The manner of receiving holy Communion(Catholic caucus)

Denver Catholic Register ^ | 2 November 2011 | Most Rev. James D. Conley

[netmilsmom]

>>What you have said here applies to the actual contents of the chalice, i.e. the Blood of Christ, and so it means that without alcohol diseases would actually live within the substance of the Sacrament. <<

You know that the matter in the Holy Eucharist is very specific. That matter does not visually change. Transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine have changed, not their accidents (i.e., accidental qualities such as taste, smell, appearance, etc). The substantial element of the bread and wine change to that of the body (flesh) and blood of Jesus Christ. So there is always alcohol. God’s wisdom is great.

The vessel which holds the Blood of Christ, however is given to any other Earthly germs and dirt. Should a woman with a flu virus on her lower lip, drink from a cup before you, her lipstick is smoothed around the cup by a dry cloth. When I worked banquets, we were told that without an antibacterial/antiviral treatment, germs and viruses could live through six washings in lipstick smears. This is why diocese suspend the cup during cold and flu season. It’s not the Blood of Christ that is the problem but the communal cup it’s in.

[cothrige]

You know that the matter in the Holy Eucharist is very specific. That matter does not visually change. Transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine have changed, not their accidents (i.e., accidental qualities such as taste, smell, appearance, etc). The substantial element of the bread and wine change to that of the body (flesh) and blood of Jesus Christ. So there is always alcohol. God’s wisdom is great.

Two things. First, I have not questioned or denied transubstantiation or what remains after. Physically, there is no change in the Sacrament during consecration. Substantially there is. Secondly I have not denied that alcohol, or more properly its physical accidents which remain after consecration, has an antiseptic effect. What is at issue is whether the Body and Blood of Christ, with or without the effects of alcohol, can be a disease vector and directly infect somebody and cause their death. I don't believe this to be so as it flies in the face of the Eucharistic Miracle itself as well as the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ.

The vessel which holds the Blood of Christ, however is given to any other Earthly germs and dirt. Should a woman with a flu virus on her lower lip, drink from a cup before you, her lipstick is smoothed around the cup by a dry cloth . . . It’s not the Blood of Christ that is the problem but the communal cup it’s in.

I disagree with none of this, and this is not what I responded to in the first place. Keep in mind that saying "the vessel . . . is given to any other Earthly germs and dirt" is not the same as "receiving by intinction gives one that bit of alcohol that kills germs." The former speaks of the earthly chalice and the latter of the Blood of Christ itself. This above statement does not allow for the miraculous action of Christ himself regarding the Sacrament and its power, but rather attributes its relative healthiness only to the effect of alcohol. This is where I disagree with your statement.

[netmilsmom]

This is the original post.
To: God luvs America

>>how do you know the hands of the Eucharistic minister/priest placing it on your tongue are clean??<<

I see the Priest wash his hands.
As for anyone else, we are blessed to have Ushers (who do not shake hands, but stand the whole mass), when one of our four priests can’t make it out. Besides, receiving by intinction gives one that bit of alcohol that kills germs. It’s not the “lipstick on the cup” deal.

7 posted on Friday, November 04, 2011 11:59:20 AM by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Note the concern by the original poster about germs on the hands of the Priest and EMHC. The poster was responding to receiving in the hands instead of on the tongue.

Now, you may want to disregard whether or not the alcohol is able to kill germs, but diocese in the US do not. They suspend the cup during cold and flu season. The miracle is that God gave us the thought process to know about germs and to suspend the cup when they are present.

Have a good day!

[cothrige]

Now, you may want to disregard whether or not the alcohol is able to kill germs, but diocese in the US do not. They suspend the cup during cold and flu season.

I am sorry but this statement does not work. The decision not to offer the laity the chalice cannot possibly demonstrate any position that alcohol, to the exclusion of all else, is responsible for a lack of germs within the contents. It is entirely possible, and I would suggest probable, that the suspension reflects nothing more than doubts about the outside of the chalice, i.e. the "lipstick on the cup deal" as you call it. Since there is no alcohol to be seen there one cannot assume that refusing people the chalice means that alcohol or its effects are causative.

BTW, you seem to put a great deal of faith in this decision on the part of bishops and the chalice. I think you may be putting too much into that. Bishops do many things. Ours, for instance, has denied the authority of the Holy Father in regards to liturgical law. He has also suspended the right to communion on the tongue during flu season, which is directly contrary to Church law. His opinion would seem to carry little to no weight, and I am not certain any other groups of bishops are, either singularly or collectively, more astute than he is.

[netmilsmom]

>>BTW, you seem to put a great deal of faith in this decision on the part of bishops and the chalice. I think you may be putting too much into that. Bishops do many things.<<

I think I’ve wasted almost a week convincing someone basic septic facts. Alcohol kills germs. The church demands matter containing alcohol. There is a reason for it.

If you want to believe that Jesus makes the germs disappear, cool. No skin off my nose.

[cothrige]

I think I’ve wasted almost a week convincing someone basic septic facts. Alcohol kills germs. The church demands matter containing alcohol. There is a reason for it.

I am detecting a pattern here. First, you say the decision not to offer the chalice during flu season is the equivalent of a doctrinal statement from bishops about the antiseptic quality of alcohol (we patiently await their doctrinal defense of soap and water for removing dirt). Hilarious. You are actually saying that bishops are demonstrating their belief that alcohol kills any germs in the chalice by not giving you something containing alcohol because it has germs in it! Think about that for a minute. Really think about it.

And now you insist that "there is a reason" the Church "demands matter containing alcohol" and this is because it "kills germs." This one is not as rich as the above, but it still assumes causation where there is none. Ancient peoples surely used alcohol because of its preservative qualities. However, that doesn't apply today or in the Church as is proved by the allowance of must or mustum as matter. Juice is a common beverage today, even in church gatherings. We use wine during the Eucharist for the same reason we use wheat bread (which has no alcohol), and that is because our Lord did so.

And you continue this pattern by saying that I have denied that alcohol is an antiseptic. Well, at least you are consistent in your absurdities.

If you want to believe that Jesus makes the germs disappear, cool. No skin off my nose.

You gave me a laugh on this one. You do know I am Catholic right? Of course I believe that "Jesus makes the germs disappear." The bible is full of stories of him doing it, and we pray for such all the time. But, I am not troubled that you don't believe in such things, since, as you say, it is no skin off of my nose. But, my belief is why I receive the Sacrament in the first place. It is the same Christ who "makes the germs disappear." What sounds silly to me is the fact that there are people who receive Communion, saying that they believed that the bread and wine could miraculously be made into the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet not believe that God had power over tiny little germs. That would be very silly.