why are some rejecting the cup

[sphilomena]

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.

Yep, I agree. Here’s another thought: if we have our eyes closed, are deep in prayer, maybe have our faces in our hands, how are we looking at other people??? I know, you’ll say they’re in front of you. (Personally, I like to be close to the front and receive early, so I’ll have more time for intimate prayer with Jesus who is within me.)

As I said before, if some pastors don’t even offer “the cup” at their churches, it tells you that there’s nothing wrong that practice. It isn’t always feasible, and that’s covered in the documents from Rome.

 

[Sarabande]

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.

 

[Digitonomy]

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.

I would be very cautious about using CAF threads as a guide for what truly is or is not a problem with unity, or with the degree of that unity or disunity.

CAF members are more conservative than Catholics as a whole in the US, so you may find an artificial unity here that does not reflect Catholics as a whole - e.g., ask a representative group of American Catholics about artificial contraception. CAF members are better educated about canon law, rubrics, etc. So they are more likely to find fault when any of these is violated, simply because they are aware of a violation that others may not be. Furthermore, members are interested in and passionate about the Church, and so obsessive discussions about finer points are commonplace. Unfortunately, members are not always charitable - sometimes because they view the board as their chance to rant, sometimes because they’re just rude in general.

So I would take all of this with a thick skin and a shaker of salt, and draw very few conclusions about American Catholics in general, or the unity or disunity of the Church.

 

[ontologysue]

I can understand one’s reverence for the precious blood and the possibility of spillage, but the only reason that’s a problem is again the changes since Vatican II, when others besides the priest began to administer the eucharist. There are just so many issues with the Roman rite that beg for correction. This is one of the reasons I coud not join the Roman Church and instead became Orthodox.

As to the comment about the chalice not being “magic” and diseases can be contracted from it…I don’t know what to say. I can just picture Teresa of Avila or the nuns who received communion when Therese of Lisieux was receiving communion, refusing to receive in both kinds due to germ fears! This is truly a cynical age! Our Lord’s words, as to the end times, will He find faith. come to mind; “Sorry, Lord, I know You Said this is Your Blood, but You must understand we just can’t expose ourselves to germs!!” What?

As an Orthodox Christian we receive from the same spoon from one priest, as intinction. Babies receive communion also, I have never once heard any concern about disease, germs etc regarding the eucharist.

In regard to the Anglican Catholic Church, I’m not saying they have the whole truth, I’m saying isn’t it ironic that this remnant of Anglicanism has been practicing the faith meticulously while the Roman rite has, and continues to be, all over the place. I think that in the end, Our Lord will be the judge of the integrity of their sacraments and orders.

The Pharisees were sure they, and ONLY they, had the whole truth but Our Lord had some surprises for them. I do not think Rome, the Orthodox, Anglican or Protestants have ALL the truth when it comes to liturgical practices, canon law, etc. All Christians share the same creed, beyond that, I think a lot of human error and sins of pride percolate down through the “institutional” church. And, when any of us, become to sure of ourselves, we run a spiritual risk. Let’s leave a little room for God’s sovereignty!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What percentage of Catholics worldwide receive by intinction?

Is reception by intinction growing?

 

[lak611]

What percentage of Catholics worldwide receive by intinction?

Is reception by intinction growing?

I don’t know. The only time I ever did was in the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy.

 

[Brendan]

What percentage of Catholics worldwide receive by intinction?

Is reception by intinction growing?

That is the standard form at my parish. We also don’t use EMHC’s at Mass either.

Several parishes I know don’t like Intinction, because it rules out the reception of Communion in the hand, and it cuts the number of Ministers of Holy Communion in half (if not more)

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

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

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?

No,I just said those councils over-reacted when they prohibited the wine from the laity. The decisions of Vatican 2 and subseqent bishops’ conferences to allow the wine are a tacit admission that the prohibition was not right.

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:

I’m not arguing against the theological definitions of the councils.
The prohibition of the wine was not a theological definition,but more like a disciplinary action.

You also said that:

I stand by those statements.

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

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.

I’m not saying that we are bound to receive both bread and wine. But when the wine is offered,we may as well take it,because that was the original tradition for the first 12 centuries. What point does it serve to avoid the wine? Will your belief that the bread alone is sufficient to receive Christ be shaken if you also take the wine? Are you worried you might send the wrong message to others if you receive the wine?

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.

Interpretation of what? the theological definitions of the Eucharist or the prohibition of the wine?
I’m not arguing against the Church’s theology,but against the
prohibition,and avoidance,of the wine.

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?

The Church has allowed the use of the wine,so I’m not at odds with the mind of the Church.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Anthony,

Well, if your entire point is:

anthony022071:

But when the wine is offered,we may as well take it,because that was the original tradition for the first 12 centuries.

And,

anthony022071:

The Church has allowed the use of the wine,so I’m not at odds with the mind of the Church.

Then there really isn’t much of a controversy here. Most of us agree that a)the Church has now allowed the laity to receive the Precious Blood and b)we may or may not take it.

However, if you think that 1)Christ commanded it for the laity (and that therefore those who do not communicate under both kinds disobey Christ) or that 2)the Church does not have the authority to administer and regulate the sacraments, then you would seem to not be thinking with the mind of the Church.

My guess is that if you stick with a) and b) and do not assert 1) and 2) then there won’t be much of an issue to discuss.

God bless you,
VC

(p.s. You are correct that both the prohibition on the laity receiving the Precious Blood and the allowance are disciplines. However your assertion that

anthony022071:

The decisions of Vatican 2 and subseqent bishops’ conferences to allow the wine are a tacit admission that the prohibition was not right.

does not logically follow. A discipline is applied, modified, and lifted in response to many factors. A change in discipline is not a tacit admission that the the prior discipline was in error – I think most would recognize this and I am surprised you made this statement. A change of law does not imply that a prior law was not sound at the time it was in force.)

 

[fix]

As to the comment about the chalice not being “magic” and diseases can be contracted from it…I don’t know what to say. I can just picture Teresa of Avila or the nuns who received communion when Therese of Lisieux was receiving communion, refusing to receive in both kinds due to germ fears! This is truly a cynical age! Our Lord’s words, as to the end times, will He find faith. come to mind; “Sorry, Lord, I know You Said this is Your Blood, but You must understand we just can’t expose ourselves to germs!!” What?

This is a straw man argument. First there is no requirement to receive the Precious Blood. That no requirement exists is significant in an of itself. The attempt to bind Catholics where the Church has not seems incorrect.

As for germs please see the USCCB website that has links:

1. What measures should be taken in Roman Catholic liturgies in the United States of America now?
   Priests, deacons, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should be especially reminded of the need to practice good hygiene. Ministers of Holy Communion should be encouraged to wash their hands before Mass begins, or even to use an alcohol based anti-bacterial solution before and after distributing Holy Communion. They should instruct people who feel ill not to receive from the cup.

usccb.org/liturgy/influenza.shtml

So, my question is should the USCCB be concerned about this issue if Saints were not concerned as you claim?

Our Lord will be the judge of the integrity of their sacraments and orders.

He has left a living authority.

I do not think Rome, the Orthodox, Anglican or Protestants have ALL the truth when it comes to liturgical practices, canon law, etc. All Christians share the same creed, beyond that, I think a lot of human error and sins of pride percolate down through the “institutional” church. And, when any of us, become to sure of ourselves, we run a spiritual risk. Let’s leave a little room for God’s sovereignty!

Not sure what you mean by ALL the truth? For certain Rome has the authority.

Then again , if we do not accept Rome then who is the authority?

 

[AJV]

About the concern regarding infection using the common Chalice, how does it compare to infection spreading via the fingers especially for people who receive on the tongue?

 

[jmcrae]

About the concern regarding infection using the common Chalice, how does it compare to infection spreading via the fingers especially for people who receive on the tongue?

That’s a good point - I’ve never seen a priest wash his hands after giving the Host on the tongue - he just continues to distribute them.

I’ve also never seen anyone wash their hands either before or after using holy water, either.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJV
About the concern regarding infection using the common Chalice, how does it compare to infection spreading via the fingers especially for people who receive on the tongue?

That’s a good point - I’ve never seen a priest wash his hands after giving the Host on the tongue - he just continues to distribute them.

I’ve also never seen anyone wash their hands either before or after using holy water, either.

---

Whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand----if one follows with receiving from the Chalice — it increases the risk of coming in contact with and picking up some infection.

We do know for sure --that mouths have made contact with the Chalice.

As far as the Holy Water—there is a risk of some contaminant. But this risk it seems would be greater— for the ones who receive in the hand. By the time the Host is placed in the hand—the hands more than likely —have been in contact with more than the Holy Water.

 

[jmcrae]

---

Whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand----if one follows with receiving from the Chalice — it increases the risk of coming in contact with and picking up some infection.

Yes, but the accident of the alcohol has medicinal properties to kill any bacteria (thus taking care of all three sources of possible infection), and they use a purificator on the lip of the chalice after each person receives.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, but the accident of the alcohol has medicinal properties to kill any bacteria (thus taking care of all three sources of possible infection), and they use a purificator on the lip of the chalice after each person receives.

---

Unless the purificator contains some disinfectant agent, it is just rubbing the germs–bacteria–virus back and forth.

As to the alcohol—it may not be as efficient at killing bacteria, viruses, etc. — as some people think,
answers.com/topic/alcohol-disinfectant

One must also keep in mind — the super germs/bugs that are now appearing – that are getting more and more difficult to control.

 

[jmcrae]

One must also keep in mind — the super germs/bugs that are now appearing – that are getting more and more difficult to control.

Once that happens, we won’t be allowed to go outside at all. Drinking or not drinking from the chalice won’t be an issue, because no one will be allowed to go to Mass in the first place - or anywhere else that there would be crowds of people.

 

[Apryl]

The Last Supper was with a small(ish) group of people who all knew each other really well.

I don’t think that the size of the group is the important issue, is it?

We have the bread and the wine, the Body and the Blood. The difference is, we have bread AND wine, but the Body and Blood are one and the same. Both species give us the Body and Blood.

There were many years when we didn’t get the cup at the regular masses. We still, as Catholics, received the Body and the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

I happen to have no problem with one chosing to not take the cup. They don’t have to! I believe that they are just as much in Union with Christ as any one that has received in both species.

If you don’t agree with that, is there some reason for that belief?

I know that there are people that are dealing with alcohol addiction, they don’t need to receive from the cup. What about a person that has a cold, or other communicable illness? They don’t need to receive from the cup. What if it’s a person that is just going to think ‘egh’ after receiving the cup? They should not receive from the cup, either.

And they still have received the Body and Blood of Christ.

No one needs to explain WHY they don’t receive under both species, either.

 

[Walking_Home]

Once that happens, we won’t be allowed to go outside at all. Drinking or not drinking from the chalice won’t be an issue, because no one will be allowed to go to Mass in the first place - or anywhere else that there would be crowds of people.

---

That may or may not happen in the future —but we are speaking of our current time. And those super bug/germs are part of our current time.

Actually including the Chalice — may increase and serve as a vehicle — to bring the scenario you describe closer to reality.

 

[jmcrae]

That may or may not happen in the future —but we are speaking of our current time. And those super bug/germs are part of our current time.

Actually including the Chalice — may increase and serve as a vehicle — to bring the scenario you describe closer to reality.

I think touching door handles in public buildings is much more likely to do that. If a carrier gets all the way up to the front of the Communion line, then you’ve already been exposed to the bug, whether you receive the chalice, or not, just by breathing the same air and touching the same door handle.

 

[Walking_Home]

I think touching door handles in public buildings is much more likely to do that. If a carrier gets all the way up to the front of the Communion line, then you’ve already been exposed to the bug, whether you receive the chalice, or not, just by breathing the same air and touching the same door handle.

---

Anyway you want to look at it jmcrae—the introduction of another source increased the chances of picking up something. You are adding another variable to the equation. Whether one has dipped his/her fingers into the Holy Water, touched common objects, breathed common air etc. —the risk is increased by including another source—the Chalice.