sufficient you are stating something that has an anathema attached to it. If you are catholic you are compelled to believe that Christ is present Body, Soul, and Divinity under BOTH Species. You do not have a choice, but to believe. There is no “opinion” in this matter. The Counsil of Trent settled this question, and we are to abide by their conclusions.

 

[brittrossiter]

Did you read the post quoting the Counsil of Trent? By saying that one Species is not sufficient you are stating something that has an anathema attached to it.

I know what the Council of Trent said. I did not say that I did not believe that Christ is present completely in both species. (If I left you with that impression I apologize for my lack of clarity.)

The point of my reference to the passage in John was to show that the suggestion that declining to drink the blood of Christ is somehow optional is contraindicated by Christ himself (i.e., “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ***and ******drink ***his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh ***and ******drinks ***my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”) Christ used the conjunctive.

I reiterate that someone who believes in the Real Presence (as I do) and who makes a personal decision not to drink from the chalice when offered, for a non-medical reason, should reread John 6:51-55.

If you are catholic you are compelled to believe that Christ is present Body, Soul, and Divinity under BOTH Species. You do not have a choice, but to believe. There is no “opinion” in this matter. The Counsil of Trent settled this question, and we are to abide by their conclusions.

Catholics are obligated to accept the teachings of that Council, yes. I am speaking only of my own opinion that one who has a choice to receive from the chalice but who elects not to is making a grave error.

 

[Walking_Home]

I know what the Council of Trent said. I did not say that I did not believe that Christ is present completely in both species. (If I left you with that impression I apologize for my lack of clarity.)

The point of my reference to the passage in John was to show that the suggestion that declining to drink the blood of Christ is somehow optional is contraindicated by Christ himself (i.e., “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ***and ******drink ***his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh ***and ******drinks ***my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”) Christ used the conjunctive.

I reiterate that someone who believes in the Real Presence (as I do) and who makes a personal decision not to drink from the chalice when offered, for a non-medical reason, should reread John 6:51-55.

Catholics are obligated to accept the teachings of that Council, yes. I am speaking only of my own opinion that one who has a choice to receive from the chalice but who elects not to is making a grave error.

---

You create the “contradiction” --when you take the scripture you bring up out of context with what came before and after it (see John 6:58).

 

[jmcrae]

---

You create the “contradiction” --when you take the scripture you bring up out of context with what came before and after it (see John 6:58).

I am not seeing a contradition. It remains true that receiving both the cup and the Host have greater sign value than receiving one alone. This is in reference to the sign of the Sacrament. (That which signifies.)

With respect to the reality that both the cup and the Host are, each, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, indivisible, it is true that one could receive only one, and still be receiving that which is signified by the sign; that is, Jesus Christ.

Remember that a Sacrament is a sign that does or is that which is signified.

So, minimalistically, even if the whole sign is available, yes, you can receive only one part of the sign, and still receive Jesus.

But why should we be minimalists? Why not make use of the whole sign, at the times when it is made available to us?

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not seeing a contradition. It remains true that receiving both the cup and the Host have greater sign value than receiving one alone. This is in reference to the sign of the Sacrament. (That which signifies.)

With respect to the reality that both the cup and the Host are, each, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, indivisible, it is true that one could receive only one, and still be receiving that which is signified by the sign; that is, Jesus Christ.

Remember that a Sacrament is a sign that does or is that which is signified.

So, minimalistically, even if the whole sign is available, yes, you can receive only one part of the sign, and still receive Jesus.

But why should we be minimalists? Why not make use of the whole sign, at the times when it is made available to us?

---

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.

 

[jmcrae]

---

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.

That’s true. It offers more sign. Just because what the sign signifies is Jesus, doesn’t mean that the sign itself is somehow not important. The sign is a kind of “theotokos” that brings Jesus to us in the Eucharist. So, while of course it is less important, it is not completely unimportant.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s true. It offers more sign. Just because what the sign signifies is Jesus, doesn’t mean that the sign itself is somehow not important. The sign is a kind of “theotokos” that brings Jesus to us in the Eucharist. So, while of course it is less important, it is not completely unimportant.

---

The importance of the “sign” becomes detrimental to our Faith----when it starts to overshadow our own doctrine. The Theotokos gave birth to Christ —complete in both natures --human and divine----just as one species alone is the complete Christ --Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and all grace.

 

[jmcrae]

---

The importance of the “sign” becomes detrimental to our Faith----when it starts to overshadow our own doctrine. The Theotokos gave birth to Christ —complete in both natures --human and divine----just as one species alone is the complete Christ --Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and all grace.

Nobody is asking it to “overshadow” anything. It is what it is.

We are permitted to receive both when both are offered.

It is good to receive both when both are offered, rather than passing by the cup as though it were in some way “extra” or inferior.

 

[Kevin42]

I do not drink from the cup out of habit. Since I received my first communion, not once in my life have I received the cup.

Secondly, after watching people receive from the cup for so many years, I have developed this fear that someday, someone is actually going to drop it and spill The Blood of our Lord. I’m sure that’s silly, but I can’t help but worry about it.

 

[jmcrae]

I do not drink from the cup out of habit. Since I received my first communion, not once in my life have I received the cup.

Secondly, after watching people receive from the cup for so many years, I have developed this fear that someday, someone is actually going to drop it and spill The Blood of our Lord. I’m sure that’s silly, but I can’t help but worry about it.

If it’s a real worry for you, you could practice at home with juice, until you get the hang of passing the chalice back and forth easily.

In my RCIA, we were taught to receive it under the bottom with one hand and by the bowl with the other, then take a tiny sip, and then pass it back to the deacon with both hands, not letting go until you are sure the deacon has it firmly in his hands.

 

[Kevin42]

I suppose I could. I never really was concerned about this until I actually started reading about the Eucharist, and realizing and believing what truly happens. The churches I have attended have always been fairly large, so there are always several extraordinary Eucharistic ministers distributing the cup. I am amazed after all my years as a Catholic that I have never seen anyone drop it. (Thank God.)

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The importance of the “sign” becomes detrimental to our Faith----when it starts to overshadow our own doctrine. The Theotokos gave birth to Christ —complete in both natures --human and divine----just as one species alone is the complete Christ --Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and all grace.

Nobody is asking it to “overshadow” anything. It is what it is.

We are permitted to receive both when both are offered.

It is good to receive both when both are offered, rather than passing by the cup as though it were in some way “extra” or inferior.

---

Receiving the Host alone includes receiving the Blood —so it is not about viewing the Cup as something extra and/or inferior. It is acknowleding and internalizing our own doctrine. The “sign” value overshadows our doctrine —when it leads to view where --not receiving from the Cup is seen as negative.

 

[JimG]

Remember that receiving under both species is an option, not a mandate. There’s no need to raise questions about who does or does not receive from the cup. It is a personal decision.

All of Jesus’ body and blood—Jesus in His entirety—is present in the smallest piece of the host or in the smallest drop of the precious blood. No one who receives under only one species is being deprived of anything. Each of us receives all of Jesus.

In my parish, we do not receive from the cup, except on special occasions. To the best of my knowledge, this is simply because of logistics. There are 7 weekend Masses with 1,000 to 2,000 people at each Mass. Handling that much wine for consecration at each Mass would not be easy and the amount of altar wine needed every week would be an additional cost. It would also require the recruitment of even more EMHC’s, and make the Masses longer.

You might think that Mass time should not be a consideration, but believe me, when Masses are scheduled 1 ½ hours apart, and Mass takes one hour minimum, and there are cars coming in to both enter and leave the parking lot, it certainly must be a consideration.

 

[Starbuck1]

I didn’t know I was going to open up a can of worms when I started this thread.

What still bothers me about all of this is that we are not taking in consideration what Jesus did when he instituted this sacrament. Why didn’t He just say “This is my body and blood in the bread?” Surely Jesus knew that there would be few weak-kneed Catholics in 2007 that would be afraid of a few germs. Didn’t he offer both elements for a purpose?

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