Can communion in either or both kinds be given intravenously

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
…or through a feeding tube directly into the digestive system?
 
I would care to say no. Feeding tubes and syringes are not fit to touch the precious Body and Blood of Christ, and purifying them afterwards would be a nightmare.
 
This has come up before here …
40.png
Can you receive Eucharist through feeding tube? Liturgy and Sacraments
As I remember, Fr. Frank Pavone administered the Viaticum, in the form of the precious Blood, to Terri Schiavo via a medicine dropper on her tongue. Substances in small amounts in the mouth are absorbed without swallowing, much the same as nitroglycerin pills which heart patients place beneath their tongue for absorption.
Click to expand...
40.png
Can you receive Eucharist through feeding tube? Liturgy and Sacraments
I have taken care of literally hundreds of patients with feeding tubes and on a ventilator, and every single one of them was able to receive oral care with a moistened sponge. I cannot see why a drop of the Precious Blood could not be placed in their mouth under the tongue or in the space between the teeth and the gums.
Click to expand...
https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/12494/documents/2019/5/DWNL Issue 20.pdf
^^ see chapter 3.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
Neither are the unconsecrated hands of Deacons and Lay Catholics…yet that doesn’t bother some in the Church from distributing or receiving Communion in their hands.
Click to expand...
Please do not sidetrack this topic. You’re already discussing ordinary/extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion on another thread. This question is about the method of exception, not by whom.

The GIRM is quite specific on the materials and what can hold the Eucharist:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#III.SACRED_VESSELS
"327. Among the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred vessels are held in special honor, especially the chalice and paten, in which the bread and wine are offered and consecrated, and from which they are consumed.
Click to expand...
  1. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.
Click to expand...
  1. In the dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.
Click to expand...
  1. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have bowls of nonabsorbent material. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials."
Click to expand...
 
It’s not a sidetrack, it’s related to the topic being discussed.
 
It is a side track. And either way, as I’m sure you’d agree, two wrongs don’t make a right. EMHCs do not suddenly make it okay to put the Eucharist in any old thing. EMHCs or not, the Eucharist cannot be administered intravenously nor though a feeding tube, no matter if it’s a priest or lay person holding the syringe or tube. There is no point further discussing EMHCs on this topic. I repeat, they are not relevant.
 
Last edited:
Of course that doesn’t make it ok. My point was that with the majority of the Roman Church thinking it ok to receive in unconsecrated hands, the fact remains, said Catholics don’t care about things like this. They would see the argument from the humanist/natural approach, that such a thing would be comforting/accompanying/etc.
 
Intravenously isn’t possible because if the host was liquified is would not have the accidents of bread and IV alcohol is a bad idea for obvious reasons. I suspect there might also be similar difficulties administering it via other, direct methods.

A few drops of the precious blood could be administered directly into the person’s mouth but my concern about placing a small portion of the host into their mouth is ensuring that they do in fact swallow it.

When I administer the last rites, it’s not uncommon for the person to be unable to consume the eucharist but this is not an essential part of the rite nor is viaticum essential for salvation (of course it’s certainly helpful).
 
Intravenously 😱 ?
Please don’t . You’ll infect the line and cause a foreign body embolus and kill the patient.

Never never never touch the IV

Never
 
Approved ways to receive, in the hand, on the tongue. There is no approval for directly into the stomach.
 
You might be able to do the precious blood through a g-tube using a syringe and then a sterile flush.

I’m not sure if a syringe is ok to use with the precious blood though.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.

My son was on a g-tube for a few months. He didn’t receive at all during that time.
 
F_Marturana said:
You might be able to do the precious blood through a g-tube using a syringe and then a sterile flush.
Click to expand...
Cleaning isn’t the main problem though. It’s disposing the Precious Blood/flush solution afterwards. I doubt a priest will be allowed to leave with the mixture, it’s a biohazard. It would have to be buried in the ground, but I doubt hospitals would allow that.
 
Last edited:
The flush would go directly into the g-tube port.

But I totally understand your point. There is always the chance of residue remaining in the syringe.

Syringes are plastic, and not suitable for the precious blood.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top