Chalice - Holy Communion

[Lamb]

For those who drink out of the chalice during Holy Communion, when will you feel comfortable returning to it because of covid? I've seen that some churches already started offering it again.

If you don't drink from the chalice, please don't turn this thread into an argument of any kind. Thanks.

 

[tango]

I've never really felt comfortable with drinking from a chalice because of general hygiene concerns. I'm surprised churches are returning to it already - even though I believe most COVID concerns are massively overblown I get the impression most people are more concerned about it than I am.

 

[Castle Church]

In all honesty I have only drank from the chalice once - when I completed the RCIA class and it was my first communion in the RCC. I never did it since that time, and I still don't. It is not necessary to commune with both species, so I only take the cup when it is individual cups.

 

[Forgiven1]

While traveling in January, I attended 3 different churches. One you had a choice between the chalice and the individual cup. I chose the chalice and was very comfortable with it. My home church only offers the individual cup and whenever I have the choice of the chalice, I select that.

 

[Lamb]

In all honesty I have only drank from the chalice once - when I completed the RCIA class and it was my first communion in the RCC. I never did it since that time, and I still don't. It is not necessary to commune with both species, so I only take the cup when it is individual cups.

When our Lord commands "this do" He meant for both to be consumed.

 

[Castle Church]

When our Lord commands "this do" He meant for both to be consumed.

I am not implying that we should not have both available, merely that the grace of the sacrament is fulfilled in the taking of one or the other, taking both is not necessary in that regard. Pre-covid my church offered a common chalice and cups, the choice left to the member. I think this is a good way to make it available to all that are partaking.

 

[Lamb]

I am not implying that we should not have both available, merely that the grace of the sacrament is fulfilled in the taking of one or the other, taking both is not necessary in that regard. Pre-covid my church offered a common chalice and cups, the choice left to the member. I think this is a good way to make it available to all that are partaking.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it's okay to take just the bread or just the wine? That sounds very Roman Catholic.

If you're not saying that and are saying that both chalice and individual cups should be available then I agree with you.

 

[Castle Church]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it's okay to take just the bread or just the wine? That sounds very Roman Catholic.

If you're not saying that and are saying that both chalice and individual cups should be available then I agree with you.

I believe that most (all?) Lutherans believe that to be a valid consecration both bread and wine need to be consecrated. Luther and the Confessions were/are against keeping one from the people as was the practice until V2, but I am unaware of a teaching that says one must take both kinds.

I am aware and agree that it is an abuse to not offer both bread and wine. I am also aware that my position is more Roman Catholic than most Lutherans would be comfortable with, and I am OK with that.

Further, I am saying that both chalice and individual cups (or intinction) should be allowed/provided. I will also say that since I became Lutheran (2014) I have not received under just one as the option of individual cups or intinction was always provided.

I will turn the question around: Are you saying that to not take both kinds makes the communion invalid?

 

[Lamb]

I believe that most (all?) Lutherans believe that to be a valid consecration both bread and wine need to be consecrated. Luther and the Confessions were/are against keeping one from the people as was the practice until V2, but I am unaware of a teaching that says one must take both kinds.

I am aware and agree that it is an abuse to not offer both bread and wine. I am also aware that my position is more Roman Catholic than most Lutherans would be comfortable with, and I am OK with that.

Further, I am saying that both chalice and individual cups (or intinction) should be allowed/provided. I will also say that since I became Lutheran (2014) I have not received under just one as the option of individual cups or intinction was always provided.

I will turn the question around: Are you saying that to not take both kinds makes the communion invalid?

Here is the statement from the Smalkald Articles, 1537 in the Book of Concord:

Part III, Article VI. Of the Sacrament of the Altar.

1] Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

2] And that not only one form is to be given. [For] we do not need that high art [specious wisdom] which is to teach us that under the one form there is as much as under both, as the sophists and the Council of Constance teach. 3] For even if it were true that there is as much under one as under both, yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ. 4] And we especially condemn and in God's name execrate those who not only omit both forms but also quite autocratically [tyrannically] prohibit, condemn, and blaspheme them as heresy, and so exalt themselves against and above Christ, our Lord and God [opposing and placing themselves ahead of Christ], etc.

 

[Castle Church]

Here is the statement from the Smalkald Articles, 1537 in the Book of Concord:

Part III, Article VI. Of the Sacrament of the Altar.

1] Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

2] And that not only one form is to be given. [For] we do not need that high art [specious wisdom] which is to teach us that under the one form there is as much as under both, as the sophists and the Council of Constance teach. 3] For even if it were true that there is as much under one as under both, yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ. 4] And we especially condemn and in God's name execrate those who not only omit both forms but also quite autocratically [tyrannically] prohibit, condemn, and blaspheme them as heresy, and so exalt themselves against and above Christ, our Lord and God [opposing and placing themselves ahead of Christ], etc.

I am well aware of the Smalkald Articles. I also said that I agree that it is an abuse to not offer both and that both must be present for consecration, which would be in alignment with the articles. What the articles don't state is that the communicant must receive both. I think the right and correct procedure would be to take both, but I would not go so far as to say the communicant must take both for a valid communion. The articles are primarily concerned with correcting the procedure of the consecration of the elements.

I will admit my statement previously probably went a little further than I should, my Catholic history colors my theology at times. I still have much to learn, so thank you for pointing out any information and theology where I error.

 

[Lamb]

I am well aware of the Smalkald Articles. I also said that I agree that it is an abuse to not offer both and that both must be present for consecration, which would be in alignment with the articles. What the articles don't state is that the communicant must receive both. I think the right and correct procedure would be to take both, but I would not go so far as to say the communicant must take both for a valid communion. The articles are primarily concerned with correcting the procedure of the consecration of the elements.

I will admit my statement previously probably went a little further than I should, my Catholic history colors my theology at times. I still have much to learn, so thank you for pointing out any information and theology where I error.

It actually does say And that not only one form is to be given.

It condemns not giving both which means reception should be of both since it goes on to say yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ.

 

[Castle Church]

It actually does say And that not only one form is to be given.

It condemns not giving both which means reception should be of both since it goes on to say yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ.

Agree to disagree that given=must receive. That said, I agree that in general one should unless one has a specific reason not to.

 

[Lamb]

Agree to disagree that given=must. That said, I agree that in general one should unless one has a specific reason not to.

And yet, Christ said, "take eat" "take drink". That's the ordinance. Not one or the other.

 

[Castle Church]

And yet, Christ said, "take eat" "take drink". That's the ordinance. Not one or the other.

Valid points, I will ponder this.

 

[NewCreation435]

While traveling in January, I attended 3 different churches. One you had a choice between the chalice and the individual cup. I chose the chalice and was very comfortable with it. My home church only offers the individual cup and whenever I have the choice of the chalice, I select that.

I'm just curious why you would prefer it?

 

[Faith]

For those who drink out of the chalice during Holy Communion, when will you feel comfortable returning to it because of covid? I've seen that some churches already started offering it again.

If you don't drink from the chalice, please don't turn this thread into an argument of any kind. Thanks.

When I was Catholic we drank from the cup but since I became Lutheran we were drinking from tiny, individual cups then disposed of them. Right now we’re taking Communion out of tiny hourglass shaped things that has the bread on one end, wine on the other. Don’t know how long we’re going to do it this way.

 

[tango]

Last time we did communion we had entirely self-contained disposable things. You peeled back the top layer of a film to reveal a tiny wafer, then the rest of the film to access the juice. They were theoretically good because it meant nobody had to touch anything that someone else had touched but I don't think anybody in the church particularly liked them, and a few of the older members had trouble getting them open.

 

[Lamb]

I have some concerns about the pre-packaged communion that reminds me of lunchables. I can't get past that...that it is like lunchables. I know that my pastor makes it as reverent as possible but it still bothers me so I would prefer to go back to normal.

 

[tango]

I have some concerns about the pre-packaged communion that reminds me of lunchables. I can't get past that...that it is like lunchables. I know that my pastor makes it as reverent as possible but it still bothers me so I would prefer to go back to normal.

I hadn't thought of it as being like lunchables but can see why you would, now you mention it. I prefer to take a proper piece of bread, even if I don't care for drinking from a communal chalice.

I get that it's as much about the reverence as exactly what is used to represent the body and blood but the kind of thing where people need help opening it and you're constantly worried about spilling it doesn't seem like the best way to achieve that reverence.

 

[Faith]

Last time we did communion we had entirely self-contained disposable things. You peeled back the top layer of a film to reveal a tiny wafer, then the rest of the film to access the juice. They were theoretically good because it meant nobody had to touch anything that someone else had touched but I don't think anybody in the church particularly liked them, and a few of the older members had trouble getting them open.

That’s what we have. Once I spilled some wine on my clothes and this Easter, the wine was leaking out of the cover. Luckily, my husband was there and was accidentally given the elements even though he isn’t Lutheran. He gave me his to consume,