Devine presence in Holy Communion

[Ray_Lafleur]

I keep reading and listening in the media how various dioceses have taken the drinking of the Blood from the chalice because of the fear of the H1N1 virus. First of all the partaking of the precious Blood was never meant for the congregation to take, secondly in the areas where it has been permitted we’ve managed to remove the Deity from the Eucharistic meal and brought it to a semblance of what it actually is “the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ”:. If we do not believe that the bread and wine is the Lord then we should leave the Catholic church and find another to worship in. The Eucharist is the central part of our faith and therefore not to be questioned. When the faithful become fearful of recieving the Body and/or the Blood of our Lord out of fear then we don’t believe in His presence. In the 2000 year history of our Church there has never been an incident of someone getting sick because of recieving communion. The bread and wine actually become our Savior and is no longer the properties they had. Our Bishops and Priests have got to get back to the FAITH, if they don’t believe how can the faithful?

 

[CDNowak]

I keep reading and listening in the media how various dioceses have taken the drinking of the Blood from the chalice because of the fear of the H1N1 virus. First of all the partaking of the precious Blood was never meant for the congregation to take, secondly in the areas where it has been permitted we’ve managed to remove the Deity from the Eucharistic meal and brought it to a semblance of what it actually is “the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ”:. If we do not believe that the bread and wine is the Lord then we should leave the Catholic church and find another to worship in. The Eucharist is the central part of our faith and therefore not to be questioned. When the faithful become fearful of recieving the Body and/or the Blood of our Lord out of fear then we don’t believe in His presence. In the 2000 year history of our Church there has never been an incident of someone getting sick because of recieving communion. The bread and wine actually become our Savior and is no longer the properties they had. Our Bishops and Priests have got to get back to the FAITH, if they don’t believe how can the faithful?

Are you saying that it is impossible to pass germs through sharing of the common Cup? I think you be hard pressed to prove your statement that no-one has ever gotten sick from receiving from the chalice.

That is quite simply ridiculous, The Blood, though retaining the properties of wine, lacks sufficient alcohol to effectively kill germs. The outside of the cup is wiped and rotated, but their is only so much cup and so much purificator before saliva is merely being repositioned.

 

[MrS]

I think this is a wonderful opportunity for a true “Teaching Moment” for a good priest.

He can explain the Real Presence, explain reception under one Species, and…

… do away with some or all Un-Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

.

 

[puzzleannie]

if you believe that germs cannot be transmitted through the precious Blood, then you disbelieve what the Church teaches about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation, the formal precise word that explains what happens to the elements when they are consecrated. The substance changes–that which you cannot see, taste, smell, touch and feel is the substance, what something truly IS. The accidents–that which you can see, touch, taste, smell and feel–remain the same, that is all the physical properities of bread and wine remain, including the possibility they may become contaminated by a foreign substance. That is why such care is taken to protect the sacred species. Please do some reading on the topic “transubstantiation” before offering wrongful speculation on this topic. Obey your bishop. Obedience is the mother of humility, the path to all virtue.

 

[piejesu]

Without some basic understanding of the philosophy of the Scholastic Period, the words, substance, accidents, transubstantiation, and metaphysical are as much of a mystery as the miracle of the real presence itself. I guess for a simple layman such as myself the words of St. Augustine make the most sense.

“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”

All that said, I admire the courage and desire for a pure faith that stands out in the OP, and I am equally pleased to read the subsequent, learned and instructive posts that followed. Thank God for the many parts of the body of Christ.

 

[Stephen3970]

First of all the partaking of the precious Blood was never meant for the congregation to take

where did you get that idea??

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you (Matthew 26:27 RSV-CE)

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21 RSV-CE who is the “you” he is talking to? just clergy?)

26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:26-29 RSV-CE again, who is the “you”? who is the “anyone”?)

So that I will not be said to be advocating the utraquist view, I do believe that Christ is fully present in both the wine and the bread so that when you recieve one (just the bread) you recieve ALL of Christ. Nevertheless, the idea that the cup wasn’t meant for the laity is simply false.

 

[DOShea]

… do away with some or all Un-Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

We don’t have any of these in the Catholic Church. What doctrine do you find them in?

 

[Lujack]

Devine is present in Holy Communion? Is Parseghian present as well?

(Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun!)

 

[Ray_Lafleur]

I need a spelling course it appears. It should read divine not “andy devine”. Great responses, however to the individual who questions about the germs on the cup or that the “accidents” remain in the bread and wine, from the very early years of the church it was believed and should still be believed that the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood of our Savior. Perhaps a little more study of the faith is in order. Historically the church allowed the Blood to be consumed on special occasions and was always administered by a priest, deacon or accolyte. We were not allowed to recieve the wine because of the danger of it being spilled on the floor. Today if the Host falls to the ground it is picked up and put back in the chalice in most cases, the area where the Host fell is ignored. I remember when, heaven forbid, the Host fell to the ground a purifcator was place over the area where the Host fell and the priest would walk around the spot, after mass the area was purified by the priest who dropped the Host. If as was stated in one of the replies that it was alway meant to recieve under one or the other species then why for almost 1600 years was the practice stopped. Also why do we have the tabenacle? There was a time when you took the Host home in the early church, and that practice was stopped. It’s time we revert back to the honor and reverence the Eucharist deserves. It’s nice to quote scripture but I pray we are getting the right understanding.

 

[MrS]

We don’t have any of these in the Catholic Church. What doctrine do you find them in?

So, you just question the “Un” ? Or you just wonder if everything is doctrine?

.

 

[Jea9]

I need a spelling course it appears. It should read divine not “andy devine”. Great responses, however to the individual who questions about the germs on the cup or that the “accidents” remain in the bread and wine, from the very early years of the church it was believed and should still be believed that the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood of our Savior. Perhaps a little more study of the faith is in order. Historically the church allowed the Blood to be consumed on special occasions and was always administered by a priest, deacon or accolyte. We were not allowed to recieve the wine because of the danger of it being spilled on the floor. Today if the Host falls to the ground it is picked up and put back in the chalice in most cases, the area where the Host fell is ignored. I remember when, heaven forbid, the Host fell to the ground a purifcator was place over the area where the Host fell and the priest would walk around the spot, after mass the area was purified by the priest who dropped the Host. If as was stated in one of the replies that it was alway meant to recieve under one or the other species then why for almost 1600 years was the practice stopped. Also why do we have the tabenacle? There was a time when you took the Host home in the early church, and that practice was stopped. It’s time we revert back to the honor and reverence the Eucharist deserves. It’s nice to quote scripture but I pray we are getting the right understanding.

I think that was the point that the poster made. It does become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord. But the accidents remain. That’s the miracle of the Transubstantiation. I, personally, do not receive from the chalice because I’m a clumsy oaf and am certain that I would drop it. I only have 3 times: at my baptism, one time at daily Mass, and at my recent wedding.

 

[CDNowak]

I need a spelling course it appears. It should read divine not “andy devine”. Great responses, however to the individual who questions about the germs on the cup or that the “accidents” remain in the bread and wine, from the very early years of the church it was believed and should still be believed that the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood of our Savior. Perhaps a little more study of the faith is in order. .

Perhaps a taste of Thomas would be in order (see Questions 75-77 in particular):
Summa Theologica:

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): “Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood.”

I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

Also to note would be the fact that alcoholic priests may receive a dispensation to use mustum, and the development of low gluten hosts for those suffering from celiac’s (which has certainly caused people to become ill). There also remains, even if the species of the Sacrament themselves were incapable of any corruption or defilement, the fact that the chalice does have the potential to pass bodily fluids (and thus germs) from one person to the next.