why are some rejecting the cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starbuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not significantly, though. If you’re going to catch something, you caught it on your way into the Church already. By the time you reach the Communion line, either you’ve already got it, or your immune system is working, and you aren’t going to get it.
 
jmcrae said:
Not significantly, though. If you’re going to catch something, you caught it on your way into the Church already. By the time you reach the Communion line, either you’ve already got it, or your immune system is working, and you aren’t going to get it.
Click to expand...
Oh -it is significant—very significant. How many people have you kissed on the way into Church. Add the number of those who have received before you to the ones you have kissed. And if by some chance there is some backwash into the Chalice—count it more like a nice long “french kiss”.
 
Walking_Home said:
Oh -it is significant—very significant. How many people have you kissed on the way into Church. Add the number of those who have received before you to the ones you have kissed. And if by some chance there is some backwash into the Chalice—count it more like a nice long “french kiss”.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you are really grossing me out. You could take anything, no matter how beautiful, and analyze it until you get to the Yuck-factor.

If you do not want to receive from the chalice, there is NOTHING to compel you to do so.

Please do not take away the beauty of this act for others, though.

And stop THINKING about it so much, please!
 
fix;294249 The attempt to bind Catholics where the Church has not seems incorrect. said:
Finally, the Church certainly has authority, but, Our Lord has sovereignty, even over the Church. By the Church however, I would disagree with you that Rome is the whole church. The Orthodox and Rome and (scandal of scandal) perhaps even an Anglican remnant or two…(just a little sarcasm here) constitute the Church. The Orthodox have always had both kinds as has the Anglican. So, by no means does the whole church say one kind is preferable. In the long view, the whole church will not be misled.

However, the bottom line, for me, is desire. I listen to the Church, the whole church, I trust she will not be misled on major dogma, especially over time. But then, I submit to His voice in mystical prayer, and as long as the result does not directly contradict the whole church over time and does not violate charity, I go with that.
Click to expand...
 
Apryl said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Oh -it is significant—very significant. How many people have you kissed on the way into Church. Add the number of those who have received before you to the ones you have kissed. And if by some chance there is some backwash into the Chalice—count it more like a nice long “french kiss”.

Honestly, you are really grossing me out. You could take anything, no matter how beautiful, and analyze it until you get to the Yuck-factor.

If you do not want to receive from the chalice, there is NOTHING to compel you to do so.

Please do not take away the beauty of this act for others, though.

And stop THINKING about it so much, please!
Click to expand...
Well – sometimes the truth offends. By the way — it would not have gotten to this pt. – If some people were not dead set to find fault with the non–reception of the Chalice.
 
jmcrae said:
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. :
Click to expand...
He washes his hands before the Consecration, so they are clean.

He has no need to wash his hands between each distribution on the tounge because his fingers do not touch the tounge. The correct procedure is to set one end of the Host on the tounge, and then release, the moisture of the tounge keeps the Host in place.

In our parish, the priest and Deacon dip their fingers in a small bowl of water after the distribution of Holy Communion, but this is to remove any remaining particles of the Eucharist. After a suitable time for the accidents to dissapate (and thus the Real Presence to cease), the water is then poured down the Sacrarium.

So at no point does the priests hands touch anything other than the Blessed Sacrament. If the EMHC’s in your parish are having problems with that, they either need more practice ( which you can offer them) or else they need to resign.
 
What’s harder to face? Martyrdom or exposure to germs in the Eucharist?
 
What’s harder to face? Martyrdom or exposure to germs in the Eucharist?

Good point!
 
I haven’t read over this whole thread so excuse me please if this question has already been asked.

Would the Catholic Church possibly consider the option of dipping the host into the precious blood?
 
emeraldcoast said:
I haven’t read over this whole thread so excuse me please if this question has already been asked.

Would the Catholic Church possibly consider the option of dipping the host into the precious blood?
Click to expand...
The option of intinction (dipping the host) is available–unfortunately --not all churches use this option when they offer the Precious Blood. But even if intinction were to become more widely available —there would still be some --who would consider this an unacceptable practice.

You see—I have come across some who believe – intinction is still spiting the gospel—since Christ said to eat and to drink (two different actions) and to them receiving by intinction does not fit Christ’s command.
 
emeraldcoast said:
I haven’t read over this whole thread so excuse me please if this question has already been asked.

Would the Catholic Church possibly consider the option of dipping the host into the precious blood?
Click to expand...
Intinction is allowed, but self-intinction is not allowed.

To be done properly, the priest dips the host into the chalice and places it on the tongue of the communicant. It is not allowed that the communicant dip the host.
 
Starbuck1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Remember, it is not bread and wine at that point but Jesus’ body and blood.
 
JimG said:
Intinction is allowed, but self-intinction is not allowed.

To be done properly, the priest dips the host into the chalice and places it on the tongue of the communicant. It is not allowed that the communicant dip the host.
Click to expand...
I was told by our priest that if a person came for intiction we are to gently inform them that we cannot do that…but he also said that the EMHC can dip the host and place it on the tongue of the communicant.

That doesn’t seem right/
 
THurifer2 said:
I was told by our priest that if a person came for intiction we are to gently inform them that we cannot do that…but he also said that the EMHC can dip the host and place it on the tongue of the communicant.

That doesn’t seem right/
Click to expand...
No, I’m quite sure intinction must be done before the communicant receives the Host:

Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (NDRHC 49)

If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws. (GIRM 287)
 
Walking_Home said:
You see—I have come across some who believe – intinction is still spiting the gospel—since Christ said to eat and to drink (two different actions) and to them receiving by intinction does not fit Christ’s command.
Click to expand...
Those people you have come across don’t really get the concept of Transubstantiation.

Each species is both Blood and Flesh. When the priest holds up the Host during the Elevation, what is actually there is pints and pints of livling, flowing, fluid blood and pounds of living flesh, it is the entiretly of the Resurrected Christ. We don’t see it, or taste it or have our mouthes and throats interact with it, but whenever we recieve a single species, we are eating and drinking.

The specific interactions of our thoats on the accidents do not matter anymore than the speicific interaction of our eyes with Eucharist.

Tell them not to confuse accidents with Substance.
 
fix said:
Why the false choice?
Click to expand...
Exactly, if someone really feels that Christ is calling to martrydom via the chalice, I’m sure they should go for it.

But one should really discuss it with their spiritual advisor first to see if martyrdom in that way is the one most beneficial to the Church.

Perhaps a better route might be preferred, such as becoming a street evangelist in Saudi Arabia. 👍
 
Brendan said:
Exactly, if someone really feels that Christ is calling to martrydom via the chalice, I’m sure they should go for it.

But one should really discuss it with their spiritual advisor first to see if martyrdom in that way is the one most beneficial to the Church.

Perhaps a better route might be preferred, such as becoming a street evangelist in Saudi Arabia. 👍
Click to expand...
I agree :D. The folks who do not want to receive due the possiblity of catching something have a legitimate point. The link I posted from the USCCB was in regard to an epidemic. My question is why only the concern when an epidemic occurs?

From what some have posted here it should not matter what the cirucumstances are in play at any given time. If hygiene is a small and insignificant matter then why bother at any level?

Also, I was wondering about the use of hosts. I assume that was not used at the last supper? Why is that form of bread acceptable to folks today if they are so set on receiving from the cup as was done 2000 years ago?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top