why are some rejecting the cup

[jmcrae]

Your idea that these Catholics who are receiving under one species, for other than health reasons, are minimalists is absurd since many of the ones at my church receiving under one species also go to Mass and Communion daily, and seem to go frequently to Confession. There is no indication that they as you phrase it are “thinking in terms of the least we can get away with.” There is no indication that anyone receives under one species alone because of minimalism. You are judging peoples hearts who are receiving Holy Communion and are having serious misperceptions.

The majority of the time, it is not even offered under both species.

I am only speaking about times when it is actually made available to the people - those three or four times of the year, or whatever it happens to be.

I am a daily Mass attender myself, and I receive from both whenever it is made available - so do most of my friends.

 

[Cathryn]

The majority of the time, it is not even offered under both species.

I am only speaking about times when it is actually made available to the people - those three or four times of the year, or whatever it happens to be.

I am a daily Mass attender myself, and I receive from both whenever it is made available - so do most of my friends.

My parish and the parishes I have been in, offers under both species every Sunday. I’ll say again that your idea that these Catholics who are receiving under one species, for other than health reasons, are minimalists is absurd since many of the ones at my church receiving under one species also go to Mass and Communion daily, and seem to go frequently to Confession. There is no indication that they as you phrase it are “thinking in terms of the least we can get away with.”

The fact that you also go to daily Mass along with your friends is wonderful, but has nothing to do with the reason I presented this fact. Many Catholics do more than the minimum. I would say most Catholics do much more than the minimum. You should not be judging those who receive under one species as doing the least they can get away with. Their presence at daily Mass and confession shows they are not doing the minimum.

 

[Donna_P]

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

Dear Starbuck1,

May God be with you!

I walked past just this Sunday ( I usually don’t) but my children have been sick and I felt I was coming down with something and didn’t want it to spread.

This kind of thing really makes intinction the perfect solution!

God bless you!

 

[sphilomena]

Some priests/pastors choose to have Communion under one species only all the time, which they have the right to do. Do some of you people place yourselves above the priests? What about all those years we didn’t even HAVE the Cup offered? Was the Church in error then? Time for some logic.

 

[Sarabande]

I walked past just this Sunday ( I usually don’t) but my children have been sick and I felt I was coming down with something and didn’t want it to spread.

This kind of thing really makes intinction the perfect solution!

I wish more people were like you. It sometimes seems that some people don’t use common sense when they are sick. I did know a person I previously worked with who really believed in taking from the chalice even when he had a cold because he “trusted in the Lord”. It’s the Blood of Christ, so no one would get sick. He also insisted on shaking people’s hands during the sign of peace when he had a cold or even if another person had a cold. As I mentioned in my previous post, I’ve gotten sick many times because of that - and one time I got mono. It makes me wonder if that is because of people like him who believes that their cold/flu/mono/etc. won’t get transmitted to anyone. Also, even when the symptoms of mononucleosis goes away, a person who had the virus can still pass it to another person through saliva, sharing utensils, drinking out of the same glass, etc. Some can carry the virus for many months after being sick and not even know that they are infecting others.

That is what I think happened when I got mono. I know it was from that because I never kissed anyone and I was germ concious so I never shared any of my eating/drinking utensils, or shared drinks with anyone - except when I received the Precious Blood. Also, other people I knew who attended mass and drank out of the chalice also got sick around the same time I did. Granted it was my fault for being a young, naive, wide-eye college student and also thinking at the time that I wouldn’t get sick either since it was the Blood of Christ, although I would have never drank out of the chalice if I was sick myself.

Why doesn’t the Church do intinction? My parents, who are medical professionals, have wondered the same thing. They do not receive the Precious Blood either when they attend their home parish. But they usually attend where I cantor which doesn’t distribute the Precious Blood during mass.

 

[Cathryn]

Cardinal James Gibbons in 1876 had this to say:

“It would be very distasteful, besides, for so many communicants to drink successively out of the same chalice, which would be unavoidable if the Sacrament were administered in both forms. In our larger churches, where communion is distributed every Sunday to hundreds, there would be great danger of spilling a portion of the consecrated chalice and of thus exposing it to profanation.

But above all, as the Church in the fifth century, through her chief Pastor, Gelasius, enforced the use of the cup to expose and reprobate the error of the Manichees, who imagined that the use of wine was sinful; so in the fifteenth century she withdrew the cup to condemn the novelties of the Calixtines, who taught that the consecrated wine was necessary for a valid communion. Should circumstances ever justify or demand a change from the present discipline the Church will not hesitate to restore the cup to the laity.”
Pg 250 Cardinal James Gibbons The Faith of Our Fathers

Cardinal Gibbons has a whole chapter on Communion Under One Kind
cathcorn.org/foof/22.html

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony, perhaps you have finally gone to far?

This was brought up before and you never directly answered it. Council of Trent Session 21, Chapter 1:
Your assertion that Christ commands communion under both species seems to be in direct conflict with this teaching of Trent. And in direct conflict with all subsequent teaching of the Church.

Would you consider changing or moderating your position?
VC

Well,Christ did command his disciples to drink the cup in memory of him – there’s no doubt about that. It may not be a “divine precept”,but it certainly is a mundane command that Christ gave to his disciples.
Christ intended his body and blood to be consumed as bread and wine. In any case,councils are not infallible. The councils of Constance and Trent over-reacted to a theological misunderstanding when they prohibited the wine from the laity.
That was overkill. It was not very wise for the councils to prohibit the wine from those inside the Church in order to make a theological point directed at the protestants outside of the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

I believe at some pt. the Church may have to rethink the offering of the Chalice. By some of what has been said in this thread—and in other prior threads on this topic—we may not be to far from a full blown Ultraquist heresy—or some variant of it.

 

[Brendan]

Well,Christ did command his disciples to drink the cup in memory of him – there’s no doubt about that. It may not be a “divine precept”,but it certainly is a mundane command that Christ gave to his disciples…

Actually, Christ gave that command to his Apostles, who are bishops. Guess what, Bishops recieve both species.

Everything that Christ commanded to Apostles does not necessarily apply to us, for example, Christ said to the same group of men that what ever sins they forgive are forgiven in Heaven, but that does not give the faithful the right to hear confessions.

 

[Brendan]

Not by itself, no. The two things - bread and wine - are the essential elements of the Eucharistic sign. Bread without the wine is nothing but bread. Wine without the bread is nothing but wine.

The two together are the one sign.

Are you honestly trying to say that one species consecrated alone is not actually consecrated. THAT flies in the face of the doctrine of the Church and the teachings of the Popes.

Each species IS consecrated seperately, that’s why the priest genuflects in reverence to the Host PRIOR to his consecration of the wine.

Granted, the deliberate consecration of a single species alone is illict, but it certainly is not invalid. Do you understand the difference in terms? Illict is against the liturgical law, Invalid means that it does not exist.

A single species consecrated IS actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divnity of Christ and is no longer bread. And it most certain IS a sign.

You are walking on VERY thin ice here.

 

[anthony022071]

Actually, Christ gave that command to his Apostles, who are bishops. Guess what, Bishops recieve both species.

Everything that Christ commanded to Apostles does not necessarily apply to us, for example, Christ said to the same group of men that what ever sins they forgive are forgiven in Heaven, but that does not give the faithful the right to hear confessions.

The apostles were disciples when Christ gave them the bread and wine. They did not become bishops until after the resurrection.
And in the early church,for the first 12 centuries,the wine was given to the laity.

 

[japhy]

The apostles were disciples when Christ gave them the bread and wine. They did not become bishops until after the resurrection.

I believe the Church teaches that the Last Supper was their “ordination”.

 

[Brendan]

The apostles were disciples when Christ gave them the bread and wine. They did not become bishops until after the resurrection.

Not true!! Holy Orders was instituted at the Last Supper, for how could Christ have asked laymen to “Do this in memory of me”?

Here are some resources

The Last Supper, at which Christ instituted the sacraments of the Sacrifice and **the Priesthood of the New Covenant, **is the beginning of the Tridaum Paschale.

Pope John Paul II - 1995 Holy Thursday letter to the Priests

THE CHURCH THUS TEACHES: HolyOrders is a true sacrament instituted by Christ who ordained the Apostles at the Last Supper. .

The Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle- christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/p6.html

And in the early church,for the first 12 centuries,the wine was given to the laity.

The Early Church BEGAN giving the chalice to the faithful to combat the Marcionist heresy, which decried the use of wine at all.

It then removed it to combat the Ultraquist heresy, which said that both species were a requirement for the laity (which I am starting to see more and more of, those claiming it is a requriement if not de facto, then de jure).

 

[Cathryn]

This thread is pointing out that there is a notable part of the church that are walking by the chalice without receiving. The Church addresses this issue in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

INSTRUCTION
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] 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, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[adopted_heir]

I read the first page of responses, but it looked like there were several so I didn’t really read any posts further than that (because I do other things in the day ), but from what I read no one really touched on any reasons other than “It’s gross–I’ll get germs.”

Personally, I do not receive under both Species, and not mainly for any sanitary reasons (although I do have an aversion to sharing a cup with potentially a hundred strangers, this isn’t the main reason I don’t receive the chalice). My main reason is it avoids an occasion for an abuse of the Most Holy Sacrament. The Precious Blood it just too easy to spill when it’s being passed around, sloshed, or, even worse and as I’ve seen, knocked back like a shot. Or when people clumsily drink and slosh it out of the chalice, then wipe their hands (stained with the Sacrament) on their shirt or pants–not the standard recommended way to clean up the spill. Knowing just what is involved in the Sacrament, I want to receive, of course, but I want to avoid any possibility that I would even inadvertently cause a sacrilege or waste of the Sacrament. As much as it appalls me to see others (no doubt inadvertently) abusing the Sacred Species, I can’t allow myself that possibility.

This is to add to the fact that no extra grace is received by receiving both species (my husband quotes St Thomas Aquinas), so there is no spiritual benefit and only the gravest risk of sacrilege associated with receiving under both species. Germs aren’t even the tip of the iceberg. If it is not an express benefit to receive under both species, as our Catholic doctrine says it is not, and only adds up to an abhorrent possibility of profaning Our Lord in the Sacred Species, then it’s best to receive discerningly and with minimal risk, which for me means receiving the Host and making a bow and sign of the Cross when passing the chalice (because while I have received the Host already and so have a bunch of other people and we are all Tabernacles for a time, the Blood is still fully present and deserves the same reverence we give when we genuflect toward the Tabernacle when entering the church at the beginning of Mass).

Now, I know this isn’t the norm among most modern churchgoers, out of respect for the Sacrament I also do not receive in the hand (for much the same reason–it invites too much opportunity for me to drop the Host, to retain crumbs on my fingers and drop them somewhere to be trampled or otherwise profaned–but also because I have not been consecrated for the handling of the Host, while the priest has been set aside out of the whole community for the main purpose of consecrating, distributing, and minding the storage of the Sacred Species) and do not receive from Eucharistic Ministers. My husband and I are unabashed about crossing lines to get to the priest to receive the Eucharist, since it’s his duty to administer it. The most horrific thing I’ve seen in a Mass was a Eucharistic Minister drop a Host on the floor, then kneel and as she was picking it up (which is also the priest’s duty, not anyone else’s), dump the ciborium on the floor as well. That was a tragedy that could absolutely have been avoided, so I am doing my part to avoid that. Out of respect for the Sacrament, we also kneel to receive.

I know this got into kind of a tangent, but I hope you’ll see it as still relevant, since it is all one and the same Person we are receiving, under whichever Species. There didn’t seem to be really anybody who actually refrains from receiving the cup responding, so I thought I would. Basically it’s little or nothing to do with germs or yuckiness factor: it’s all about what is actually going on at the Mass and how I can make sure it’s as holy, reverent, and fulfilling as possible, how I can participate more fully and honor Christ in the Sacrament the most.

 

[anthony022071]

Not true!! Holy Orders was instituted at the Last Supper, for how could Christ have asked laymen to “Do this in memory of me”?

He commanded the apostles to eat and drink,which of course laymen can do. The link says that Christ instituted the sacrament of ordination at the Last Supper,not that
the apostles became bishops at that time. How could there be Christian bishops before the resurrection of Christ had taken place? The Church began at Pentacost. Only after then could there be bishops.

The Early Church BEGAN giving the chalice to the faithful to combat the Marcionist heresy, which decried the use of wine at all.

It then removed it to combat the Ultraquist heresy, which said that both species were a requirement for the laity (which I am starting to see more and more of, those claiming it is a requriement if not de facto, then de jure).

The wine was used from the beginning.

1 Cor 10:16-17:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”

1 Cor 11:23-29:
“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

St. Justin,Apology:
“When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.”

 

[Walking_Home]

I believe at some pt. the Church may have to rethink the offering of the Chalice. By some of what has been said in this thread—and in other prior threads on this topic—we may not be to far from a full blown Ultraquist heresy—or some variant of it.

---

After some thought—I will make a correction to the above. I am changing – “we may not be to far from a”–to ----we are already in a.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Walking Home,
I don’t think that Anthony has fallen in ultraquism just yet, and it might be a bit unfair to level that charge against him, if that is what you intended. Although I certainly see justification for your concern.

Anthony,

I was surprised that your response to being shown that you may be at odds with the Council of Trent was:

In any case,councils are not infallible.

What do you mean? Are you saying that as a Catholic you are at liberty to ignore what an Ecumenical Council teaches and defines? Are you sure this is the path you want to go down? I really don’t understand, can you explain what you mean?

Assuming that you do want to remain a loyal son of the Church and give the proper deference and obedience to the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, I think you have run into another problem:

The councils of Constance and Trent over-reacted to a theological misunderstanding when they prohibited the wine from the laity.
That was overkill. It was not very wise for the councils to prohibit the wine

Trent seems to have anticipated your objection when it solemnly declared:

CANON 11.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

You also said that:

Well,Christ did command his disciples to drink the cup in memory of him – there’s no doubt about that. It may not be a “divine precept”,but it certainly is a mundane command that Christ gave to his disciples.
Christ intended his body and blood to be consumed as bread and wine.

Anthony, I believe that Trent is directly speaking to your objections, please read:

For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–**that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord **: for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

So, look, Trent is saying that a) it does not follow that because Christ instituted the sacrament under both species that all the faithful are bound by Christ to receive under both species, and b) The other times when Christ indicated eating and drinking does not constitute a command to do so, because Christ contra-indicated this in other places. Both a) and b) seem quite logical.

Anthony it *appears *to me (I may be wrong, please correct me!) that you have decided, against the weight of authority and the teaching of the Church, to follow your own interpretation of the issue. Are you willing to soften your view somewhat? Can you take into account what the Church seems to be saying? Are you willing to be moved? Or will you reject any and all arguments against your position? Can you consider at least the possibility that you may not be thinking with the mind of the Church on this issue?

God Bless you,
VC

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home,
I don’t think that Anthony has fallen in ultraquism just yet, and it might be a bit unfair to level that charge against him, if that is what you intended. Although I certainly see justification for your concern.

VC

---

VC----my post was not specific to anthony. It is the result of observation --research and numerous discussions on this topic. Yes–the Church has a grevious problem on Her hands—and it will only get worse.

 

[Digitonomy]

This thread is pointing out that there is a notable part of the church that are walking by the chalice without receiving. The Church addresses this issue in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

Thanks for that interesting tidbit, I wasn’t aware of that. Of course, the document nowhere describes what is meant by the extremely vague term “notable.” If we are quite literal about it, we could say that in a congregation of 3000, if there were two each week who were noted to refrain from the chalice, that would constitute a notable part. However, I suspect a more liberal standard was intended.