can a person get sick through Holy Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aussie_melkite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
if u go to most Byzatine Catholic websites they will often have links to Orthodox website in regurds to theology…why? cause with the exception of the papal thing Byzatine catholics and Eastern Orthdoox belive excatly the same thing.

heck we dont even have to believe in the Immaculate conception…a long we we simply believe that mary never sinned.

here an example based on purgotory:

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches?

As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.

In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered. Some theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.

In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.

But again, we do not use the word “Purgatory” for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word “Purgatory” still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren’t comfortable with.

It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.

Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.” This refers to the process of deification, in which the remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.

Interestingly, Mother Angelica has repeatedly expressed a very positive understanding of “Purgatory” being a joyful state, rather than a place of suffering. In some ways her description lines up well with the Eastern understanding of the Final Theosis.

Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.
 
this is now way off topic anyway. its was about can a person get sick from holy communion…

conclusion: in the west u can get sick from recieving and in the East you can’t.

I think we’ll have to leave it there
 
this is now way off topic anyway. its was about can a person get sick from holy communion…

conclusion: in the west u can get sick from recieving and in the East you can’t.

I think we’ll have to leave it there
Hi melkite,
So the “East” doesn’t recognize Celiac Disease (gluten intolerance enteropathy?) An auto-immune disease triggered by gluten, the protein in wheat and other grains.

Here in the West Celiac Disease is the most common genetic disease there is. Are you saying that in the East, the church doesn’t acknowledge the existence of Celiac Disease? Or do they believe that the bodies auto-immune system will function normally (as if one didn’t have the disease) when it encounters the blood of Christ?

I apologize if this question is beyond the scope of your knowledge.
 
it is beyond the scope of my knowedgle im afraid.

all I know is what my priest told us during his sermon afew weeks back. Death, diease, allergies, sickness are all conequences of Adam and Eve. in Christ there is no sickness, no disease, no allegies and death. when Christ conqured death by death he restored all things back to the way they were in eden, and whilst we certinly dont live in eden now the Eucharist is eden; a fortaste of what is to come.
he also made it clear to the one cannot get sick from the “medicine of Imortality” unless its from communing unworthly.

and many months ago (probably around Holy Pascha) we were discussing things like Holy Communion and what is it and what it was not…and he made it clear to me that the Eastern Church (and i alos thought he ment latin church) does not believe that diseases cannot be passed on though holy communion…and I was bought up with that belief. its what pretty much what all Eastern Catholics i know belive, its what Every Eastern Orthodox i know believes.

in my opinion if Holy communion has the ability to pass on diseases then it isnt really the lords body and blood.

I 100% believe the Lords body and blood is present in evey Latin Church but im sorry im going to have to disagree with what the Latin Church actually believes about the Eucharist. its been made abundly clear that we have 2 very different idea’s about the Eucharist based on very differnt pillosophical systems. the East has changed very little from the Church Fathers of the Early Church whilst the west has superimposed Aristotelianism over the top of it.
beyond the fact the we agree the Eucharist is Truly Jesus Christ the our Eucharitic theologies are alien to one another…

we dont even have a “moment” of consercration…we just belive that at some point during the litugy (specifily after the Great Entrence) the Holy Gifts become the Lord’s body and blood…but wveer never tied down the excate moent the change occures to a specific moment…in light of that East and West will prob never see eye to eye
 
sorry let me correct that last paragraph:

we dont even have a “moment” of consercration persay…we just belive that at some point during the litugy (specifily after the Great Entrence) the Holy Gifts become the Lord’s body and blood…but we’ve never tied down the excate moment the change occures, the Eucharistic prayer for us is the climax of the whole event but not nessacarly the moment of consercration…in light of that East and West will prob never see eye to eye
 
Does it make a difference if you believe in the real presence vs it being symbolic?

IOW, does a celiac who is really faithful still get a reaction?
 
well actually in the East we say the Euchraist is “symoblic” but in the Greek sence of the word not in the modern Protestant sence of the word.

In greek the word “symbol” means to take two distint and differnt reality’s and to join them thogher so they are one. and this is the only offical defination of how christ is present in the Eucharist that the Christian East will allow.

the Word “Real Presence” has little or no meaning the East. I use it soley as a way to relate to my Latin Breathern.
 
It’s not the wine that makes you sick, it is the germs from other people’s mouths on the cup

Yes, you can get sick if someone that drinks from the chalice is contagious
Sad but true.

I worked in public health my whole life. If you cultured the Chalice and the wine after everyone in the church has finished, it would make the hair on your head stand up!

The same would be true of the fingers of the Priest and Eucharist Ministers from people who receive on the tongue.

What can be done? I have no idea. Just hope that you are lucky.
 
Aussie,

I’m trying to understand the complexities of your (and presumably others) position.

Do you hold that someone can get drunk if they consume too much of Christ’s blood?

VC
 
Does it make a difference if you believe in the real presence vs it being symbolic?

IOW, does a celiac who is really faithful still get a reaction?
Let me just say, it would be a ‘miracle’ if a Celiac ate the body of Christ and they didn’t have a reaction to the gluten present.

There are celiacs who are asymptomatic, but I’m not talking about those people. (those are Celiacs who do not experience any immediate symptoms upon ingesting gluten).

I’m not sure I would want to do an experiment myself, as I can just take the blood of Christ. 🙂
 
Aussie,
I’m trying to understand the complexities of your (and presumably others) position.

Do you hold that someone can get drunk if they consume too much of Christ’s blood?VC
Verbum,

I can’t answer for Aussie, but as one of the “presumably others” … Absolutely… that’s what it means when the Church teaches that the accidents remain after transubstantiation. The consecrated Precious Blood retains the original properties of the wine, even though it is no longer wine.

God Bless,
Gary
 
God doesn’t make a habit of protecting ourselves from the natural consequences of our actions [miracles are the exception, not the rule, or they’d be called the ‘laws of physics’].

Which is why we Roman Catholics [not clear on the practices of the other Rites] shouldn’t receive from the cup if we have the flu or a cold sore.

We shouldn’t take unnecessary risks, or expose others to risks rising from our actions.
 
God doesn’t make a habit of protecting ourselves from the natural consequences of our actions [miracles are the exception, not the rule, or they’d be called the ‘laws of physics’].

Which is why we Roman Catholics [not clear on the practices of the other Rites] shouldn’t receive from the cup if we have the flu or a cold sore.

We shouldn’t take unnecessary risks, or expose others to risks rising from our actions.
Very well said and very true.
 
Aussie Melkite - what about the OTHER ‘consequences of the fall’ - what about sin? Does receiving the Eucharist make you totally immune from sin as well as physical illness? Surely you don’t believe THAT, do you? Even the just man (and one might add, the daily communicant) falls seven times a day (and one of those can just possibly be AS they are recieving or directly afterwards).

The most we can legitimately believe in regards to the Eucharist’s effect on our physical health is that, like our spiritual health, it helps. It doesn’t totally banish all possibility, in even the immediate let alone the long-term future, of either spiritual sickness (sin) or physical illness. 🤷
 
It’s not the Body and Blood of the Lord causing corruption, it’s the virus that was “sitting on It” for lack of a better phrase. As for celiac’s, it is the body’s response to what it senses as gluten, even though the substance of gluten is not present. The body is not being corrupted by the Sacrament in that case, it is the mistaken response of the flesh.
 
Gary,

Just to clarify, the “presumably others” was not to indicate what Catholics believe, but what Aussie and others (i.e. Eastern Orthodox?) believe.

VC
 
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Gary,

Just to clarify, the “presumably others” was not to indicate what Catholics believe, but what Aussie and others (i.e. Eastern Orthodox?) believe.

VC
its what Eastern Catholics believe actually…there are very few differences between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs (say for the office of pope)

it doesnt look like East and West will see eye 2 eye anytime soon.
 
Aussie Melkite - what about the OTHER ‘consequences of the fall’ - what about sin? Does receiving the Eucharist make you totally immune from sin as well as physical illness? Surely you don’t believe THAT, do you? Even the just man (and one might add, the daily communicant) falls seven times a day (and one of those can just possibly be AS they are recieving or directly afterwards).

The most we can legitimately believe in regards to the Eucharist’s effect on our physical health is that, like our spiritual health, it helps. It doesn’t totally banish all possibility, in even the immediate let alone the long-term future, of either spiritual sickness (sin) or physical illness. 🤷
we dont have the same concept of sin that latins do. its not a stain, we dont believe in origianal sin in the way that Latins do:

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#TD

Q
I have heard that the Greek biblical texts of Rom. 5:12 do not contain the phrase “in whom all have sinned” relating to Adam’s sin. Consequently, I gather that the Eastern churches’ doctrine of original sin developed differently than that of the Western churches. Is this correct?

A
The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase “eph’ho pantes hemarton.” The Western Church has traditionally translated this as "in whom all have sinned.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word “eph’ho” to modify the preceding word “thanatos,” which means “death.” Therefore the Eastern Church translates the phrase in question as “because of which (death) all have sinned.” Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.

Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans 5:12 as such:

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,” (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:

“…and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned.”

In part because of this difference the Eastern Christian teaching on original sin developed differently. In our tradition, the primary effect of original sin is not a “stain,” passed on from generation to generation. Rather, it is death. Because “death passed upon all men,” all of us now sin. It is death itself that causes us to sin.
 
I’m not talking about original sin. Paul states clearly that ALL sin of any kind is a consequence of the fall. ‘Sin entered the world through one man’, that man being Adam, so clearly sin (of whatever type) must be a consequence of the fall.

So to say on the one hand that illness, being a consequence of the fall, is destroyed by the presence of the Eucharist, and on the other that sin, equally being a consequence of the fall, can coexist even in the JUST persons who receive, is a contradiction.
 
I’m not talking about original sin. Paul states clearly that ALL sin of any kind is a consequence of the fall. ‘Sin entered the world through one man’, that man being Adam, so clearly sin (of whatever type) must be a consequence of the fall.

So to say on the one hand that illness, being a consequence of the fall, is destroyed by the presence of the Eucharist, and on the other that sin, equally being a consequence of the fall, can coexist even in the JUST persons who receive, is a contradiction.
no illness is not destroyed by the Eucharist, yet it does not pass through from one infected person to another through the Eucharist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top