Does Anyone Know Why The Cup Runs Dry

[superblue]

So i happened to recall one of these oddball channels on TV some home grown religious channel non denominational or something ,and the preacher was going on about how or why ( and he was referring to catholics that much i did figure out ) during communion, when a chalice becomes empty, that is it, done an over, no waiting in line for a refill. He was going on an on and ranting , raving, and making a fool of himself on tv, but i thought he made an interesting question which is mine now, and that is why when a chalice is empty it is not refilled, and that is it ?  And i realize how once one has received communion they have received Christ entirely they do not need to or are not obligated to receive both species.

 

Well the same is true for the Blood of Christ, so it would seem to reason if a E.O.E.M were to run out of the Body, then instead of dividing what the priest has left, that line would just divert to the remaining species in the chalices....

 

So at mass, their is always enough of the body, or it is split, ... what would be the harm or difficulty of having a vessel on hand for when chalices run empty... or rather would be their any harm in doing so.... I imagine it has to do with storage possibly. But anyhow.

[maximillion]

At the consecration transubstantiation takes place. Now, if you consecrate 'extra' of either species this must be consumed at that time....

 

If you have extra that you didn't consecrate, then it isn't the Body and Blood........so topping up the wine becomes problematic. If it looks like there are lots more people wanting to receive then the priest can break the remaining Holy Hosts into minuscule itty bits if needed. I have been at a mass where the priest retired to the altar and broke up the remaining Hosts because there were lots of people still in line.

[superblue]

At the consecration transubstantiation takes place. Now, if you consecrate 'extra' of either species this must be consumed at that time....

 

If you have extra that you didn't consecrate, then it isn't the Body and Blood........so topping up the wine becomes problematic. If it looks like there are lots more people wanting to receive then the priest can break the remaining Holy Hosts into minuscule itty bits if needed. I have been at a mass where the priest retired to the altar and broke up the remaining Hosts because there were lots of people still in line.

 

 

Yes , and i do understand how it is easier i suppose with the Hosts to do just that, because even one tiny piece is still the entire presence of Christ, but and perhaps I am confused, it seems to me i have seen where on occasion left over hosts are placed in the tabernacle for the next mass, and then i think on Good Friday or Holy Thursday i cant remember which and im probably not remembering it correctly, that it is not a mass where the consecration takes place and thus the Hosts from the previous day are used.

 

So if any of that is correct, why is it problematic for the blood ? or is it just not done because i dunno it would be tacky to do so ?   There is an allowance to break up and distribute the Hosts as needed, but when the species of the blood is gone, it's just too bad. And if that is the case, then why distribute the blood at all ? Considering we are in full communion with Christ in the Host alone, what then is the purpose of consuming the blood ? It almost comes off as the Host being more important than the blood even though both are equal.

[maximillion]

I think it was done as a more faithful re-enactment of the Last Supper. When I was growing up we only received under the single species - bread.

It was something that changed post V2.

 

Maybe one of the spiritual boffins on here can reply to the question about not reserving ( putting back in the tabernacle ) the wine. Maybe it is out of concern that it will go off and be undrinkable, which if it is consecrated would be problematic.

[superblue]

I appreciate the response Max, and perhaps that is something to consider if there were to be a reserve there might have to be some kind of weird hybrid of a refrigeration / tabernacle to preserve  the species to be drinkable for at least a day or so and that might be just too odd.  now granted I never hear any complaints on this, and I imagine the original complaint around V2 was why cant we receive both species  and so okay no problem now everyone can.... 

 

But if anyone wants to take a crack at why we should receive both species I would be interested , we are not punished or reprimanded for not doing so, and there seems to be no guidelines that suggest one or the other, so technically one could only receive just the blood and still have received all of Christ...  I know all of this has to do with the last supper and being both bread and wine being used, but again both species are equal , yet we seem to revere the Eucharist more than the blood.