Everybody drinking from the same cup

[gez722]

Where does it say that the church ask those who have colds to refrain from the cup?

For those living in the United States, the USCCB has published a document on influenza and the liturgy. Here is a link:

usccb.org/liturgy/influenza.shtml

From that document:

8. 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. **

God Bless,
Gary

 

[gez722]

There is only the Blood of Christ in the Chalice after Consecration. There is no wine or alcohol. However the Blood of Christ has the same accidents, look, feel, taste and properties of wine, including the alcoholic properties.

I totally agree… I need to be more careful with my choice of words. Thanks for pointing that out.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[gez722]

The Church does not say that it will always look, taste, and affect us like true wine (or bread), it just says that it is a reasonable expectation for the accident. Only God decides how it looks, tastes, and affects us by changing the accident to satisfy our needs accordingly to His will.

Firstly, thanks for the further explanation. I think I see what you’re saying. However, I’m not sure about the above statement. Can you point me to a Church document that supports your statement? I’d like to read more about it.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Cristiano]

Firstly, thanks for the further explanation. I think I see what you’re saying. However, I’m not sure about the above statement. Can you point me to a Church document that supports your statement? I’d like to read more about it.

God Bless,
Gary

I was basing my comments from the St. Thomas statements in the Summa Theologica when it comes to the objections on transubstantiation and real presence. The fact that we have Eucharistic miracles (approved by the Church) is the proof that things do not always go as expected.

 

[Podo2005]

For those living in the United States, the USCCB has published a document on influenza and the liturgy. Here is a link:

usccb.org/liturgy/influenza.shtml

From that document:

8. 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. **

God Bless,
Gary

I don’t live in the states … and BTW this is just a suggestion

God Bless
Podo

 

[mommyof4]

I don’t live in the states …

God Bless
Podo

I can tell - How is the Shire this time of year, anyway?

 

[Seatuck]

WRT catching a disease from the communion cup-

The Center for Disease Control says it has been answering the question for more than 20 years. In 1998, the CDC included this statement in the American Journal of Infection Control:
For more than two decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated an official position to inquirers (e.g., lay public, physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals) about the risk of infectious disease transmission from a common communion cup. Although no documented transmission of any infectious disease has ever been traced to the use of a common communion cup, a great deal of controversy surrounds this issue; the CDC still continues to receive inquiries about this topic. In this letter, the CDC strives to achieve a balance of adherence to scientific principles and respect for religious beliefs.
Within the CDC, the consensus of the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis is that a theoretic risk of transmitting infectious diseases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetectable. The CDC has not been called on to investigate any episodes or outbreaks of infectious diseases that have been allegedly linked to the use of a common communion cup. However, outbreaks or clusters of infection might be difficult to detect if: (1) a high prevalence of disease (e.g., infectious mononucleosis, influenza, herpes, strep throat, common cold) exists in the community, (2) diseases with oral routes of transmission have other modes of transmission (i.e., fecal-oral, hand-to-mouth/nose, airborne), (3) the length of the incubation period for the disease is such that other opportunities for exposure cannot be ruled out unequivocally, and (4) no incidence data exist for comparison purposes (i.e., the disease is not on the reportable disease list and therefore is not under public health surveillance).
Experimental studies have shown that bacteria and viruses can contaminate a common communion cup and survive despite the alcohol content of the wine. Therefore, an ill person or asymptomatic carrier drinking from the common cup could potentially expose other members of the congregation to pathogens present in saliva. Were any diseases transmitted by this practice, they most likely would be common viral illnesses, such as the common cold. However, a recent study of 681 persons found that people who receive Communion as often as daily are not at higher risk of infection compared with persons who do not receive communion or persons who do not attend Christian church services at all.
In summary, the risk for infectious disease transmission by a common communion cup is very low, and appropriate safeguards – that is, wiping the interior and exterior rim between communicants, use of care to rotate the cloth during use, and use of a clean cloth for each service – would further diminish this risk. In addition, churches may wish to consider advising their congregations that sharing the communion cup is discouraged if a person has an active respiratory infection (i.e., cold or flu) or moist or open sores on their lips (e.g., herpes).

 

[gez722]

I don’t live in the states … and BTW this is just a suggestion

While I agree that it is just a suggestion, it is posted on the USCCB website which is important to those in the US. The fact that the US bishops are making this suggestion (which can reasonably be implied by the fact that it appears on their website) lends credence to the theory that germs can be transmitted via the communion cup. Some individuals tend to treat the cup as if it were “magic” and that no germs could possibly live in it. While I agree that it is possible that God can do anything and make any exceptions He wants, there is no official Church teaching that supports the fact that we can’t get sick from the chalice. Transubstantiation only affects the bread and the wine. Any contaminants are unaffected by the consecration. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the US bishops are suggesting that sick people refrain from the cup suggests that they believe there is a risk of infection present. That is good enough for me, but others can make their own decision.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[gez722]

I was basing my comments from the St. Thomas statements in the Summa Theologica when it comes to the objections on transubstantiation and real presence. The fact that we have Eucharistic miracles (approved by the Church) is the proof that things do not always go as expected.

As someone who has twice requested official Church documents in this thread, I’m surprised that when I asked you to substantiate your claim with a Church document, you only provided a general reference to the Summa Theologica, which although held in high regard by the Church, is not a Church document. While I agree that the Church does approve certain Eucharistic miracles, the official Church teaching (as defined by the Council of Trent) is that the accidents do remain:

…The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine

…Here pastors should observe that we should not at all be surprised, if, even after consecration, the Eucharist is sometimes called bread. It is so called, first because it retains the appearance of bread, and secondly because it keeps the natural quality of bread, which is to support and nourish the body.

While I agree that God can do whatever he wants and there could be exceptions, the official Church teaching supports the fact that the accidents of transubstantiation will remain and that what was formerly bread and wine will still appear to be bread and wine.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[psr13]

At the church I went to today the part of the cup that people drank from was wiped off after each person.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Uh, yes, there absolutely IS alcohol in it! As an EHMC who has had to consume varying amounts of precious blood in the past, I can tell you there definitely IS alcohol present!

Depending on just how much a person would drink they would have alcohol circulating in their blood. But not 12% if they did they would be killed by it. So, NO there is no alcohol in the Blood of Christ. It does have alcoholic properties consistant with the accidents of wine.

 

[netmilsmom]

At the church I went to today the part of the cup that people drank from was wiped off after each person.

With a dry cloth. With lipstick and everyone elses germs on it. I know, I launder them.

PREVENTION

Colds cannot be prevented because the viruses that cause them are very common and highly infectious. However, their spread can be reduced by some simple steps:

• Washing hands well and frequently, especially after touching the nose or before handling food.
• Covering the mouth and nose when sneezing.
• Disposing of used tissues properly.
• Avoiding close contact with anyone who has a cold during the first two to four days after infection.
• Not sharing food, eating utensils, or cups with anyone.
• Avoiding crowded places where cold germs can spread.
• Eating a healthy diet and getting adequate sleep.
  **
  **

 

[CatholicMetis]

Another thing to think about is you probably have a better chance of catching something by holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer or by shaking hands at the sign of peace than you do with receiving Communion. Also, with the number of people who recieve the Host on the tounge there is also a chance of getting sick if the priest or EMHC’s fingers come into contact with the person’s tounge which happens no matter how good the priest or EMHC is.

In fact our bulletin not only mentioned that people should refrain from taking the cup they also said if people are sick they should not recieve the Host on the tounge nor should they participate in the handshake. They also suggested if you are sick you should consider staying home from Mass as this would not be a sin.

(it would probably be more of a sin going and infecting the congragation!)

 

[Cristiano]

As someone who has twice requested official Church documents in this thread, I’m surprised that when I asked you to substantiate your claim with a Church document, you only provided a general reference to the Summa Theologica, which although held in high regard by the Church, is not a Church document. While I agree that the Church does approve certain Eucharistic miracles, the official Church teaching (as defined by the Council of Trent) is that the accidents do remain:

…The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine

…Here pastors should observe that we should not at all be surprised, if, even after consecration, the Eucharist is sometimes called bread. It is so called, first because it retains the appearance of bread, and secondly because it keeps the natural quality of bread, which is to support and nourish the body.

While I agree that God can do whatever he wants and there could be exceptions, the official Church teaching supports the fact that the accidents of transubstantiation will remain and that what was formerly bread and wine will still appear to be bread and wine.

God Bless,
Gary

Sorry for waiting so long to get back to you but after my last post I ended up in bad sick like a dog and this is the first time that I get back on CAF. You are correct saying that my references about the teaching of the church were not rigorous but because of circumstances I did not get to grab the details that I owed this forum. Thanks for posting a reference that I should have posted.

My point was simply the following: The Church teaches to expect the accidents of bread and wine to stay the same. However, given the fact that the Eucharistic miracles are approved and that the Church will not contradict itself then it follows that while it is “normal” to expect the accident to stay the same, the preservation of the accidents or some aspects of them is cannot be guaranteed.

 

[Catholic90]

Depending on just how much a person would drink they would have alcohol circulating in their blood. But not 12% if they did they would be killed by it. So, NO there is no alcohol in the Blood of Christ. It does have alcoholic properties consistant with the accidents of wine.

With all due respect, Rich, I’m not quite sure where you are getting the 12% Blood alcohol level from. Wine may have 12% alcohol content. Drink enough wine, consecrated to blood, and YES, you WILL feel the effects. I know. Been there, done that.

Personally, I think you are splitting hairs! Drink too much blood of Christ and you WILL feel the effects of alcohol.

 

[gez722]

Sorry for waiting so long to get back to you but after my last post I ended up in bad sick like a dog and this is the first time that I get back on CAF. You are correct saying that my references about the teaching of the church were not rigorous but because of circumstances I did not get to grab the details that I owed this forum. Thanks for posting a reference that I should have posted.

My point was simply the following: The Church teaches to expect the accidents of bread and wine to stay the same. However, given the fact that the Eucharistic miracles are approved and that the Church will not contradict itself then it follows that while it is “normal” to expect the accident to stay the same, the preservation of the accidents or some aspects of them is cannot be guaranteed.

Sorry to hear that you were so sick… I hope you’re feeling better! I have learned a lot about transubstantiation from this post and especially from your earlier comments. Your posts forced me to look up some things that helped me to gain a better understanding of this miraculous event I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who feels that attention to details is important, especially when dealing with something as important as the real presence of Our Lord!

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

With all due respect, Rich, I’m not quite sure where you are getting the 12% Blood alcohol level from. Wine may have 12% alcohol content. Drink enough wine, consecrated to blood, and YES, you WILL feel the effects. I know. Been there, done that.

Personally, I think you are splitting hairs! Drink too much blood of Christ and you WILL feel the effects of alcohol.

If the Blood of Christ were to be scientifically tested. It would appear to have a 12% (+/-) alcohol content.

 

[netmilsmom]

Another thing to think about is you probably have a better chance of catching something by holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer or by shaking hands at the sign of peace than you do with receiving Communion. Also, with the number of people who recieve the Host on the tounge there is also a chance of getting sick if the priest or EMHC’s fingers come into contact with the person’s tounge which happens no matter how good the priest or EMHC is.

First of all, a little Purell on the hands will beat those germs in the hand, if not, by not touching one’s eyes or lips it will work until one can get a good hand washing.
Purell in your mouth? I don’t think so.

I am in a parish where everyone receives by intinction. You may think that there is a lot of tongue touching but there isn’t. Our Priests were trained (as were most) to distribute the host to the end of the tongue. It sticks because of the matter it is made out of. Understand that everyone (my daughter was taught in prep for 1st Communion and my hubby in RCIA) how to open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue. The priest is holding the host by the end and dipping in the blood. With proper instruction, a priest never touches a tongue. In fact, I have seen our senior priest instruct a receiver as they kneel.

But you have a good chance of germs being passed with a communal cup, whether it is in church or in the bathroom at home. Good rule of thumb is to avoid the cup if one is sick as you said! If everyone does this, we all stay well.