Coronavirus and communion

10,264 Views | 192 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Thomas Sowell, PhD
BrazosDog02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:45p, 3/1/20
AG
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc13.com/amp/5976098

I am not catholic but my wife and kids are. We never partake in drinking from the community cup, but many do. The consensus according to other Catholics is that it's somewhat protected from disease as it's pure and the blood of Christ. This decision seems to indicate or at least cast doubt from someone I would think is pretty high up that the blood is not safe from disease.

And yes, full disclosure, my family are all science majors and we absolutely Understand how germs are spread, but that's not what this is about. To us, It's about the idea that the church seems to have doubts as well and also that they can change stuff as they feel it fit and it's totally cool.

What are the thoughts on this?? I do not post here hardly ever but I thought this was relevant and worth seeing other thoughts.
Reply Quote
2 edits
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:59p, 3/1/20
AG
That's an ex-communication
Reply Quote
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 3/1/20
Sounds like your church will possibly have a lot more seating room in the future.
Reply Quote
2
boboguitar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosDog02 • 2:20p, 3/1/20
AG
The panic really is overblown. However, with that said:

Quote:
The consensus according to other Catholics is that it's somewhat protected from disease as it's pure and the blood of Christ
That is what Catholics believe so I would think under that logic and belief, they should not worry.
Reply Quote
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:21p, 3/1/20
AG
I would probably worry more about shaking hands than the communion cup. Alcohol may help, but I've read articles that show that the alcohol content isn't enough, that the material doesn't work as well as believed, but that wiping with a cloth is significantly more effective.

Intinction is a better option to prevent the spread of viruses or bacteria - unless of course people stick their hands in the cup when dipping. It happens more than you think.

I've done the little shot glass method before, but I can personally attest after being part of a crew that cleans these cups, that cleaning isn't always done very well.
Reply Quote
1
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:12p, 3/1/20
AG
Diocese of Austin has instituted the following starting next week:

Blood of Christ (Wine) will not be distributed.

Communion cannot be received on the tongue (in hand only)

No holding of hands during the "Our Father"

No shaking of hands during the "Sign of Peace"

Any Ministers (including Priests) who feel the least bit ill should not serve.



Personally, I think it's overkill, but we'll live with it.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to craigernaught • 3:40p, 3/1/20
craigernaught said:
I would probably worry more about shaking hands than the communion cup. Alcohol may help, but I've read articles that show that the alcohol content isn't enough, that the material doesn't work as well as believed, but that wiping with a cloth is significantly more effective.

Intinction is a better option to prevent the spread of viruses or bacteria - unless of course people stick their hands in the cup when dipping. It happens more than you think.

I've done the little shot glass method before, but I can personally attest after being part of a crew that cleans these cups, that cleaning isn't always done very well.



so, with the common cup... it is a silver/gold lined chalice usually + alcohol + wiping between parishioners + being pure blood of christ....perfect storm of good things. one alone might not be enough but, all combined is good. plus, I believe in the supernatural...so yay.
Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 3:40p, 3/1/20
distribution of one kind
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
4:13p, 3/1/20
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 4:26p, 3/1/20
AG
AstroAg17 said:
I think they should just bump up the alcohol content in the blood.

You know, for safety.

Instead of regular, weekday Jesus, you're going to get the blood of Saturday night wedding Jesus.
Reply Quote
1
jrico2727
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23p, 3/1/20
AG
I am not a fan of Communion in the hand and truly feel that Communion on the tounge would spread less germs than Communion in the hand. The minister of Holy Communion can place the host on a tounge with less contact than exchanging by hand where the brushing of hands is common. It honestly seems counter intuitive to the other actions of precaution designed to prevent hand to hand contact.

As far as no chalice at distribution of Holy Communion it is truely not necessary as you receive both body and blood from the consecrated host. It had long been a tradition that since the chalice was consecrated it was not to be touched by unconsecrated hands only the consecrated hands of a priest.

I don't believe the church has ever taught that Communion is some how exempt from spreading germs. If the consecrated bread and wine still retain the physical properties of bread and wine than their ability to spread infection would remain the same. I know many fellow Catholics would disagree with me. However, the body of Christ was beaten and crucified for our sake and through the incarnation the Lord took on our flesh which is susceptible suffering and illness.
Reply Quote
8
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:00p, 3/1/20
AG
Quote:
Blood of Christ (Wine) will not be distributed.
that is some bull crap.
Reply Quote
5
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:43p, 3/1/20
We do it by intinction in my wife's Methodist church and everybody uses sanitizer first. Servers also sanitize their hands before touching bread.

Edit to say that at my Assembly of God Church we have small predilection plastic cups and segmented crackers.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Reply Quote
1 edit
RAB91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48p, 3/1/20
While i think it probably isn't necessary at this point, I don't have any issues with these measures (as long as they're not permanent). It doesn't change any of our beliefs, and it may make some people more comfortable being around the crowds.

And to the OP, it sounds like you and your wife should probably talk to your parish priest.. He can help clear up some of the basic misconceptions that you have in your post.
Reply Quote
1
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boboguitar • 9:57p, 3/1/20
AG
boboguitar said:
The panic really is overblown. However, with that said:

Quote:
The consensus according to other Catholics is that it's somewhat protected from disease as it's pure and the blood of Christ
That is what Catholics believe so I would think under that logic and belief, they should not worry.


Okay. I'm sure this is a really dumb question. But wouldn't it be real easy to have some wine that has a pathogen in it, perform the transubstantiation process then check for the pathogen?
Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:32p, 3/1/20


Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:46a, 3/2/20
from an episcopalian https://mailchi.mp/687aa6e2baa7/covid19-communion?e=%5BUNIQID%5D
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:50a, 3/2/20
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol_Ag_02 • 6:52a, 3/2/20
AG
I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that. Holy Communion isn't a science project. It's for our consumption.

But even so, I don't think the claim is that it's free of any bacteria or whatever. It's that Holy Communion, taken in faith and discernment, can't be to your harm.
Reply Quote
4
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrico2727 • 7:34a, 3/2/20
AG
jrico2727 said:
I am not a fan of Communion in the hand and truly feel that Communion on the tounge would spread less germs than Communion in the hand. The minister of Holy Communion can place the host on a tounge with less contact than exchanging by hand where the brushing of hands is common. It honestly seems counter intuitive to the other actions of precaution designed to prevent hand to hand contact.

Having done this for years, it is easier to prevent contact when giving in the hand; and even without contact to the tongue, any exhalation of the recipient when placing the host on the tongue can result in contamination of the minister's hand. That feeling of warmth on the fingers is unmistakable and can be kind of gross if you think of it. Then, that hand that was just covered in the moist breath of the previous recipient, reaches into the bowl and grabs another host to place on the next tongue.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
2
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boboguitar • 7:39a, 3/2/20
AG
boboguitar said:
The panic really is overblown. However, with that said:

Quote:
The consensus according to other Catholics is that it's somewhat protected from disease as it's pure and the blood of Christ
That is what Catholics believe so I would think under that logic and belief, they should not worry.
I've never heard this as any kind of "teaching" of the church. I can understand why some might believe this, but it is definitely not a universal belief of Catholics.

There have been many times in the past in which restrictions of how to hand out communion have been made in an effort to prevent sickness.

Typically the presentation in the form of the blood has been suspended during outbreaks.

We have also become much more diligent about wiping the chalice and rotating it after each person.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 7:53a, 3/2/20
AG
Yeah the whole practice of denying communion in both kinds to the laity began during the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe. That doesn't make it right. Coming up with some kind of retroactive theology that oh the bread is the body so it is also the blood is similarly wrongheaded.

Holy Communion is a means to receive grace. It's therefore wholly good. Death and disease are antithetical to grace.

Suspend the kiss of peace, or sure change how to dispense communion. But fear of disease shouldn't change something as central and grave to our faith as Holy Communion.

The worst part is the teaching that was used to justify denying both kinds to the laity in an emergency persisted and became the norm.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34a, 3/2/20
AG
Not a Catholic but I am curious if the flu ever caused these precautions.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
aggietony2010
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 10:03a, 3/2/20
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:
Diocese of Austin has instituted the following starting next week:

Blood of Christ (Wine) will not be distributed.

Communion cannot be received on the tongue (in hand only)

No holding of hands during the "Our Father"

No shaking of hands during the "Sign of Peace"

Any Ministers (including Priests) who feel the least bit ill should not serve.



Personally, I think it's overkill, but we'll live with it.


I question whether the bishop has the authority to make this proclamation. The Latin rite calls for reception on the tongue. Reception on the hand is an exception that's turned into a liturgical abuse.

Hand holding during the Our Father isn't in the rubrics anyway. So at least something good is coming out of coronavirus.

And the sign of peace is optional anyway.
Reply Quote
2
jrico2727
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 10:04a, 3/2/20
AG
Our parrish hasn't had the chalice since November due to the flu season but other parrishs in town didn't follow that practice. It is rare to see all these measures at once.
Reply Quote
2
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06a, 3/2/20
that's worth getting burned at the stake over
Reply Quote
aggietony2010
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 10:07a, 3/2/20
AG
dermdoc said:
Not a Catholic but I am curious if the flu ever caused these precautions.


Temporary suspension of distributing the blood as well as forgoing the sign of peace have been pretty typical during flu outbreaks at the parishes I've attended. So this isn't completely unprecedented.
Reply Quote
1
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:11a, 3/2/20
AG
I'm with Bishop Athanasius Schneider... https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/02/op-ed-bishop-schneider-rite-of-holy.html

Moreover, this does not impact the Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form... http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/02/can-bishop-require-communion-in-hand-to.html

+AMDG+
Reply Quote
4
aggietony2010
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:20a, 3/2/20
AG
k2aggie07 said:
Yeah the whole practice of denying communion in both kinds to the laity began during the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe. That doesn't make it right. Coming up with some kind of retroactive theology that oh the bread is the body so it is also the blood is similarly wrongheaded.

Holy Communion is a means to receive grace. It's therefore wholly good. Death and disease are antithetical to grace.

Suspend the kiss of peace, or sure change how to dispense communion. But fear of disease shouldn't change something as central and grave to our faith as Holy Communion.

The worst part is the teaching that was used to justify denying both kinds to the laity in an emergency persisted and became the norm.


I'd be interested in any documents pointing to this coming out of bubonic plague outbreaks. I've always read that it was to combat heresy that Christ wasn't completely received under a single species, which was debated in the 1200-1400s, which does line up with your timetable.

But it doesn't line up with germ theory not really being taken seriously in Europe until centuries later.
Reply Quote
jrico2727
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:21a, 3/2/20
AG
If one were to receive the host only are they only receiving 50% of our Lord, and and 50% of his graces?
Reply Quote
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrico2727 • 10:25a, 3/2/20
No at least in Catholic belief. Christ is fully present in both species.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrico2727 • 10:27a, 3/2/20
AG

Quote:
If one were to receive the host only are they only receiving 50% of our Lord, and and 50% of his graces?
If you get a bigger bite is it 110%? You're asking me to engage in legalism to support tradition. I don't know what the comparitive value of both is. I do know that the Church's tradition has been to offer both kinds to both the clergy and the laity, as established by Christ Jesus in the upper room.

Here's a fun one for you. Would you support a consecration of only the bread or the wine? Why or why not?
Reply Quote
2
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 10:37a, 3/2/20
AG
747Ag said:
I'm with Bishop Athanasius Schneider... https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/02/op-ed-bishop-schneider-rite-of-holy.html

Moreover, this does not impact the Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form... http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/02/can-bishop-require-communion-in-hand-to.html

+AMDG+
Not a Catholic but agree with the links you provided.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggietony2010 • 10:37a, 3/2/20
AG

Quote:
I'd be interested in any documents pointing to this coming out of bubonic plague outbreaks. I've always read that it was to combat heresy that Christ wasn't completely received under a single species, which was debated in the 1200-1400s, which does line up with your timetable.

But it doesn't line up with germ theory not really being taken seriously in Europe until centuries later.
Why would that "heresy" even exist unless the practice of giving one specie wasn't already extant? That's kind of illogical, don't you think?

I read that somewhere, can't find it now. But a quick google search basically says we don't know really why for sure. And, it seems certain simply by the timeline that the scholastic theology of sub una was a retroactive justification for the practice. There's certainly no ancient support for such a practice - formally it only shows up at the Council of Constance in 1415 as far as I know.
Reply Quote
chimpanzee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:46a, 3/2/20
k2aggie07 said:
Council of Constance in 1415 ...
This thing is a real historic humdinger in the story of the RCC. Would love to read more, but would not really want to wade through the biases, pro or con, that could have motivated someone to write a thorough history of it.

I need to dig around more and see what's out there, the more I learn about it, the more I want to learn more.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.