CLERICALISM? MAYBE! BUT IT'S JESUS' CLERICALISM

On Praytell's post on self intinction, Deacon Fritz Bauerschmidt says:

As to reasons not to intinct: throughout the Old Testament we find the imagery of drinking the cup of suffering/wrath (Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15; Lamentations 4:21; Habakkuk 2.16; Zechariah 12.2), which in the New Testament becomes the cup that Jesus drinks (Mark 14:36; John 18:11), and which in turn his disciples are to drink (Mark 10:38-39), though after the resurrection the cup of suffering becomes the cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16). The imagery is drinking the cup, not simply receiving what is in it, and while intiction is a means of receiving Christ’s blood, it can’t really be called “drinking.”

Therein lies the liturgical problem or smokescreen for Catholics--it isn't about the laity "eating and drinking" it is about the bishop/priest doing so!  We are not Protestant and we don't see the "rite of Holy Communion" for the laity necessary either for the laity or the completion of the sacrifice.

At the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, Jesus institutes first the Sacrament of Holy Orders or specifically the ordained priesthood and secondly tells the apostles, not anyone else in the room, to "take eat" and "take drink". 

It is absolutely necessary, even in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, that the celebrant and concelebrant eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ under both elements and from the Mass at which these are consecrated and it is for the validity of the Sacrament or its completion if you will. 

While the laity may receive Holy Communion at Mass it isn't necessary for them. Call it clericalism if you want to be wrong, or call it Catholic if you want to be Catholic. 

It is not necessary, although not disallowed in the Ordinary Form, for the laity to drink the Precious Blood, they can receive the Precious Blood from an intincted Host--perfectly legitmate.