why are some rejecting the cup

[ontologysue]

I’m wondering about all this fear of the chalice…first of all I have heard on EWTN that Pope Benedict is trying to bring back receiving in both kinds because that, after all, is what Our Lord did on the night before He was crucified and the disciples followed His command. If the Body is really the Body and the Wine is really the Blood, then one should have no fear of getting germs from it. The alcoholic content along with, hopefully a gold chalice and the use of a purificator should alleviate any such fears. I have never received Our Lord without receiving in both kinds and have never gotten sick as a result. The Orthodox, of which I am now a member, always receive in both kinds by intinction and they have never had such fears. I find it an anomaly of our modern culture and practices resulting from Vatican II which generally diluted the liturgy.

Seems to be alot of defensiveness on this issue.

 

[Cathryn]

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.

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

I don’t think notable part is such a vague term. This thread seems to indicate that a part of the faithful are being noticed prefering not to approach the chalice for various reasons. This seems to make them a notable part. Some receiving under both species and others passing by the chalice without receiving does seem to be negating the sign of unity. If it was an insignificant couple of people who receive under one species alone, I don’t think we would even be having this thread.

 

[nilofc]

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

It is because you do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine which is transformed to His Body and Blood.

Communicable Disease? I don’t worry about that… Jesus is present in it, He is far more important than my health and far more powerful than any disease. He’s not only the Son of God, but also God the Son. He healeth even before any mere disease can touch my lips.

My personal health is nothing compared to my spiritual health.

 

[nilofc]

I have only received from the cup once or twice in my life. My parish didn’t have it until I was well into my teens, and I wasn’t used to the idea. I don’t like drinking out of a container that so many other people have used.

Once our pastor was on vacation and we had a substitute priest. He admitted to us that he forgot that the congregation didn’t receive wine and he had consecrated enough wine for everyone. So he had to drink all of it himself!

Stop referring to it as the wine because once it is consecrated it ceases to be a wine.

 

[nilofc]

You all have given some good reasons for not partaking of the wine. I would like to add to your list…

1. Dislike (many people can’t stand the stuff).

We have even had people who were allergic to the host, when this is known in advance, a special host can be brought in for them.

God Bless You!

…so many can’t stand the stuff?? I remember the time when Jesus said that everybody needs to drink of His blood. A lot also said they couldn’t stand the stuff and turned away. Are you one of them?

You refer to the blood of the Lord and you say people can’t stand the stuff. What an outrage to the Lord. I advise you to be careful of what you say next time for you are taking offense at the Lord.

The wine once consecrated is the blood of Jesus. Show some respect to God!

 

[nilofc]

ITs not bread and its not wine…I don’t pass on the cup but some people are germ phobias for the right reasons. I have heard horror stories about “aunt Tillies” teeth falling into the communion cup. My wife can’t stomach drinking from the same cup as 500 other people.

You profane and blaspheme the Lord with your statements.

If you and your wife cannot drink from the same cup, then the communion of saints is not for you.

 

[nilofc]

It’s not the Precious Blood which makes one sick-- it would be the bacteria or viruses of the people who have drunk before you, and which may still be left on the chalice.

Your distrust in the Lord is what we’ll make you sick.

 

[nilofc]

Pope John Paul II once kissed a man with Leprosy and a large portion of his skin stucked on the Pope’s lips. I understood from that time on, that there’s nothing more pleasing to God than to love God above all things and by loving His creations as you would have love one’s self.

If the Pope can show such humility to a person stricken with leprosy, I can only imagine how much you profane the Lord by refusing to receive His blood for the reason that you might contract germs from His people. You do not trust the Lord completely and that what makes you disgusting than anything.

 

[japhy]

I’m wondering about all this fear of the chalice…first of all I have heard on EWTN that Pope Benedict is trying to bring back receiving in both kinds

This is not about “fear” of the chalice, it’s about utmost respect for the Precious Blood. When it is passed between a minister and the communicant, there is always the possibility for spilling, sloshing, dropping, etc. the Precious Blood.

Can you provide a source for the EWTN/Benedict reference? I’m curious.

If the Body is really the Body and the Wine is really the Blood, then one should have no fear of getting germs from it. The alcoholic content along with, hopefully a gold chalice and the use of a purificator should alleviate any such fears. I have never received Our Lord without receiving in both kinds and have never gotten sick as a result. The Orthodox, of which I am now a member, always receive in both kinds by intinction and they have never had such fears.

Intinction is really the way to go, in my opinion, and could certainly be incorporated into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well as the Ordinary Form. The problems associated with receiving directly from the Chalice basically disappear when intinction is used.

 

[fix]

I’m wondering about all this fear of the chalice…first of all I have heard on EWTN that Pope Benedict is trying to bring back receiving in both kinds because that, after all, is what Our Lord did on the night before He was crucified and the disciples followed His command. If the Body is really the Body and the Wine is really the Blood, then one should have no fear of getting germs from it. The alcoholic content along with, hopefully a gold chalice and the use of a purificator should alleviate any such fears. I have never received Our Lord without receiving in both kinds and have never gotten sick as a result. The Orthodox, of which I am now a member, always receive in both kinds by intinction and they have never had such fears. I find it an anomaly of our modern culture and practices resulting from Vatican II which generally diluted the liturgy.

Seems to be alot of defensiveness on this issue.

The notion one may drink from a common cup shared by many people and be immune from infection seems contrary to reason and science. Intinction is the solution.

I think we must be careful not to look at this as some form of magic. It is possible to transmit disease in this manner.

 

[Digitonomy]

I don’t think notable part is such a vague term. This thread seems to indicate that a part of the faithful are being noticed prefering not to approach the chalice for various reasons. This seems to make them a notable part. Some receiving under both species and others passing by the chalice without receiving does seem to be negating the sign of unity.

If it was an insignificant couple of people who receive under one species alone, I don’t think we would even be having this thread.

Perhaps not. But suppose the the pastor wrote his weekly message about it in the bulletin, and discussed it in his homily, encouraging people to partake of the Eucharist under both species, to emphasize the unity of the congregation. Afterward only an insignificant number (say 2 out of 3000) decline to receive from the cup. This number may be insignificant, but they would still be noted, especially after the pastor’s encouragement. Following the rule you quoted to the letter, it seems that the wine should not be offered, and the Eucharist should be distributed in the form of bread alone.

I don’t think this was how the document was intended to be interpreted, which is why I called it vague - it really is unclear how many or what percentage the document means by “a notable part.”

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Not at all. It is forbidden for a priest to say Mass, if he does not have access to both species, or does not intend to consecrate and consume both species.

(If my husband offers to kiss me twice, do I refuse him, on the grounds of “Eww!! Icky germs!!” or because one kiss is all the proof I need that he loves me?)

I have another question - do those who refuse the Chalice also refuse to use Holy Water? After all, it sits out for days on end, and is used not only by adult members of the parish, but also by little children, homeless people, and who knows who else.

 

[Cathryn]

Perhaps not. But suppose the the pastor wrote his weekly message about it in the bulletin, and discussed it in his homily, encouraging people to partake of the Eucharist under both species, to emphasize the unity of the congregation. Afterward only an insignificant number (say 2 out of 3000) decline to receive from the cup. This number may be insignificant, but they would still be noted, especially after the pastor’s encouragement. Following the rule you quoted to the letter, it seems that the wine should not be offered, and the Eucharist should be distributed in the form of bread alone.

I don’t think this was how the document was intended to be interpreted, which is why I called it vague - it really is unclear how many or what percentage the document means by “a notable part.”

I believe the document was worded this way because number isn’t the key. It says “so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated”. This is pretty strong language. Look at the lack of unity on this thread. There seems to be a sizable and notable problem with unity to have such a contentious thread. People even speculating over the reasons others are receiving under one species and saying their reasons are not good enough. There have been things tossed out about how people even look guilty as they walk by, some see this as rejecting Jesus Christ Himself. Others believe people should drink from the chalice or it shows they have no faith in Jesus Christ being present in the Precious Blood. Others say people are to receive from the Chalice or they are not obeying Jesus Christ. Some seem to believe they need to have both species for the complete sacrament. At Holy Communion, seeing people walk by the Chalice without receiving seems to be upsetting people. Telling people they need to receive under both species because of the lack of the sign of unity isn’t the solution spelled out here in this document. There is a respect for the preference of those who prefer to not approach the chalice for various reasons in this document.

This thread has been shocking to me. I never realized how some people viewed those who received Holy Communion under one species.

 

[fix]

(If my husband offers to kiss me twice, do I refuse him, on the grounds of “Eww!! Icky germs!!” or because one kiss is all the proof I need that he loves me?)

If he just kissed 200 strangers would that still be acceptable? Must we pretend hygiene does not play a role simply because we wish it did not play a role? Are the laws of biology suspended during mass? Is there a directive saying they no longer matter?

I have another question - do those who refuse the Chalice also refuse to use Holy Water? After all, it sits out for days on end, and is used not only by adult members of the parish, but also by little children, homeless people, and who knows who else.

Do we apply holy water to mucosal surfaces? Do we ingest it?

I find this entire line of reasoning very strange. It is not as if we are in a concentration camp during WWII where we have no alternatives.

 

[JimG]

This thread has been shocking to me. I never realized how some people viewed those who received Holy Communion under one species.

Yes, the intent of the change was to provide an option for Catholics to receive under both species, not to start liturgical wars.

 

[Ovenbird03]

I can only speak for myself. I prefer to receive under both forms…but only when a Priest distributes communion by intinction. There are a few reasons why I pass up the cup otherwise. One is that I’m deathly afraid of dropping it, spilling it, etc. The other is that there is never enough precious blood for everyone who wants to to receive. I know that the host is both body and blood (and soul and divinity) and so is the precious blood. however, not everyone does and I know that it may hurt some people’s consciences if the Precious Blood ‘runs out’ before it is their turn. Therefore, I leave the Precious Blood for those whose consciences demand it.

When a priest distributes by intinction there is no reason to worry about spilling the Precious blood (as the host is dipped into the precious blood and placed directly into your mouth by the priest), there is no worry about running out of the precious blood (everyone receives it, but in smaller amounts), it eliminates the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it eliminates the risk of someone receiving the host in the hand and NOT consuming it, etc.

 

[Cathryn]

Yes, the intent of the change was to provide an option for Catholics to receive under both species, not to start liturgical wars.

I think the dioceses and parishes dropped the ball on the proper catechesis regarding the dogmas from the Council of Trent that was supposed to “precede and continually accompany” the receiving of Holy Communion under both species.

 

[Brendan]

Not at all. It is forbidden for a priest to say Mass, if he does not have access to both species, or does not intend to consecrate and consume both species.:

Then can you explain your comment

Bread without the wine is nothing but bread. Wine without the bread is nothing but wine

.

 

[blacktiger057]

I think that most people skip the wine because sometimes hundreds of people have backwashed and drunken from it, which I do find really unsanitary.

 

[blacktiger057]

Bread without the wine is nothing but bread. Wine without the bread is nothing but wine

I think the meaning is quite clear. If you only eat bread, then obviously you are only eatin bread, and vice versa. What’s so hard to grasp about that? Jk.