can a person get sick through Holy Communion?

[aussie_melkite]

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.

sin is not a consequence of the the fall in eatsern theology, death is…death however causes us to sin. I think it better to end this…were workign with incompatible Beliefs here. we may be united by our common belif in the chair of peter, but beyond that I dont think east and west have much in common anymore.

let me quite again that question and answer from my previous post and add another one.

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?

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.

Q
Do you view death itself as the “stain” or original sin, and if so, how does death cause us to sin?

A
Yes, perhaps one could say that in a certain sense death itself is the “stain” of original sin. Because of the certainty of physical death, we try to evade the inevitable. This leads us to try and cheat death, which results in sin. We store more food than we need (gluttony), we horde wealth and resources (avarice), we use our reproductive potential wantonly (lechery), etc… In the quest to cheat death we distort natural God-given gifts. Thus, death causes us to sin.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Aussie,

I didn’t quite catch if you responded to my original question.

Would someone who drank too much of Christ’s blood get drunk?

If not, would this be because Christ’s blood is non-alcoholic, or because Christ prevents the “accidents” of the species from having an effect on the consumer.

VC

 

[LilyM]

sin is not a consequence of the the fall in eatsern theology, death is…death however causes us to sin. I think it better to end this…were workign with incompatible Beliefs here. we may be united by our common belif in the chair of peter, but beyond that I dont think east and west have much in common anymore.

let me quite again that question and answer from my previous post and add another one.

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?

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.

Q
Do you view death itself as the “stain” or original sin, and if so, how does death cause us to sin?

A
Yes, perhaps one could say that in a certain sense death itself is the “stain” of original sin. Because of the certainty of physical death, we try to evade the inevitable. This leads us to try and cheat death, which results in sin. We store more food than we need (gluttony), we horde wealth and resources (avarice), we use our reproductive potential wantonly (lechery), etc… In the quest to cheat death we distort natural God-given gifts. Thus, death causes us to sin.

Your scholarship is impressive - and utterly beside the point.

IF BOTH death and sin are related to the Fall (regardless of whether death causes sin or not), and the Body and Blood undoes the effects of the Fall such as to totally prevent the normal processes of disease, then logically, by undoing so radically the effects of the Fall, it should ALSO prevent the normal proceses which permit us to sin.

Are you saying it’s impossible to sin after receiving the Body and Blood?

 

[aussie_melkite]

Your scholarship is impressive - and utterly beside the point.

IF BOTH death and sin are related to the Fall (regardless of whether death causes sin or not), and the Body and Blood undoes the effects of the Fall such as to totally prevent the normal processes of disease, then logically, by undoing so radically the effects of the Fall, it should ALSO prevent the normal proceses which permit us to sin.

Are you saying it’s impossible to sin after receiving the Body and Blood?

of course we can sin after holy communion but thats not the point…it may be to point to the western church, but as im eastern catholic I dont understand ur line of reasoning (and thank god i dont, it would be be enuff to make me leave the Catholic Church if i did)

look up the information about dieases and holy communion form both eastern cathoic and eastern orthdoox websites urself…were just going in circles now as out theology is incomaptoable…and frankly theres only room in the church for one theology, we cant both be right.

either Aristotelian logic (which is a import from Islam) is right, or the Fathers of the Undivied Church (which the East has never stayed from) is right…I dont know about u but Im not going to put my faith in Human Logic. the eastern church teaches that diesases cannot be tranmitted through holy communion…and thats good enuff for me.

 

[Spirithound]

of course we can sin after holy communion but thats not the point…it may be to point to the western church, but as im eastern catholic I dont understand ur line of reasoning (and thank god i dont, it would be be enuff to make me leave the Catholic Church if i did)

Lily’s point is that sin and sickness are both undesireable. If receiving Christ’s Body prevents sickness, it should also prevent sin.

 

[aussie_melkite]

Listen i see what ur getting at…but frankly without a background in eastern theology ur not seeing what im getting at…we dont belive the same things, therefore I cannot answer ur questions (especialy as im not trained to do so).

what is a fact however is that the Christian East both catholic and Orthodox belives what I have put fourth.I encourage all those intreste to become aquanted with Eastern theology as apparently were the “other lung” of the church…and Rome has never chanleged our beliefs reguring dieases and holy communion, nor our concept of hades vs Purgotry, nor our marian theology nor our “symbolic” eucharist theology vs Transubsation

we just have to accept that we belive differnt things about the nature of the Eucharist…i dotn see how that possible in the one church but it appears we simply have to accept it…for now.

 

[LilyM]

Lily’s point is that sin and sickness are both undesireable. If receiving Christ’s Body prevents sickness, it should also prevent sin.

Undesirable? My point is a heck of a lot more pointed than that.

Now AM, I believe I actually DO get your point - it seems you’re trying to say that according to Eastern theology Holy Communion does away with sickness, because sickness is an effect the Fall and Holy Communion undoes the effects of the Fall. Is this a reasonable summary? If so, my understanding is not lacking and my question is a perfectly valid one.

The idea is not just contrary to Aristotelian logic, it’s contrary to reason full stop. God is beyond human reason, sure, but He doesn’t contradict it, reason and logic are His gifts to us too, and He expects us to use them. St Paul even says in Romans 12 that we are to worship God in a way that is worthy of THINKING beings, not children lacking in intelligence or dumb animals.

Now there are things that go beyond human logic and reason, absolutely. We call those mysteries. But this is a clear cut case where we can use our brains to sort through the proposition and the evidence for and against and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

By the way, which Fathers taught that you cannot become sick from the Communion cup, and where did they say this?

 

[aussie_melkite]

they dont say it directly…its just never been belived that dieseases can pass thought holy communion…the Eastern Church is a unbroken tradition going back to the church fathers…our theology has not changed in anyway way shape or form…its never been officaly defined as its never been chalanged (until now)

Most things in the eastern church are belived by never officaly defined…the east doesnt have the same legalism that the west does and does not feel the need to define things the way rome does.

the fact that Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Catholics all share this belief is a tesotmony to the fact it was believed by the Universal church prior to the Great Schism.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Aussie,

I’m still trying to get a handle on your position:

Would someone who drank too much of Christ’s blood get drunk?

If not, would this be because Christ’s blood is non-alcoholic, or because Christ prevents the “accidents” of the species from having an effect on the consumer.

VC

 

[LilyM]

they dont say it directly…its just never been belived that dieseases can pass thought holy communion…the Eastern Church is a unbroken tradition going back to the church fathers…our theology has not changed in anyway way shape or form…its never been officaly defined as its never been chalanged (until now)

Most things in the eastern church are belived by never officaly defined…the east doesnt have the same legalism that the west does and does not feel the need to define things the way rome does.

the fact that Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Catholics all share this belief is a tesotmony to the fact it was believed by the Universal church prior to the Great Schism.

If it’s an unbroken tradition going back to the Fathers then you should be able to find out for me WHICH exact Fathers have said it.

Traditions have to be taught reasonably explicitly (which means, since we can’t talk to the Fathers any more, they have to have written them somewhere) - and not just by one or two of the Fathers either (one or two on their own can possibly get it wrong) but by numerous of the Fathers!

You are saying your idea was ‘never officially defined’. Since you haven’t actually managed to come up with any Church Father who said what you’re saying, it sounds like it was never actually stated by any of them at all. If there’s no written evidence of early belief of a Tradition then it can’t possibly be accepted AS a Tradition.

As for the fact that the OO, EO etc teach this - well, there are many more Protestants than Orthodox, so should we take it as given that their Canon of scripture is correct, as opposed to yours, since so many more of them have believed in it for 500 years now? Or Muslim belief? There are many more of them than Orthodox, and they’ve been around for 1300 years now.

The mere holding of an opinion (however widespread and for however long a time) doesn’t make it Apostolic Tradition - it certainly didn’t make Arianism correct!

 

[Digitonomy]

IF BOTH death and sin are related to the Fall (regardless of whether death causes sin or not), and the Body and Blood undoes the effects of the Fall such as to totally prevent the normal processes of disease, then logically, by undoing so radically the effects of the Fall, it should ALSO prevent the normal proceses which permit us to sin.

Are you saying it’s impossible to sin after receiving the Body and Blood?

As I understand it, am is arguing a narrower point. He is only suggesting that the Eucharist prevents the normal processes of disease related to its own reception. So if you have chickenpox already, you’re not likely to be cured. And on your way back from communion, a mosquito could land on you and transmit malaria. But any viruses or bacteria on the host, cup, or wine are either vaporized or rendered inert, simply by the fact that they are in contact with Christ.

Following that logic, and the common origin you pointed out of sin and disease, it stands to reason that sin likewise cannot be transmitted by the Eucharist. It doesn’t mean grave sins already present will be instantly vanquished, or that you’ll be prevented from plotting your embezzlement scheme during the closing prayer. What exactly that means may be better-suited to the legalistic Western mind…

Suppose Jack Bauer is attending mass (he always looks like he could use some spiritual nourishment), and a terrorist has been told that upon reception of communion, he is to release his poison gas into the cathedral. Is the reception of the Eucharist a part of the transmission of sin? It seems somewhat analogous to the disease process, so I think that by aussie melkite’s logic such an action would be supernaturally prevented.

 

[Methodi]

sorry id have to disagree…Christ Body and Blood bring life to those who recieve, not coruption and illness of body, .

Christ came to restore all things in him and undo the curse which was placed upon us.
when we recieve his Sacred Body and Sacred Blood we are literaly touching eden (the state mankind existed b4 couruption, death, and diease entered our world)

the only time it can cause illness of body is when one partakes unworthly. an old preist told me that Holy Communion is dangerous to both body and soul if recieved unworthly…so if we extend that logic abit futher surly those who recive worthly cannot become sick from it.

I was at a mass & the Priest made an announcement that because of the cold & flu season, there would be no reception of the Blood Of Christ I am not making this up eitherIn my opinion I think we can get sick from all of us drinking from the same chalice, they wipe it with a cloth each time but truthfully what is that doing

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It seems to me that what the Latin Catholics are saying is that, in theory, a person could get sick from germs transferred to the host from the priest’s hands or from germs on the chalice. However, the CDC has no record of this ever happening to anyone. Nobody on this forum has said they ever heard of this either. Out of courtesy, I don’t receive from the chalice if I have a cold in case this might deter someone else from receiving. But I never fear receiving from the chalice.

As I understand it, the reason the western church restricted reception from the cup had nothing to do with the spread of disease.

I know that at Lourdes, back when the water in the baths wasn’t changed after each bather, the workers there would drink a handful of the water at the end of the day as an expression of faith. None ever became sick from doing that. The water in the baths was tested as pure. This was even after very ill people had bathed in it. It didn’t have any antibiotic properties, it just tested as pure water.

It appears that, although it isn’t an article of faith for Latin rite Catholics that we don’t get a disease from receive communion, it just doesn’t happen. Could it be that God actually does prevent even the accidents of the Eucharist species from spreading disease? Surely the Eucharist is more worthy than water from Lourdes.

 

[Digitonomy]

It seems to me that what the Latin Catholics are saying is that, in theory, a person could get sick from germs transferred to the host from the priest’s hands or from germs on the chalice. However, the CDC has no record of this ever happening to anyone. Nobody on this forum has said they ever heard of this either.

I don’t have a link, but at least one or two members have posted accounts of illness they feel was attributable to the common cup.

 

[Quatsch]

as an Eastern Christian Ive always been taught to belive that its imposible that virus etc can be passed from an infected person that recieves holy communion to another person. that Our Lord wouldnt allow people to get sick through the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood.

is there any statment by the Latin Church to back up my claim at all?

Do you receive the Blood from the chalice when you are ill and contagious? If someone ahead of you was visibly ill would you receive it directly after them?

Why not do an experiment…get the flu, go to communion, if everyone else gets the flu, then that was probably how it was spread…you could even swab the chalice and see if there are germs on it.

Like others have said, it is not the Precious Blood that gets us sick, but germs that others leave on the chalice.

 

[Methodi]

Lily’s point is that sin and sickness are both undesireable. If receiving Christ’s Body prevents sickness, it should also prevent sin.

Just because You receive the Eucharist, dont mean You wont get sick, sickness is a part of our lives

 

[LilyM]

I don’t have a link, but at least one or two members have posted accounts of illness they feel was attributable to the common cup.

I’m one of those - my mother is an EMHC, she’s gotten sick from consuming the remains of the Chalice after communion.

She is a doctor as well, she knows how disease is transmitted and how it develops - so when she says that’s how she caught it we can be reasonably certain she’s correct and that it’s not just a ‘feeling’.

 

[Aramis]

That’s not logic, though. We know that if you decide to drink gallons upon gallons of holy water, you’ll send yourself into water intoxication and possibly die. We know that if you partake of gallons of the Blood, you’ll send yourself into alcohol poisoning and possibly die. As said above, these elements retain worldly properties as well; God doesn’t tell us to ignore all worldly logic when partaking; if anything, He’s told us to keep worldly logic in mind and not test Him by flouting those principles that have been developed to keep one healthy, or partaking in unnecessarily dangerous actions.

It is, however, directly out of the Prayer before Communion.