Vanity: Question about methods of Communion

[Aggie Mama]

Is one obligated to take Communion from the cup in addition to the host? My husband and I have a disagreement about this. He thinks you must take it if it is offered, but I've been taught that you do not have to take it. I'm a post-Vatican II Catholic, so I'm not quite sure how things used to be in the Church, although my mother has told me that they never used to receive Communion from the cup--that the priest would consecrate and drink it and that it was not shared with the community.

Quite frankly (and I'm sure I'll get flammed for this), I find the thought of everyone sharing the same cup just downright unsanitary. I told my husband that everyone drinking out of the same cup defiles the Blood of Christ. He went ballistic at that comment.

So I'm wondering what is doctrinally correct? Why did things change after Vatican II?

[Aggie Mama]

Do you think you might be able to help answer this question? I'm genuinely perplexed about this.

[jtminton]

We use the little cups. I wasn't aware that there was shared-cup drinking going on. Ewww. Is it just a Catholic thing?

[Salvation]

**Is one obligated to take Communion from the cup in addition to the host?**

No, Christ is present both in the consecrated bread as well as the consecrated wine.

Thus, someone who is allergic to wheat can receive Communion as the "Blood of Christ."

[Salvation]

**how things used to be in the Church**

In pre-Vatican days, only the "Body of Christ" was offered in the form of the host at Communion.

[mike182d]

Quite frankly (and I'm sure I'll get flammed for this), I find the thought of everyone sharing the same cup just downright unsanitary. I told my husband that everyone drinking out of the same cup defiles the Blood of Christ. He went ballistic at that comment.

With all due respect, this is insulting the very meaning of communion. It is not just union with Christ, but union with the whole of the Catholic Church.

But...to answer your question, no. It is not necessary to receive the wine as Christ is wholly present in both the bread and wine. You are not "getting any more or less Jesus" by receiving one or both.

However, this troubles me: everyone drinking out of the same cup defiles the Blood of Christ

Think of Christ as spiritual bleach: you can't stain Him but He gets the stains out. Make sense?

[Mershon]

The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who states that one must receive under the species of both bread and wine. Only the priest is obligated to do this. Jesus Christ, whole and entire, body, blood, soul and divinity, is present really, truly and substantially in either just the bread or the wine.

[Salvation]

**Why did things change after Vatican II?**

This one I will let the more schlarly answer.

You might also find the answers yourself in the GIRM (General Instructions of the Roman Missal).

[Salvation]

On the sanitary -- I have read about the natural effects of the consecrated wine. (†With God all things are possible.†)

[mike182d]

In pre-Vatican days, only the "Body of Christ" was offered in the form of the host at Communion.

...Like at the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted :-)

Actually, what I really like is that I've heard of priests dipping the host into the wine and then placing it in people's mouths. Not only does this remove unnecessary Extraordinary Minsiters who would normally distribute the wine seperately, but also forces people to receive on the tongue, as its supposed to be done, and it is more in line with the Last Supper, in which Christ dipped the bread and then gave it to the Apostles.

[Aggie Mama]

Think of Christ as spiritual bleach: you can't stain Him but He gets the stains out. Make sense?

This is my husband's view as well. But it used to be that you couldn't even touch the host. Now it's okay for everyone to drink out of the same cup. It's going from one extreme to the other.

[Salvation]

**...Like at the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted :-)**

But at the Last Supper, Christ blessed the wine and gave it to his disciples also, (Eucharistic Prayer III):

"When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: 'Take this, all of you, and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and foa all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.'"

[Aggie Mama]

You are right, that sounds like the best of both worlds.

[dsc]

"Why did things change after Vatican II?"

Vatican II gave modernist heretics the opening they needed to damage the Church in many ways. When the priest was the only one who received the Blood of Christ, this was one more thing that set the priesthood apart...one more thing that made priests special.

Abolishing those sorts of things should logically translate into fewer vocations...and voila! It has.

[Aggie Mama]

Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm guess I'm just trying to figure out why they changed things. I even heard a visiting priest once say in effect that Jesus is sad if you don't accept the consecrated wine.

[old and tired]

Boy, am I going to get flamed for this, but I also find the whole community sharing the precious vessel for Our Lord's most precious blood unsanitary as well. I was certainly around in pre-Vatican II days, and I believe I have only taken Our Lord's precious blood a handful of times, like at the weddings of one of my children. Under both forms, bread and wine, Our Lord is truly present, both Body and Blood in each form. I don't think you should feel obligated to receive under both forms, but I know I'm not giving you the theologically correct answer, but hang around, the answer will be thrashed out right here.

[Salvation]

General Instruction of the Roman Missal [G. I. R. M.]

GIRM - A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION

[mike182d]

Agreed, but there are four cups that are partaken of in the Jewish feast of the Passover; this was one of them.

Interesting side note: Jesus does not drink the final cup of the passover feast, and thus conclude the passover, until He is on the cross and drink from the hysop branch, after which He says: "It is finished."

[Salvation]

This thread is not about vocations, so I am wondering why you put that comment in?

"Damage" the Church -- is this your opinion?

[dsc]

"This thread is not about vocations, so I am wondering why you put that comment in?"

The person who started the thread asked why things changed after Vat II, and since the topic was receiving in both species, I presumed the poster was interested in why that particular thing changed.

It was changed for the purpose of making priests less special, and one of the reasons modernist heretics wanted to make priests less special was to reduce vocations.

And yes, I think that harms the Church.