Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

[Cat]

Germophobes, I don’t blame you at all. I work in a microbiology lab, and **since the time of the apostles, a great many infectious diseases have surfaced, while at the same time, our natural immunity has DECREASED. **

MRSA is a biggie-people die of this within 24 hours.

Don’t worry too much about TB. If you are not immuno-compromised, you are probably safe from TB. I say “probably” because that young man that went on the plane didn’t have any debilitating conditions that would pre-dispose him to catching TB. (It’s a mystery!) But most healthy people will not catch any of the Mycobacteria. There are people who work in leprosariums and touch the people, and they never catch the bacteria that causes leprosy.

Here is my suggestion for those who are afraid to shake hands: Gloves. When I was a wee little Protestant back in the 1960s, almost all women and little girls used to wear gloves to church. I’m not exactly sure what men wore, but I don’t see that wearing a pair of leather gloves would be inappropriate, assuming it blends with the rest of your apparel.

Gloves would stop the spread of bacteria that are passed by hand-shaking.

Another suggestions. Most of the infection occurs not from “germs” on the hands, but from transferring those bacteria and viruses to your EYES. So keep you hands AWAY from your eyes!

Be careful about picking your nose. MRSA lives in the noses of many people as normal flora (it doesn’t hurt your nose at all, or cause any symptoms.) When it gets on your hands or fingers, it can be spread to places in the body where it WILL hurt.

Finally–wash your hands often! It’s the number one way to prevent the spread of skin-associated “germs.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Trust in God and maybe you won’t die from drinking our Lord’s blood.

Is that trusting Jesus too much?

Another question for the grmophobes: do you really think it is God’s will to receive bread from a priest’s hands which can also contain germs but not drink from a chalice for fear of germs.

Jesus didn’t express this concern about germs to the disciples at the Last Supper.

Exactly when did Jesus become concerned about that?

No–the real question isn’ whether a person has to receive from the cup or not–of course they don’t–the real question is is it Jesus’ will for them to receive from the cup or not.

What I’m saying is just because the church offers persons freedom in this area does not Necessarily mean that Jesus offers that freedom to everyone!

People are free to be celibate. That doesn’t mean that Jesus wants everyone to be celibate.

You may be free to partake of the cup or not–that doesn’t mean that Jesus may or may not want individuals to take of the cup!

I don’t know the answer all people but I do know that Yes–people will be judged for doing or not doing Jesus’ will.

Evidently it was Jesus’ will for the disciples to drink from the cup without reference to germs.

If you don’t drink from the cup just be sure that Jesus tells you it is His will for you not to do so because Yes you will be judged for doing or not doing His will!

When the pharisees complained about the disciples Not washing their hands before they ate it wasn’t Jesus’ will for them to avoid germs then either!

So tell me oh germophobes when Jesus decided that the concern over germs in the cup of his Eucharist first happened!

And how many of the saints that subsisted on the Eucharist if they lived today in our time would refuse the cup?

 

[Digitonomy]

Trust in God and maybe you won’t die from drinking our Lord’s blood.

Then again, there’s a slim chance you will. Disregarding our scientific concerns and instead totally trusting in the Lord was embraced by certain denominations with regard to lightning rods on the top of churches and other buildings. Obviously this is not quite the same situation, but I approach it in a similar manner - I trust in the Lord, but also rely on the gifts of knowledge and discernment to make prudent choices about the things of this world - including the accident of wine in the Eucharist, and the accidents of backwash and germs in the wine and on the cup.

Your puzzlement about the distinction between the bread and wine in transmitting germs is understandable. Certainly germs are transmitted by skin contact. However, mucous membranes in general and the oral cavity in particular are much more significant reservoirs and transmitters of bacteria and viruses.

When both species were first introduced at my parish, the pastor cited the fact that wine is a natural antiseptic as one factor debunking health concerns. It wasn’t until reading one of these threads recently that it occurred to me that the rather low percentage of alcohol in wine makes it pretty ineffective for that purpose. The chance of dying is pretty slim, but the chance of falling ill is significant over the course of a lifetime receiving the Eucharist. I don’t think it is Jesus’ will that I ignore my concerns on this issue. If I were missing out on the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, the answer might be different.

I will leave to others the task of debating with you the usefulness of Jesus’ denunciation of handwashing as a model for our own hygiene.

 

[fix]

So tell me oh germophobes when Jesus decided that the concern over germs in the cup of his Eucharist first happened!

And how many of the saints that subsisted on the Eucharist if they lived today in our time would refuse the cup?

Many things were not specifically mentioned by Christ. Does such reasoning mean germs are not to be considered? Has the Church said concern for germs is wrong in this context?

If the Church has left it up to each person to use their prudential judgement then I cannot see how we may impose things on others the Church does not ask.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

More questions for the germophobes: Did Jesus have any germ when he was here on Earth?

If you had been living back then and He kissed you on the cheek would you rebuke him?

Would you rebuke Him for washing your feet without gloves?

Did Jesus rebuke Veronica for wiping His face on the way to Calvary with cloth that was not sterile?

 

[CarrieH]

Germophobes: If you had been one of the disciples at the Last Supper would you have refused the cup because you were afraid of germs?

No, but I would have been in close contact with the other disciples anyhow and would likely already have their germs just from being around them all the time. Just as I wouldn’t have a problem drinking from the same glass as a family member.

Do you really want to explain that to Jesus when He judges you?

Jesus will understand that I avoid the chalice not only to avoid others’ germs, but also in order to keep my own germs to myself. The herpes-virus that causes cold sores can be shed even when you don’t have a sore yet, and I wouldn’t want somebody else to catch that from me. The quick swipe of the cloth only spreads the germs around a bit.

BTW, those who judge others for abstaining from the chalice will have their own explaining to do when their time comes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But the point would be “consuming,” taking It into oneself in an act of consumption.

That would be consumption through the physical act of eating.

In no way are we drinking the host, as Brendon is attempting to say.

Jim

 

[CarrieH]

More questions for the germophobes: Did Jesus have any germ when he was here on Earth?

If you had been living back then and He kissed you on the cheek would you rebuke him?

Would you rebuke Him for washing your feet without gloves?

Did Jesus rebuke Veronica for wiping His face on the way to Calvary with cloth that was not sterile?

Considering that the “germ theory” of disease didn’t even come about until the 1800’s, these questions are irrelevant.

 

[fix]

More questions for the germophobes: Did Jesus have any germ when he was here on Earth?

If you had been living back then and He kissed you on the cheek would you rebuke him?

Would you rebuke Him for washing your feet without gloves?

Did Jesus rebuke Veronica for wiping His face on the way to Calvary with cloth that was not sterile?

What you have to prove is that the authority of the Church in this matter binds Catholics as you claim.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I dont because I know that the Eucharist is sufficent and its not neccesary to have both.However, I would love to partake of it someday because it would be beautiful to drink Our Lords Blood.

 

[fix]

Considering that the “germ theory” of disease didn’t even come about until the 1800’s, these questions are irrelevant.

And, what if some person has a cold virus or other pathology? Should they drink and risk passing that on to others? I mean would Jesus rebuke someone with a cold if such a person kissed Him?

Following the logic here no one should refrain. Again, I fail to see it.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Considering that pastors, bishops, and bishops conferences have often shown concern for proffering both species in cold&flu season, or in geographic areas of risk (for SARS, eg), I would not say that “germophobes” are limited to participants in this thread.

:twocents:
tee

 

[fix]

Considering that pastors, bishops, and bishops conferences have often shown concern for proffering both species in cold&flu season, or in geographic areas of risk (for SARS, eg), I would not say that “germophobes” are limited to participants in this thread.

:twocents:
tee

My parish bulletin each year reminds folks to be considerate during cold and flu season regarding this topic. Is that wrong?

Also:

1. What measures should be taken in Roman Catholic liturgies in the United States of America now?
   Priests, deacons, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should be especially reminded of the need to practice good hygiene. Ministers of Holy Communion should be encouraged to wash their hands before Mass begins, or even to use an alcohol based anti-bacterial solution before and after distributing Holy Communion. They should instruct people who feel ill not to receive from the cup.

Ten Questions on Influenza and the Liturgy

Did the Jesus and the Apostles wash their hands with antibacterial soap before the Last Supper? If not ought we do it today?

 

[Melchior]

But why do you receive from the chalice? Merely because you have permission?

I have yet to read a cogent reason why the faithful should regularly receive from the chalice.

Because that is how Christ instituted the Sacrament. This seems unbelievable to me, it really does. The common practice for the early church and for centuries was both species. There can be no logical argument that receiving the Body and Precious Blood is not a fuller sign. While both species are fully Christ, but have unique symbolism and that symbolism is never so meaningful as when it is participated in.

Having been protestant for years in the past, I never once saw a drop of communion wine spilled from a common cup or by intinction. It is only sacriledge if it is not dealt with properly when it is spilled.

Why would people militate against the form that Christ himself instituted? This is not just a holier than the pope thing. It is a holier than the Apostles and the church of the first millennium. And it is Catholic teaching that both species are the fuller symbol. I have yet to see a theological reason why one would not want to partake of what has to be a fuller participation in the rite and it’s symbolism. How could it not be?

As for germs that people are concerned about, what about the EM hands who touch the Eucharist and put it in ones mouth? I know protestants, such as Lutherans who have absolute faith that God protects them from illness when receiving their communion. How is it that so many Catholics do not share such faith when receiving the genuine article? I find this very puzzling. Plus, alcohol kills the germ folks!

Btw, sorry to put all these thoughts in response to you. It was just more convenient to put them all in one post. They are not all a response to what you wrote.

Mel

 

[tee_eff_em]

Why would people militate against the form that Christ himself instituted?

I know I have not read the thread carefully, but *are *people militating against it? Or merely choosing to receive in a way that they have every right to exercise?

(If anyone does militate against it, perhaps it is for the same reason that others militate for it?)

tee

 

[fix]

Why would people militate against the form that Christ himself instituted? This is not just a holier than the pope thing. It is a holier than the Apostles and the church of the first millennium. And it is Catholic teaching that both species are the fuller symbol. I have yet to see a theological reason why one would not want to partake of what has to be a fuller participation in the rite and it’s symbolism. How could it not be?

I have seen no one claiming it is wrong to offer both kinds. I have seen reasons why some choose only one species. I have yet to see evidence one is obligated to receive both? In fact, the Church tells us one is sufficient. What I wonder is why some seem to want to place an obligation where none exists?

As for germs that people are concerned about, what about the EM hands who touch the Eucharist and put it in ones mouth?

I hope they wash their hands and the risk of transmission is probably less than with the cup.

I know protestants, such as Lutherans who have absolute faith that God protects them from illness when receiving their communion. How is it that so many Catholics do not share such faith when receiving the genuine article? I find this very puzzling.

That seems almost bordering superstition. It is not magic.

Plus, alcohol kills the germ folks!

That is too broad a statement. It does not kill all germs and certainly not in the concentration we speak of.

 

[Brendan]

That would be consumption through the physical act of eating.

In no way are we drinking the host, as Brendon is attempting to say.

Jim

No, I said that we both eat his Body and drink His Blood when we consume the Sacrament in either species.

His Blood is present in the Eucharist. It is not solid blood, but living Blood that flows within Christ’s Resurrected Body. One does not ‘Eat’ flowing blood.

Do you consider Christ’s Blood to be a solid, non-flowing Substance?

If it is not solid, how do you consume it?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

One drop of water is enough for baptism but most would say that that wasn’t a good sign.

Will any germophobes ever become martyrs? I doubt it–it wouldn’t be healthy!

Just think if mother Teresa had been a germophobe!

And if we should kill bacteria who do not have souls to protect our bodies which are the templs of the Holy Spirit what should we do to Baby Murder Supporters who will tell you up front that they have no problem sacriledging the body and blood of Jesus?

Maybe after telling people not to take the cup if they have a cold similiar pastoral advice should be given to the Sacriledgers!

 

[Sweeney]

One drop of water is enough for baptism but most would say that that wasn’t a good sign.

Will any germophobes ever become martyrs? I doubt it–it wouldn’t be healthy!

Just think if mother Teresa had been a germophobe!

And if we should kill bacteria who do not have souls to protect our bodies which are the templs of the Holy Spirit what should we do to Baby Murder Supporters who will tell you up front that they have no problem sacriledging the body and blood of Jesus?

Maybe after telling people not to take the cup if they have a cold similiar pastoral advice should be given to the Sacriledgers!

This is getting ridiculous - what do “baby murder supporters” have to do with germs?

As long as I’m taking anti-rejection meds, I think Jesus understands why I don’t drink from the chalice. After all, he made it possible for me to get my new kidney.

 

[Melchior]

I know I have not read the thread carefully, but *are *people militating against it? Or merely choosing to receive in a way that they have every right to exercise?

(If anyone does militate against it, perhaps it is for the same reason that others militate for it?)

tee

Maybe, militate is to strong a word, but some see to look at it downright scornfully and act as if it was some medievel invention and not the most ancient practice of the church.
I have no problem with people receiving in only one kind. I do have a problem with people having a problem with those who receive in both kinds.