Health Risks of Common Communion Cup

[netmilsmom]

contemplative:

Earlier in this thread I stated that I would no longer receive from the cup. This past Sunday the worst happened.

The Communion lines at the church I attend always flow freely and fluidly…aways…always…I have never seen them stall.

This past Sunday I received the Body of Christ and then as I walked past the two cup lines…no one was there to receive…not a single person… There stood these two beatiful people I know…a priest and a deacon holding the Blood of Christ… the line in front of me had me stalled right between the two Cups…I was torn…absolutely torn…I had just received the Body of Christ and there I stood with the Blood of Christ to the left of my body for several seconds…I felt terrible for not receiving the Blood of Christ…
Of all the times in my life to choose not to ever receive from the Cup again I was forced to stand there and really think about it and in all I felt terrible…

Maybe next time I will place myself so that I can be first to receive…I would rather live with myself this way (being stategic) than not to receive the Most Precious Blood of Christ or worse yet ignoring the Most Precious Blood of Christ.

That is sad, but if more Priests and Deacons would consider communion by intinction, you would get both.

If there was a Priest and a Deacon standing with a chalice, they could combine their efforts and dip.

 

[miguel]

tossolul:

Use your imagination and instead of just seeing the host, or wine…See Jesus standing there, waiting for you like he in actuality is- but we just can’t see it with our human eye. So you go up and you accept Jesus’ sacrifice in the Eucharist. You have received Him fully, and there is no need now to receive anything else…but then you walk down the street and there He is again. What do you do this time? Do you simply ignore Him because you have just been with Him, or because He is our Saviour do you acknowledge His presence either by receiving Him again or at least with some symbol of recognition- sign of the cross.

Personally, I make the sign of the cross every time I pass by a Catholic Church. That’s what my Irish mom raised us to do. And I taught my kids to do the same. This is a good and pious practice. It nurtures the faith of children. It nurtured my faith. The Church doesn’t require it. We just do it. We don’t walk by someone we know without saying hello. That would be rude. But we were talking about the necessity of receiving from the chalice, even though we have already received the host. You are absolutely right that Jesus is present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the host and the chalice. If you receive either one by itself, you have received Jesus. It is not necessary to receive both. It is not a lack of respect to only receive one species.

 

[miguel]

harinkj:

I very much share your concerns. I have never received the Precious Blodd because I almost always go to a Traditional Latin Mass and once several decades ago I saw the common cup used at an Episcopalian service and it freaked me out.

I don’t know what solution could be used. If the priest put it in a multitude of little cups, it would probably be cost prohibitive to have hundreds of silver cups. And then washing all of them. Dispensing with a dropper onto peoples tongues would seem strange. Maybe dispensing with a little spoon onto people’s tongues and not touching their tongues. My imagination is just running wild here.

Was the Precious Blood given in the early church? Of course germs were not known about then. If it was given then, why was the practice stopped?

• Kathie :bowdown:

Have you heard of intinction? The priest dips the host into the chalice before placing it on the tongue of the person receiving. They don’t want to do that because it would require people to receive on the tongue. That’s old school.

 

[harinkj]

miguel:

Have you heard of intinction? The priest dips the host into the chalice before placing it on the tongue of the person receiving. They don’t want to do that because it would require people to receive on the tongue. That’s old school.

You know. I had heard of intinction, but had totally forgotten about it when i wrote the post. Thanks for reminding me. That would be the best method by far. :clapping:

Kathie :bowdown:

 

[netmilsmom]

miguel:

Personally, I make the sign of the cross every time I pass by a Catholic Church. That’s what my Irish mom raised us to do. And I taught my kids to do the same. This is a good and pious practice. It nurtures the faith of children. It nurtured my faith. The Church doesn’t require it. We just do it. We don’t walk by someone we know without saying hello. That would be rude. But we were talking about the necessity of receiving from the chalice, even though we have already received the host. You are absolutely right that Jesus is present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the host and the chalice. If you receive either one by itself, you have received Jesus. It is not necessary to receive both. It is not a lack of respect to only receive one species.

Your Irish Mom must have come from the same school as my Polish Mom! We do the same.
And when a funeral passes, we say, “Eternal Rest granted onto them, Oh Lord and may perpetual light shine upon them.”
Now I do these traditions with my eight (happy birthday, big girl) and five year old.

 

[miguel]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Your Irish Mom must have come from the same school as my Polish Mom! We do the same.
And when a funeral passes, we say, “Eternal Rest granted onto them, Oh Lord and may perpetual light shine upon them.”
Now I do these traditions with my eight (happy birthday, big girl) and five year old.

…May he rest in peace. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen. Thank God for moms.

 

[ABalch]

I would like to disclose my own, anecdotal experiences as concerns infection and the sharing of the chalice.

An important fact to remember is that pneumonia is not a single disease. Pneumonia is, in fact, a specific condition of infection ran rampant in the lungs. Pneumonia describes the condition of the lungs being filled with fluids and infection. You can contract pneumonia from a simple cold, or from the flu, or after nearly drowning, or anything that results in a buildup of fluids in the lungs.

A couple years before I joined The Church, I contracted a case of “walking pneumonia”. Basically, during a short lived bout of the common cold, or a light flue, I did not clear the infection from my lungs, and had over fifty percent of my lung capacity filled with fluid, but until near the end, when my lungs were very full, I thought I had had a simple cold that I got over in the matter of a couple days. It was over two weeks later that I got to the point of needing an ambulance to take me to the hospital, because I could not breathe well enough.

At this time I was going through a bout of depression after my last realationship had ended, and so I actually wasn’t out and about with many people, and the usual vectors for the communication of disease were largely absent.

On the other hand, since joining The Church, except on those occasions that I do not partake of the Eucharist because of a failure to get to confession when I have something weighing on my soul, I have always taken communion by both species, unless I myself am sick. Since I usher, and in my parish, the ushers are the last people to go through the line, and I commonly will finish what is in the chalice that i drink from, complete with all those posibilities for backwash, etc. In this time, I have been rarely ill with even a common cold, and off the top of my head, I would have to say that personally, my job gives me much greater risk of catching something than even drinking out of a common cup of water, since I work in a laboratory, dealing with bacteria samples on nearly a daily basis.

I wish I could remember where I saw this study, and if I can I will post it here, but I remember a study where someone determined that the normal manner that teh EMHCs and priests take in wiping the chalice lip between communicants proved to keep a chalice free enough from germs even when the study was carried out with a large group of people sipping from a common chalice of regular tap water.

 

[palmas85]

I still feel that if the Laity is to receive under both species that intinction is by far the best method. Anyone have any ideas why it is not more widely practiced in the Latin Rite? It is a valid option, not forbidden as I understand, and would greatly cut down the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Communion

Of course, that is probably why they will never adopt it on a grand scale in the Latin Rite.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

palmas85:

Of course, that is probably why they will never adopt it on a grand scale in the Latin Rite.

That, and the fact that intinction requires reception on the tongue – another sticking point for some.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society**
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[palmas85]

CarolAnnSFO:

That, and the fact that intinction requires reception on the tongue – another sticking point for some.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society**
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

Yeah, that one slipped my mind. I just woke up.

 

[netmilsmom]

ABalch:

I would have to say that personally, my job gives me much greater risk of catching something than even drinking out of a common cup of water, since I work in a laboratory, dealing with bacteria samples on nearly a daily basis.

Maybe you have built up more immunities because of where you work?

I wish I could remember where I saw this study, and if I can I will post it here, but I remember a study where someone determined that the normal manner that teh EMHCs and priests take in wiping the chalice lip between communicants proved to keep a chalice free enough from germs even when the study was carried out with a large group of people sipping from a common chalice of regular tap water.

I simply cannot believe that wiping a cup, with the same cloth every time, I may add, can keep it free enough from germs.
When I worked Banquets in college, we were told that a Syphilis virus in a lipstick mark on a glass, can live through seven industrial diswashings. Glasses were to be soaked in a solution before going into the diswasher.

Somehow the study you site does not make sense to me.

 

[Petertherock]

This is why they should do things the way Vatican II intended and only have the blood under special conditions.

 

[Petertherock]

Also, this adds to what I say about taking the Host by mouth. No matter how good the priest is there is always a chance the priests finger will touch the communicants mouth/toung and therefore expose everyone else.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

miguel:

Personally, I make the sign of the cross every time I pass by a Catholic Church. That’s what my Irish mom raised us to do.

My convert dad (God rest his soul) raised us to do the same thing. I’m such a scatterbrain that I usually forget to do it though. Of course, nowadays, you sometimes have trouble identifying a Catholic church. Some of these places I’ll look at and think, “Is it Methodist, Lutheran or just a Wal-Mart?” :nope:

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

My convert dad (God rest his soul) raised us to do the same thing. I’m such a scatterbrain that I usually forget to do it though. Of course, nowadays, you sometimes have trouble identifying a Catholic church. Some of these places I’ll look at and think, “Is it Methodist, Lutheran or just a Wal-Mart?” :nope:

We have one that people refer to as the “Space Ship Parish”.
Pitifully, this is the one that had “Stations of the Cross” done by a Mine Group.

I’m not kidding.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

We have one that people refer to as the “Space Ship Parish”.
Pitifully, this is the one that had “Stations of the Cross” done by a Mine Group.

I’m not kidding.

I can just imagine…

The first station: Jesus stuck in a box.

The second station: Jesus going down stairs.

It’s funny, but when I drive by old boarded up churches in the inner city, I can usually pick out the Catholic ones. Gothic revival seemed to be the style of choice back then in my city. The Protestants tended to favor lots of pale brick.

 

[Kielbasi]

It’s funny, but when I drive by old boarded up churches in the inner city, I can usually pick out the Catholic ones. Gothic revival seemed to be the style of choice back then in my city

Not in Pittsburgh.

Certainly there are some neo-gothic Catholic churches, but romanesque seems to be the theme.

Our protestant forefathers here all seemed to have more of a classical appreciation of Gothic , if you take a look at 1st Presbyterian, 1st Baptist or the Presbyterian cathedral in East Liberty built by the Mellon family.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

Not in Pittsburgh.

Certainly there are some neo-gothic Catholic churches, but romanesque seems to be the theme.

Our protestant forefathers here all seemed to have more of a classical appreciation of Gothic , if you take a look at 1st Presbyterian, 1st Baptist or the Presbyterian cathedral in East Liberty built by the Mellon family.

Oh, boy. I’m getting in above my head.

I like Romanesque myself, but you don’t see too many in my city. And since there are so many Gothic Catholic churches, that’s probably why the protestants avoided that style. Just a guess.

Most of the newer Protestant churches here seem to favor Colonial, if that’s the correct name. You know, white columns and red brick.

Back on topic…backwash…yuck! :nope:

 

[thedogmother]

My 2 cents…

The wine is CONSECRATED… Jesus would not let us get sick!

Praise be Jesus Christ!

Claire B from ME

 

[miguel]

Dr. Bombay:

My convert dad (God rest his soul) raised us to do the same thing. I’m such a scatterbrain that I usually forget to do it though. Of course, nowadays, you sometimes have trouble identifying a Catholic church. Some of these places I’ll look at and think, “Is it Methodist, Lutheran or just a Wal-Mart?” :nope:

If it’s unrecognizable as a Catholic Church, I’m sure Our Lord will cut you some slack. Can’t say I have the same confidence for the folks who made it that way.