why are some rejecting the cup

[jmcrae]

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.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God - each one is fully God.

But the Eucharist is made up of two parts - the Host and the Chalice. There is no Eucharist, if either of those two is missing.

Yes, you (a lay person) can receive only one part of the Eucharist, and you will still receive all of Jesus, but the Host was not confected apart from the Chalice, and neither was the Chalice confected apart from the Host. Notice that the priest must consecrate both, in order for the Consecration to actually take place, and notice also that the priest himself, and any concelebrating priests, must receive both, as well.

It is only lay people who can receive just one or the other.

 

[AJV]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God - each one is fully God.

But the Eucharist is made up of two parts - the Host and the Chalice. There is no Eucharist, if either of those two is missing.

Yes, you (a lay person) can receive only one part of the Eucharist, and you will still receive all of Jesus, but the Host was not confected apart from the Chalice, and neither was the Chalice confected apart from the Host. Notice that the priest must consecrate both, in order for the Consecration to actually take place, and notice also that the priest himself, and any concelebrating priests, must receive both, as well.

It is only lay people who can receive just one or the other.

I don’t think it is exactly like that.

Each of the species can be confected apart from each other. The priest does not need to confect the Precious Blood in the chalice in order for the Host to truly be the Body. For which reason, the Church commands that a genuflection be made after each consecration.After the priest says “This is my Body” Christ is truly present on the altar- irrespective of whether he later says “This is my Blood”

However, the consecration of both species is necessary for a valid Sacrifice.This “double consecration” shows the mystical slaying of the Victim.

By the “transubstantiation” of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present: now the Eucharistic Species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood.

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood

Though the Sacrifice and Sacrament are extremely closely linked, they are distinct. But still closely linked. For which reason, it is a sacrilegious and a grave sin and absolutely impossible for any reason whatsoever to consecrate one without the other. It "“it overthrows the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice, and as it is a sacrament”

If the priest were to say “This is My Blood” you would indeed be able to receive Christ under the appearance of bread (sacrament) but there would be (majority theological opinion) no Sacrifice.

 

[AJV]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God - each one is fully God.

But the Eucharist is made up of two parts - the Host and the Chalice. There is no Eucharist, if either of those two is missing.

Yes, you (a lay person) can receive only one part of the Eucharist, and you will still receive all of Jesus, but the Host was not confected apart from the Chalice, and neither was the Chalice confected apart from the Host. Notice that the priest must consecrate both, in order for the Consecration to actually take place, and notice also that the priest himself, and any concelebrating priests, must receive both, as well.

It is only lay people who can receive just one or the other.

I don’t think it is exactly like that.

Each of the species can be confected apart from each other. The priest does not need to confect the Precious Blood in the chalice in order for the Host to truly be the Body. For which reason, the Church commands that a genuflection be made after each consecration.After the priest says “This is my Body” Christ is truly present on the altar- irrespective of whether he later says “This is my Blood”

However, the consecration of both species is necessary for a valid Sacrifice.This “double consecration” shows the mystical slaying of the Victim.

By the “transubstantiation” of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present: now the Eucharistic Species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood.

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood

Though the Sacrifice and Sacrament are extremely closely linked, they are distinct. But still closely linked. For which reason, it is a sacrilegious and a grave sin and absolutely impossible for any reason whatsoever to consecrate one without the other. It "“it overthrows the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice, and as it is a sacrament”

If the priest were to say “This is My Blood” you would indeed be able to receive Christ under the appearance of bread (sacrament) but there would be (majority theological opinion) no Sacrifice.

The priest receiving communion also pertains to the validity of the Sacrifice rather than the sacrament. You might find this post helpful on the essential vs. integral nature of the priest’s communion in relation to the Sacrifice should the priest not consume both.

 

[Servulus]

As mentioned in an earlier post, some people choose to receive the Eucharist only under the form of bread for reasons that include not only habit, personal devotion, and sacramental theology, but also obedience. We all accept that the Church has the right and the responsibility to determine the time, place, and other conditions governing the administration and reception of the sacraments. The number of times we may receive in a day, the required fast, limiting reception to baptized persons who are not conscious of unabsolved mortal sin – these are all examples of requirements the Church has the right to prescribe and her children have the duty to obey. We know, too, that she takes this responsibility seriously. We are reminded, for example, in INAESTIMABLE DONUM that:
“The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy… Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful.”

From the time of the Second Vatican Council it was understood that the privilege of receiving Communion under both kinds was not to be considered an “always and everywhere” dispensation, but rather was appropriate in certain well-defined situations. Thus *INAESTIMABLE DONUM *also instructs that:

“12. With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed,… Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.”(Emphasis added)

Numerous other references clearly indicate that this practice is not to be routine or ordinary. Two of these are provided here (emphases added):
GIRM (85) "It is most desirable that the faithful … may receive the Lord’s body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they share in the chalice. … "
*REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM *(100) “So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, **in the cases set forth in the liturgical books **…”
It seems obvious, then, that this privilege is appropriately extended only in certain circumstances. What are they? The GIRM provides the answer:
283 “Communion under both kinds may be permitted for the following reasons, in addition to those given in the ritual books:
a) for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
b) for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass;
c) for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, …
In addition, there are specific instructions for situations in which Communion under both forms should not be offered. These are found in REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM:
102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, …”
Further, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in its NORMS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AND RECEPTION OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS, includes the following additional guidance:
“In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

Given the above instructional information, consider the case of an individual whose parish offers Communion under both forms at every Mass, using numerous Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion each time, even though a significant number of people do not receive under both forms. In such a case, the individual may choose to obey the will of the Church rather than to follow the errant local practice.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think anyone is advocating that people attempt to receive from the Chalice when it is not being made available to the congregation - that would be silly.

But if it is being offered, then it is proper to receive from it. If there is a Deacon holding the chalice for members of the congregation to receive from it, then it is very proper and right to receive from it, unless you have an illness such as alcoholism or a severe allergy to wine that would prevent you from doing so.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think anyone is advocating that people attempt to receive from the Chalice when it is not being made available to the congregation - that would be silly.

But if it is being offered, then it is proper to receive from it. If there is a Deacon holding the chalice for members of the congregation to receive from it, then it is very proper and right to receive from it, unless you have an illness such as alcoholism or a severe allergy to wine that would prevent you from doing so.

…Or if you have already achieved the Reality that the Sign points towards

 

[jmcrae]

…Or if you have already achieved the Reality that the Sign points towards

Of course, by then we will be in Heaven. While here on earth, we should take advantage of every advantage we can get.

 

[Steve40]

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

Both our Lord’s Precious Blood and His Flesh Are His Body Blood Soul and Divinity. We can’t recieve part of Jesus it is always all or nothing. So, recieving in one form and not the other is not a rejection. Once you recieve Him you have done it all.

 

[Cathryn]

There is no rejection of the Sacred Chalice. These same people who are thought by a few to be “rejecting the cup” were moments before at the Consecration on their knees beating their heart at the elevation of the Sacred Chalice, uniting their lives with the life of Jesus Christ offered sacrificially on Calvary. When they later recieve Holy Communion they become a living tabernacle of our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. There is no rejection of His precious blood.

 

[Brendan]

Of course, by then we will be in Heaven. While here on earth, we should take advantage of every advantage we can get.

And every advantage, by definition of who Christ is, is already in each species. There can be no more than what we recieve in each species. We have recieved ALL, in the very truest sense.

In fact, I think Christ is more concerned with us being focused on WHAT we are recieving, not HOW.

So if one is focusing on WHAT one is recieving, and has already recieved it, there is little need for more HOW.

 

[jmcrae]

Brendan;

If it were not okay to receive both, they would not offer it to us. They don’t offer the Chalice for people to pass it by and refuse it; they offer it to us for us to partake of it.

Isn’t it better for people to partake of it, than to have it thrown down the Sacrarium?

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;

If it were not okay to receive both, they would not offer it to us.

I never said it wasn’t ‘OK’, all I am saying is that it is not pastorally necessary for the majority of Catholics. If it was, Rome would have made it the standard practice. But Rome has not done so, in fact, Cardinal Arize has said that the reception by the laity of the species of bread is the standard practice of the Church.

They don’t offer the Chalice for people to pass it by and refuse it; they offer it to us for us to partake of it.

If they offer the Chalice when the majority of people present are already Catechized sufficently to recognize the sign of particpation in a single sacrament, then they are pastorally insensitive. If one has no need of the fuller sign because one is already partaking of the reality offered, then one had no need, and might as well

Isn’t it better for people to partake of it, than to have it thrown down the Sacrarium?

Ahhhh… so you are now saying that I should partake of the Chalice specifically so that the person the celebrant trusted with the Chalice does commit sacriledge with it?? Perhaps it is more the fault of the pastor that he has not trained his staff that they are prohibited from using the Sacrarium for Consecrated matter.

Remember, Redemptionis Sacramentum says that if there is any danger of too great a quantity begin Consecrated, that it should NOT be offered in the first place.

(Yet one more reason not to offer it)

 

[jmcrae]

Well, we can just receive Jesus into our hearts without any Sacraments, too, just as long as we are present at Mass; it’s still the same “amount” of Jesus. If we are going to be completely minimalist, we should just do that - after all someone might drop a Host, or something - it is really only the priest who needs to receive the Eucharist; the rest of us don’t need it as long as he is receiving it on our behalf, right?

 

[Brendan]

Well, we can just receive Jesus into our hearts without any Sacraments, too, just as long as we are present at Mass; it’s still the same “amount” of Jesus.

Now come on, are you trying to be facetious, or don’t you understand that the Eucharist is Christ’s SUBSTANTIAL presence.

So, no, we don’t get Christ in our hearts in the same way as just from participation in Mass.

But we do get Christ in our hearts in the same, Substantal way in both species, because they are both the same Substance. The only difference between the species is the accident, how they appear to our eyes.

If we are going to be completely minimalist, we should just do that - after all someone might drop a Host,

No one is being a ‘minimalist’, in fact, just the opposite. In the Eucharist there is NOTHING I do not recieve, because I recieve God Himself, the person who defines IS.

By recieving the Host, there is nothing left to recieve.

or something - it is really only the priest who needs to receive the Eucharist; the rest of us don’t need it as long as he is receiving it on our behalf, right?

If you honestly believe that, go back and slap your RCIA instructor, they really did you a diservice.

Christ offers Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to us. We recieve it. Now why exactly should I care about what accidents are involved beyond one species, when I have just recieved the Substance.

In order to not be a ‘minimalist’ I would need to somehow maximize the number of accidents I recieve? Is that your point?

 

[jmcrae]

In order to not be a ‘minimalist’ I would need to somehow maximize the number of accidents I recieve? Is that your point?

My point is, when offered the opportunity, why not receive the whole sign, instead of just one part of it?

Other than minimalism, I don’t get the point. Why be just good enough, when you can be excellent?

 

[Brendan]

My point is, when offered the opportunity, why not receive the whole sign, instead of just one part of it?

What exactly is the purpose of the sign?

When is the significance (in the correct sense) of this sign accomplished?

 

[edward_george]

Folks, to be quite honest, what’s going on here is the savage beating of a dead horse.

This point has been argued over and over and over again; we’ve basically laid out the full sacramental theology of the Church to the best of our understanding, and that’s about all we can do aside from continuing to repeat over and over again ad nauseum.

Christ is sacramentally present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Sacred Host once it has been consecrated.

Christ is sacramentally present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the wine once it has been consecrated.

The underlying reality of each is changed so that while it still appears to be bread/wine and possess the physical attributes of the same, it is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Both forms are all of these things. The bread is not merely become the Body, nor the wine become only the Blood.
Both contain the same, Christ in his fullness. Christ is God. God is infinite.

Infinity plus infinity equals infinity. It is not necessary to receive both forms of Communion, nor does it produce any advantage apart from a devotional one on the part of the man receiving. Some choose to receive from the Chalice in addition to the Host, some choose only to receive the Host. Neither receives more grace than the other.

There are theological and practical reasons for withholding Holy Communion under the species of the consecrated wine; these have been detailed numerous times in previous posts (including my own). If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t take things out of context (including Scripture) merely to support your own opinion. Your opinion (speaking here to the original poster) is demonstrably not that of the Church; this has been shown time and time again by quoting the Councils of the Church. If this is just something you cannot bring yourself to believe, then you need to pray for the grace of faith so that you can. Stubbornness and argument ad nauseam on the topic will result in nothing.

So let’s all give the poor dead horse a break.

-ACEGC

 

[Steve40]

Well, we can just receive Jesus into our hearts without any Sacraments, too, just as long as we are present at Mass; it’s still the same “amount” of Jesus. If we are going to be completely minimalist, we should just do that - after all someone might drop a Host, or something - it is really only the priest who needs to receive the Eucharist; the rest of us don’t need it as long as he is receiving it on our behalf, right?

Yes, God can do anything. But, if you can have physical union with Him you should. Your body is important and being a physical being is important. Today the Church encourages frequent physical union with Christ, but only requires it once a year.

There have been times when I would not recieve because I definately felt I should go to confession first. But for the most part, if I’m not aware of any mortal sin I don’t think it is right of me to hold anything back from our Lord. Admittedly, I am not always whole heartedly comitted but sometimes we need to take physical action before the mind and heart follow. There is no greater physical action than recieving our Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[po18guy]

i won’t drink from a cup that 100 complete strangers have just drunk from.

The Apostles did not hesitate. I have to place my faith and trust in God. Afterall, the other parishoners are our brothers and sisters in the Lord. We are more closely related to them than to non-Catholic family members. Anyway, the Blood just does it for me. He shed it on the cross, and it cleanses me and gives me His life within me. His precious Body does as well, but if both are offered, I receive both. Faith and Trust.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[LSK]

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

I do not take from the cup because I am a recovering alcoholic. Because the Church teaches that I receive fully the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord when I partake of the Host I find it both prudent and medically sound to not partake of the Blood from the cup.