Karl Keating's E-Letter of June 15, 2004

Mary Donahue · #1 Jun 15, '04, 7:59 pm

So Karl,tell me how you really feel !

From reading your column,I'm guessing that you do not receive
from the chalice,and would discourage others from doing so also.

This seems common sense not to drink after so many people,especially strangers you don't know.

This being the case.....how come the Church has offered this option ?

Any thoughts....

Mary

**Forum Admin** · #2 Jun 15, '04, 8:58 pm

Karl's E-Letter of June 15, 2004

TOPICS:

Should it be "Is" or "Subsists"?
The Bible is NOT Infallible
Communion Cup and Germs
My Lack of Interest in Mormonism
==========
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040615.asp

**Karl Keating** · #3 Jun 15, '04, 9:32 pm

You are discerning, Mary. I usually don't receive under both kinds, except at Mass at Catholic Answers, where we receive by intinction.

There are three reasons:

1. I'm a friendly enough person, but I don't like to exchange germs.

2. I'm a bit klutzy at times, and I worry about dropping the cup.

3. I'm not an Utraquist.

That last term may need explanation. The Utraquists ("Both-And-ers") were also known as Calixtines ("Chalice-ites"). Some were part of the Hussite heresy, but others were Catholics. They thought that it was necessary to receive Communion under both kinds, because only by receiving under both kinds would you receive the whole Christ.

This, of course, is an error. One receives the whole Christ under either kind, but these folks seemed to think that in the host they got only the Body of Christ, while from the cup they got only his Blood.

Unfortunately, it seems that not a few of today's Catholics think likewise. It is one thing to believe it is good or even just acceptable to receive under both kinds; it is something else to think it is necessary--or else one ends up receiving only "half" of Christ.

By not receiving from the cup I indicate that I think there is no necessity to receive under both kinds. (Not that anyone is paying attention to the lesson offered, of course.)

Mary Donahue · #4 Jun 15, '04, 9:41 pm

I appreciate your personal reply.And so prompt....when do you sleep ?
However,I would like to know why the Church offers under both species to the congregation @ Mass.There must have been a reason for the change.At least, I would hope so.

I would miss receiving under both species,even though I know it is Christ under either species, alone.Yet I ,too, have concerns in the back of my mind about health issues.Especially in regards to my minor children receiving Eucharist.

MaryDonahue

Philip76 · #5 Jun 15, '04, 9:52 pm

Your extensive vocabulary usually has me reaching for the dictionary, Karl. In this instance it was 'intinction' that had me stumped. But now that I know what you mean (dipping the host in the cup), I am interested in others' views on the practice.

Some people complain that Jesus left us with the command to drink the precious blood, rather than dip the host in it. Therefore, they say, to dip is not what we are asked to do. Others dip to avoid germs. Personally I view the practice of dipping as a little less dignified than actually drinking from a cup, although I would take Mr Keating's example as fairly reliable evidence that intinction is allowed.

In any case, I just leave the cup alone in my own reluctance to share germs (unless it is a small Mass or I am one of the first in line).

iguana27 · #6 Jun 15, '04, 9:53 pm

I recieve under both species, but I do not believe that it is necessary.

However, for me personally, when I receive the blood, I am reminded of the scripture "by his stripes we are healed." I pray that Christ will heal my soul and help me to love him more.

But when I am sick, and do not recieve from the cup, I do not believe that I am missing something.

I don't think I have gotten sick from the common cup, but I am sure that it is possible. We sit in the front of the church so that our kids can see the Mass, so there are not too many people who recieve before us.
I am glad that I have the choice.

**pnewton** · #7 Jun 16, '04, 4:57 am

I have a solution for not wanting to drink after fifty people. In my church the choir goes to communion first. So join the choir.... Of course you'll still have to follow me.

randall_brown · #8 Jun 16, '04, 5:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I have a solution for not wanting to drink after fifty people. In my church the choir goes to communion first. So join the choir.... Of course you'll still have to follow me.

Or you could be a cantor, like me, and get to drink The Blood Of Christ right after the Lector, on the altar

randall_brown · #9 Jun 16, '04, 5:45 am

I have always enjoyed Mr Keating's E-mail letters

His explanation in this one about the differences in the word "Infalliable" and people who use it in describing the Bible, and the proper word, inerrant, is just outstanding.

PKK · #10 Jun 16, '04, 5:58 am

I have never thought about taking the cup after 50 people. But then I am in the choir also, and we go first. Also, thank you Karl for explaining the difference in infallability of the Bible. I have heard this comment before, and didn't know how to respond.

The Barrister · #11 Jun 16, '04, 7:43 am

I'll preface this by saying this is a personal belief only, but I believe that the graces conferred upon me by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ protects me from any germs left by other parishioners.

In my own experience, I have been sick far less often since returning to the Church (and partaking of the Scarament) than I was before. I've had only one cold and no incidents of the flu over the last 3 years. Typically, I had 3-4 colds per year and ALWAYS got the flu.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

Benedictus · #12 Jun 16, '04, 7:57 am

IMO, if Communion is to be offered under both kinds, then it should be done by intinction.

Intinction is the most reverent way and has the added benefit that fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion would be necessary.

Jason

WSRidge · #13 Jun 16, '04, 8:14 am

Dear Karl,
I just read your e-letter about sharing the communion cup at Mass. I take it you do not partake of the offer of our Lord's blood? I was under the impression that you should receive under both forms if both are offered, you don't HAVE to, but should, is that wrong?
Love your letters,
WSRidge

Richard Lamb · #14 Jun 16, '04, 8:40 am

Sorry about starting a new threat where one was nopt warranted....

Why did the Council use "subsists" instead of "is"? Because there is a level of
ambiguity or misdirection in "is." Here's what I mean:

When we say that the Catholic Church "is" Christ's Church, some people think--not
entirely unreasonably--that we mean that no element of the Church can be found
outside the Church. If so, this would imply that grace itself could not be found
outside the Church....

__________________

stevem1 · #15 Jun 16, '04, 8:44 am

When it comes to the Mormon church, it would indeed be difficult to take that leap of faith when it comes to sharing enthusiasm for their polytheistic beliefs. To look at some of their teachings, I can see how some scholars have come to question the Christianity of the Mormon religion. However, you can't overlook the zeal these people have for their beliefs. They have built their temples around the world, sent their young people to all corners of the earth to preach their faith, believe in the principles of tithing and preach in the importance of living a moral life. I think, We Catholics, can stand to learn from their zeal. After all, don't We have the greatest legacy that Jesus Christ has given the world, to be found in the Holy Eucharist. Why aren't We preaching this message with greater enthusiasm just as you might observe with the enthusiasm of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses?