Viewpoint: Reception of Communion from the Chalice is Intrinsic to the Mass

by M. Francis Mannion

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2003) provides the protocol for the reception of Communion from the chalice by all members of the assembly, not just the clergy: “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given of the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant in ratified in the Blood or Christ, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom (no. 281). Official statements on the value of Communion under both kinds are variants on this principle.

Recently, however, it struck me during the celebration of Mass that the value of Communion from the cup is embedded in the very celebration of the Mass itself—and is not just an external principle that may be applied to the liturgy from without. This is, frankly, something that I had not noticed with the same force before.

Here are some examples. During the preparation of the offerings, the priest says:

“Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the wine we offer you: fruit of the vine and work of human hands, it will become our spiritual drink” (All italics mine). This prayer parallels a similar one for the offering the bread.

The heart of the Eucharistic Prayer is the Institution Narrative (the Consecration). For some reason I had never noticed that the mandate for reception from the chalice by the people is built into the very words said by the priest, the words of Jesus:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.

One of the memorial acclamations is the following:

“When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.”

I quickly perused the missal and was surprised to find many prayers that imply the reception of the chalice. Here are two random examples:

The first is from the Prayer after Communion at a Mass for Vocations to Religious Life:

“Strengthen your servants, O Lord, with this spiritual food and drink, so that, always faithful to the call of the Gospel, they may make present everywhere the living image of your Son. Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.”

The second is from the Mass of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

“Restored with heavenly food and drink, we beseech you, almighty God, to protect from fear of their enemies, those you have redeemed by the Precious Blood of your Son. Who lives and reigns forever and ever.”

Does the worshipper receive the Body and Blood of Christ fully under the form of bread or wine? Certainly; that is what the doctrine of concomitance is all about. My point here is not to question that doctrine. I want only to emphasize how the mandate for the reception of the consecrated wine is built into the very fabric of the Mass. It does not make a great deal of sense, frankly, not to give the chalice to the people in view of the manner in which Communion under both kinds is mandated within the very texts of the Mass.

Msgr. Mannion is pastor emeritus of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Salt Lake City. Reprinted by permission of Catholic News Agency.

 

Francis Mannion

Please leave a reply.

Comments

38 responses to “Viewpoint: Reception of Communion from the Chalice is Intrinsic to the Mass”

  1. Fr. Dave Riley

    Thank you!

    I wish every bishop in our country read this and passed it on to his priests. ” What the Church prays is what the Church believes.” Our words are to mean what we say.

    Also to the extent that it is possible offer the Body of Christ from what has been blessed and consecrated at this mass, not from the tabernacle (refrigerator). At times there are more people than we anticipate.

    As I vacation and attend Mass in different communities I am amazed at how many priests consecrate the body of Christ only for themselves, resorting to the tabernacle for the people . Also a good number of celebrants do not offer the chalice to the congregation.

    Reply
  2. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    I was delighted to read this, and I hope it is reflected upon by many who currently do not share communion under both forms. The bane of “convenience” combined with sacramental minimalism has kept too many parishes from the fuller sign of the Eucharist. Let the church’s prayer and the Lord’s example guide our practice to a greater fullness!

    Reply
    1. Scott Pluff

      @Rita Ferrone:
      Rather than concern for convenience or minimalism, I have more often known priests who are obsessively worried that a drop of Precious Blood could be spilled. These are often the same priests who rattle through the Eucharistic Prayer like an auctioneer but spend forever purifying the vessels.

      Reply
  3. Elizabeth Pike

    Thank you for this reflection. I am always shocked and saddened by the number of communities I have encountered where communion is not offered under both forms.

    Reply
  4. Jan Larson

    I’s not unlike a wedding with only one ring. Yes, it’s a true and valid marriage, but…

    Reply
  5. Ellen Joyce

    Thank you for posting this. In my diocese (Madison) priests are no longer permitted to offer the Precious Blood to the laity at most Masses, and I have found it a very painful loss.

    Reply
  6. Ed Nash

    The visual loss for the regular pew person when glass chalices became suspect may be the reason there is not a larger cry for the precious Blood. The only one who can actually see the Precious Blood is the Presider. If glass Chalices were used, then all would see and there might be a greater connection to the species.

    A greater respect for the hygiene aspect with all ministers would help too.

    A removal of the Precious Blood for reception should only be decided upon by those for whom the decision to remove its reception would affect. To have a Bishop remove that reception completely shows a disregard for those standing, waiting, praying and singing about receiving the Cup. “When we eat this Bread and YOU drink this cup, we proclaim Your death O Lord…”

    God bless you Madison.

    Reply
    1. Ellen Joyce

      @Ed Nash:
      Thanks for the prayers for Madison! We removed the glass cups some time ago. What strikes me when I am an Extraordinary Minister at the times when reception from the chalice *is* permitted is that so many people *do* still receive it. Not everyone of course, but the desire for it has not gone away in three or four years…

      Reply
    2. Doug O'Neill

      @Ed Nash:
      Why is it necessary to see it? Don’t we still know it is there? Are blind people somehow impoverished because they can’t see it? Of course not. The “we have to see it to believe it” modern phenomenon recalls Thomas’ unbelief. Worship engages all the senses, not just sight. That’s why I love Sanctus bells and incense.

      Reply
  7. John Mann

    So I guess I’m a bad Catholic for refraining from the chalice when it’s available?

    Reply
    1. Chuck Middendorf

      @John Mann:
      Where did “bad” come from? No one said that. People refrain from the chalice (or host) for a variety of reasons: allergy, sickness, alcoholism, fear of spilling, etc. It’s each person’s individual choice. (“Bad Catholic” is also just a term that should be struck from anyone’s lexicon.)

      I would say the only “bad” (sad?) behavior I’ve seen is when people refrain from receiving from the Chalice when it’s a lay Eucharistic Minister, but will receive when it’s a priest or deacon. I’m not sure the origin of that behavior. (Note: behavior, not person.) I could imagine a few other bad behaviors (not receiving from the Eucharistic minister because of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc.), which fortunately I’ve never witnessed. None of which this post is describing.

      Reply
      1. John Mann

        @Chuck Middendorf:
        “Where did “bad” come from? No one said that. ”

        I said it.

        “It’s each person’s individual choice.”

        As is refusing to receive from a lay minister or a black minister. But you call those bad. The latter is immoral per se but how is the former any worse than receiving to receive the chalice, period?

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @John Mann:
        If you said it, you are wrong.

    2. Charles Day

      @John Mann:
      I don’t think anyone said that or even implied that; I took it mainly that there were legitimate reasons to offer it as part of the liturgy and not simply as a VII fad. There are lots of reasons not to partake of the wine, illness being an obvious one, but in large celebrations when the wine runs out you may not have a choice, but regardless it should be offered.

      Reply
  8. Jack Feehily

    Right on, Ed Nash! Using a glass chalice requires a mindset that reception of the Precious Blood is an integral part of a normative celebration of the Eucharist. If the priest is the only receiving under both species no need to make a “big deal” of making more visible its contents. Consider the practice of priests who consecrate and consume their “own” Host. It is rooted in a time when reception of communion by anyone other than the priest was a common practice. The bread and wine are presented by the people to provide spiritual food and drink for the whole assembly not just the clergy. The fuller the signs the easier it becomes for people to understand and take in the reality which lies beneath. Yes, people may refrain for sound, personal reasons to decline partaking of the cup. That’s where the doctrine of concomitant comes in. But for centuries it was used to justify the exclusion of the faithful from reception under both species. There are instances when one species can be justified such as at a funeral when most of the mourners are not Catholic. Normatively, let’s have robust signs. I salute other priests who employ beautiful and strong glass vessels.

    Reply
    1. Pat Towell

      @Jack Feehily:
      Kudos to Jack Feehily for highlighting the sign-value of making visible to the entire assembly the wine/Blood in the cup.

      I have long felt that the most imbecilic affront to sound liturgical practice during the Themidor decade of the oughts was the suppression of flagons for the wine, which eliminated the sign-value of “pouring out” the sacred Blood during the fraction rite.

      But Jack points out another respect in which our experience of Eucharist is impoverished by this nonsense. And we’re supposed to believe the cover story that it’s all because someone, somewhere might spill a drop, thus causing the Baby Jesus to cry. I mean, c’mon: Everybody knows that the only thing that makes the Baby Jesus cry is putting up an artificial Christmas tree.

      It’s been 498 years since 1517, friends. Does the continued vitality of the Roman Catholic tradition REALLY require that we CONTINUE trying to get even with Martin Luther for having blown the whistle in the sale of indulgences and the corruption of the papal court?

      In the bookshelves that line one wall of our dining room, pride of place goes to the simple but elegant Waterford goblet that a dear friend used in our wedding Mass. When the roll is called up yonder, I hope I will be cut a little slack if I confess to having minimal high regard for the fact that some bishop’s nephew with a home-schooled JCD and a day-job at CDW once regarded mere glass as insufficiently “noble” — even if it was Waterford crystal.

      Reply
  9. John Mann

    Nor is anyone saying that those unable to partake must partake. But why insist on an obligation solely to offer and not also an obligation to receive when the clear scriptural obligation (if there is one) is to receive?

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      @John Mann:
      Because even if it were a clear Scriptural obligation, the Church would say it is fully satisfied by receiving under the species of bread due to the dogma of concomitance.

      It seems the preceptual desiderata of liturgics abhor a vacuum.

      Reply
      1. John Mann

        @Karl Liam Saur:
        And therefore there’s no need to offer both. Round and round we go.

        We have, it is argued, a mandate to receive both species which doesn’t create an obligation to receive both because one is good enough except that it’s not because there’s a mandate to receive both which creates an obligation to offer both because one isn’t “full” enough except that it is which is why there’s no obligation to receive both. Did I get that right?

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @John Mann:
        God’s impulse is generosity, through grace. God always offers, and we are ready to receive. Or not. Many believers refrain from receiving the Eucharist for reasons of personal sin, or being late for Mass, or some other reason. It does not invalidate the offer.

        Translating the spiritual life to liturgy, the generous offer of both species imitates or echoes God’s offer. Likewise the offering of good preaching, music, and art. However, sometimes we fail to offer, and sometimes, we are unprepared to receive it all.

        There is no obligation to receive under one or both species because God doesn’t force himself on people. Yet the offer remains and might, someday, be an opportunity when a believer is ready for it.

  10. John Mann

    Again, we’re conjuring up circumstances to avoid the issue. Take the typical Catholic in a state of grace. Not an alcoholic. Not allergic to wine or gold. Not hemophobic. He received the host. He refrains from the chalice for no reason other than he doesn’t think he needs to. Or he doesn’t want to wait on line again. Or he doesn’t like the thought of swapping saliva.

    Is he violating the mandate found in the text of the Mass as Msgr. Mannion pointed out?

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @John Mann:
      John Mann, stop already. No one will be making you do anything. Please don’t derail this discussion any further. Offering the cup is a very good thing to do – that’s the point of the post – and it’s a great gift that the Church allows and encourages it. The invitation is there, but if you’re not interested, so be it. But don’t use your preference, or your agenda, to fight those who grasp why the more ancient and traditional practice is such a good thing. Just decline the invitation and leave it at that.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB:
        The implication that those who do not agree with you either have an “agenda” or simply do not grasp/understand (otherwise they wouldn’t disagree) is a poor way to approach a discussion.

        Otherwise, I agree that offering the chalice is a good thing to do – it is perhaps the only major thing I truly miss about the OF Mass, where I always partook of it when offered. It is a reform I would welcome in the traditional Latin Mass. I attended an Episcopal church once that offered both species at the communion rail – it seemed both efficient and reverent – though I did not receive and therefore can’t really comment on it as a direct experience.

  11. John Mann

    You want to derail the conversation by focusing solely on offering the chalice when the original post was more about reception. How is one supposed to understand “the mandate for reception from the chalice by the people,” and “the mandate for the reception of the consecrated wine?” Msgr. Mannion’s words, not mine. Is it a mandate or merely an invitation?

    Nowhere have I said the chalice shouldn’t be offered.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @John Mann:
      The post is about both offering the cup and partaking of it. I took the citation of Jesus’ strong words to be making the point primarily that we should be offering it. I didn’t read anything in the post to be a negative judgment of those who don’t partake.

      Jesus’ words certainly do seem to imply a mandate. But since the Catholic Church hasn’t followed that since the High Middle Ages, I think the best we can do right now is to work for the cup being offered to the people at every Mass. I’m pretty sure this post wants to make the case for that.

      As for Jesus’ mandate: since we’re talking about Eucharist, I think the language of gift and gratitude is the best way to understand it. Jesus offers the gift, and we’ll keep encouraging people to accept it gratefully. For those who don’t want to, they can examine their own conscience. But around such a great gift as Eucharist, I don’t think it’s helpful to get defensive and fight about whether, technically, one is obligated to receive the gift of the cup.

      Reply
  12. Alan Johnson

    In the end isn’t it about obeying Christs command/responding to his loving invitation to take and drink.
    Or not.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      @Alan Johnson:
      So, are you implying to not take from the challenge is to not obey Christ?

      Reply
      1. Alan Johnson

        @Karl Liam Saur:
        How is it responding to his invitation? Is it yes or no?

  13. Matt Herek

    I’m reminded of what the bishop in my home diocese told me and my classmates in 8th grade

    Picture Jesus saying “take and drink” and the disciples saying “no thanks, I’m good”

    Reply
  14. Allen Corrigan

    I remember doing some research on this and came across something interesting. I thought it was called “the fermentum.” At the fraction a piece of bread from reservation was used for the commingling rather than a piece of bread from that instance of the Eucharist. I don’t know what period this was historically. But that seems to have gone away maybe with the idea that reservation is secondary and not primary to the Eucharistic celebration. What I’ve noticed is that as more attention is diverted to reservation and purification less attention is placed on a dynamic understanding of the sacrament.

    Reply
  15. Fritz Bauerschmidt

    I can see how John Mann might have derived from the post the implication that Catholics who do not receive from the chalice are “bad Catholics.” But, though Msgr. Mannion puts his case in rather strong terms, I certainly don’t think this is a necessary implication of what he says, any more than the expectation that those present at the Good Friday liturgy will venerate the cross implies that those who choose not to do so are “bad Catholics,” or the expectation of the liturgy in general that the assembly respond to the prayers and dialogues implies that those who choose to remain silent are “bad Catholics.” People might have very good (or even not-so-good) reasons for doing these things, and failing to take an opportunity that the Church offers for full, conscious, and active participation in the sacred liturgy (apart, of course, from being present for it) does not make anyone a “bad Catholic.”

    John Mann’s question is a legitimate one, but I do think that there are other issues raised by the post about liturgical “best practices” that have nothing to do with judgments passed on individuals and which we should not get ourselves distracted from.

    Reply
  16. Fr. Dave Riley

    I like Alan’s post (#23) and Matt’s (#27).

    I can understand why the offering of the chalice dissappeared at the time of the plague. After that clericalism semed to enter in, prolonging the practice of not offering the Precious Blood to the congregation.

    I grew up in the days when only the priest’s consecrated hands could touch the Body of Christ. The Eucharist was place on our tongues as a lengthy prayer was mumbled. If we ever pronounced “Corpus Domini nosti … ” with that speed in English, people would have left the Church in droves. And as I reflect on tongue vs hands, I have commited far, far more sins with my tongue than with my hands.
    Which is less worthy.

    As for the doctrine of concomitance, which I do accept, it took considerable theologizing to arrive at it. The teaching of Paul and the Gospels is much clearer.

    As for bishops who might forbid the offering of the Precious Blood, I strongly believe or feel that they would have a fit if I changed the words in preparing the gifts to “It will become my spiritual drink.”

    Reply
  17. Michael Slusser

    This conversation has been taking place entirely within the context of the Roman rite. In a Byzantine Catholic church, where communion is administered with a spoon, the congregation complies with “Take and drink” without any fuss.

    Reply
    1. John Mann

      @Michael Slusser:
      I’m not sure the spoon complies with “take this, all of you, and drink from it.” The object is the chalice, not the blood.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        @John Mann:
        It seems a practical parallel with placing a host or piece of consecrated bread on the tongue. I suppose we could get into a discussion on the “take” portion of the Lord’s mandate.

        Overall, this conversation is about two generations old. Except for the occasional curious practice, the cup is offered in a lot of places, and people continue to take advantage of it. Perhaps those who advocate receiving under both forms might try to collect insights, stories, and revelations from communicant who do so. I’ve heard a few over the years.

        One that stands out involved a question from an embittered widower complaining a bit about why his wife’s funeral Mass “had” to offer Communion under both forms. He related a few days later that he was in such a cloud he received the host, then approached and drank from the chalice. Without thinking about it. He related his wife would receive from the cup, and at the moment he did so, he felt a profound connection with her. It was a moment of comfort and insight he did not get from any other part of the Mass, nor the sharing of memories.

      2. Paul Inwood

        @Todd Flowerday:

        Great story!

  18. Karl Liam Saur

    That is a great story.

    And I think one way to ensure that the invitation to receive from the chalice is indeed inviting is to scrupulously refrain from framing the reception from the cup as obligatory or obliging in any way, shape or form. Just don’t go there. It will more likely boomerang than succeed.

    Tangential question: Has this blog eliminated the column of Recent Comments previews? It was a useful way of telling what discussions were livelier than others, and made nagivation inviting rather than obliging.

    Reply
  19. Halbert Weidner

    I was ordained in 1974 and I felt like an utter fool at the words of Institution: “Take this ALL OF YOU AND DRINK.” and I felt like adding “I dare you.” So I am surprised that anyone sees receiving from the cup is a mere option. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says Can you drink from the cup that I will drink?” And Mark is the only one that adds “And they all drank from it.” I actually am concerned about my funeral. I have a lot of Protestant friends who would be scandalized by the number of Catholics walking past the cup. I have thought it probably best to be cremated and have the funeral celebrated at a Benedictine convent where I was chaplain.

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Francis Mannion

Tags:

Discover more from PrayTellBlog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading