Why the Chalice As Well?
We were taught that the host contains the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Why, then, are we also offered the chalice at Communion these days? Angela Botha
The Second Vatican Council allowed Communion under both kinds in certain exceptional cases, and this is why you are sometimes offered the chalice as well as the host.
The Council of Trent declared that Christ is truly (not figuratively), really (not symbolically) and substantially (not virtually) present under what appears to the senses to be bread and wine. A Trentunicant who receives either apparent bread alone or apparent wine alone still receives Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament.
What you were taught has its origin in this declaration. The consecrated host or a portion of it and the consecrated wine or a drop of it, contain Christ present in his body, blood, soul and divinity.
Protestant reformers, not holding that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, insisted that communicants must be given both bread and wine so that the eucharistic meal can clearly show that they eat and drink at the Lord’s Table. This insistence was to demonstrate the Reformers’ disapproval of the Catholic practice of not giving the faithful both Body and Blood of Christ in Communion, but the Body alone.
It was for practical reasons that the Church towards the middle of the 12th century had discontinued administering the chalice to the faithful at Mass, mostly because of the danger of accidental spillage of the Precious Blood. After Trent the practice became the norm, and it is still the norm.
At Sunday Mass in the Latin Rite in most churches to this day where large numbers receive the Eucharist, it is dispensed under the appearance of bread only.
The Second Vatican Council allowed Communion under both kinds in certain exceptional cases, and this is why you are sometimes offered the chalice as well as the host.
Generally, a parish priest receives the bishop’s authority to judge when, among small congregations or for special occasions, he may distribute Communion under both kinds. He must first ensure that communicants are properly instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the sacrament.
Latest posts by Michael Shackleton (see all)
- Must the Afflicted Fast in Lent? - March 10, 2020
- Why Do Some Reject Papal Primacy? - February 11, 2020
- What Cloth Must Go On The Altar? - January 11, 2020
Thank you Mr. Shackleton for this explanation, it has been a matter of discussion with my friends and family on more than one occasion.
What I would like to point as a matter of concern is that at Mass Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are often provided with both species where the rest of the congregation is only provided with one. I believe that this creates a feeling that extra-ordinary ministers are a class above the rest of the congregation. (Classism)
Surely extraordinary ministers should receive once species as well?
Very, very good point John
In view of the claim that the presiding Priest is in the ‘person of Christ’ why does he first partake in the Eucharist? Jesus gave to all his friends, family and disciples – there is no record of Him ‘partaking’ either first or last!!
I’m afraid you misunderstand me Rosemary. My question is posed at “extraordinary ministers”, not the ministers of communion themselves (priest or deacon).
I believe there are theological reasons why the priest is required to have both species. In fact a Catholic priest, who is both my friend & spiritual director, has advised me that it is a must that a priest have both species that were consecrated at the Mass.
John, the correct term is extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Not extraordinary minister of the Eucharist.
In addition to the example you give, I have also noticed in two parishes that the EMHC actually receive Holy Communion together with the priest, as if they were concelebrants. This is definitely wrong.
This is one of the problems with EMHC. They are no longer treated as extraordinary but as ordinary. We must return to reserving the use of EMHC for only those rare situations where it really is necessary because the Mass will be prolonged for longer than is reasonable. (I don’t believe an extra 5 or 10 minutes is so significant that it requires the assistance of an EMHC.)
In the two parishes where I have been able to observe it, the EMHC seem to have taken it for granted that they would be administering Holy Communion at every Mass because they have been designated as EMHC. So, even when the number of people at Mass did not necessitate that anyone assist the priest, the EMHC would assist. This is also clearly wrong.