Is the cloth used to wipe the chalice a sanitary cloth?

[larsenl1]

admittedly it dont taste nice on the lips but lipstick is a great bug deterant so if you come after a female wearing heavy lipstick you be protected anyway.

a lot of people I notice are given the wafer in their hand and they take it and dip it into the chalice and receive the blood that way

I have been taught that to receive by intinction one should hand the host to the minister holding the chalice who dips the Host and hands it back to the communicant.

 

[Jegudiel]

As far a germ killing agents sprayed on purificators, no. Traditionally even starch is not sprayed on purificators, but is allowed on corporals if desired, (starch is a natural wheat product). The Church according to its document wants the traditional methods of washing and preparing the altar linen.

My regrets but you simply don’t have the authority to make that call. That would be up to the local pastor or bishop. I doubt either one would give such a directive unless their was research showing the practice to be of benefit and I know of no such research.

No where does the Church state that purificators cannot be treated with a a disinfectant that is safe to ingest for the purpose of halting the spread of disease.

 

[Jegudiel]

I have been taught that to receive by intinction one should hand the host to the minister holding the chalice who dips the Host and hands it back to the communicant.

No. Goodness gracious… The intinction process is done by one person, typically a cleric. Sometimes the chalice will be held for them by another individual but what you suggest is very bad form.

 

[Jegudiel]

admittedly it dont taste nice on the lips but lipstick is a great bug deterant so if you come after a female wearing heavy lipstick you be protected anyway.

a lot of people I notice are given the wafer in their hand and they take it and dip it into the chalice and receive the blood that way

Many of the Orthodox churches prohibit women from wearing make-up when they receive Holy Communion. If you’ve ever seen a purificator after communion in some parishes, it makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[Jegudiel]

General Instructions of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition (latest)

1. If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently; and if any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.

Pouring the water into the ground is more than just praiseworth. It is also in the GIRM.

Notice is says “should” and not “must.”

 

[Jegudiel]

No, that was explained in another thread. There are strict planning rules nowadays about discharging waste water. It cannot be discharged other than into the sewer. Churches built in the last thirty years or so don’t have sacrariums for that reason, and ours has been blocked up - I presume following some inspection or other.

Not true. You are mistaken. There is no prohibition for the religious use of a sacrariums. After all it’s grey water without any form of soap or detergent. It’s harmless. Brand new churches/cathedrals have sacrariums in places with very tight municipal regulations. The drain line for the sacrarium simply goes to a simple, small, dedicated septic tank.

 

[Jegudiel]

I always understood that it was mandatory for the sink in the sacristy to empty directly into the earth outside, precisely for the cleaning of altar vessels and cloths.

Keep in mind there are still typically sinks in sacristies in addition to special-use sacrariums.

 

[triumphguy]

When I was an altar boy in Manchester our Church had the sacrarium empty into a little flower garden. I always thought that was very reverential.

As to inctinction. It’s allowed in Anglican Churches, but it’s my belief that it’'s considered an “abuse” in RC Churches.

Edit: no it’s not according to my very brief research.

 

[indiecath]

Churches have more then one purificator. They are cleaned of course.

 

[whipp711]

It seems to me the only region that offers the Blood of Christ in everyday Mass is in the U.S. I don’t see this in France, or Germany, or any number of Catholic churches in Asia Pacific. I understand the churches pronouncements.

As for practice here, I’m going by what my microbiologist wife insist. Host only. Nisseria meningititis can hitch a ride on a water molecule. Christ can heal all and the consecrated blood of Christ is holy, but member of the congregation can pass along a nasty bug.

As for the really bad example of CDC not getting involved or having a case of communion transmission as proof of there not being a case, please. There must be a clear relationship between disease and transmission. For example, said microbiologist wife. Contracted a rare bug from working a lab sample. Clear case of medical worker and sample. CDC won’t chase colds caught in a subway, at a church, or at a Knights of Columbus meeting. Now tainted food brings in a different agency.

 

[TigerKitty]

What a very interesting thread - I am learning alot about purificators and sacrariums.

Although I have no reference to support this as a practicing Catholic, I have a belief that no microorganisms would be transmitted person-to-person by the Precious Blood. However, in contradiction, I do abstain from receiving under both species when I feel a bit under the weather.

And now I will put on my microbiologist hat.

Precious metals (gold, silver, etc.) do inhibit the growth of microorganisms, and this comes from my background in microbiology. Note that “inhibit” does not mean “kill instantly”.

Also, when passing on bacteria or viruses, the infectious dose must be high enough. Simply put, a few microbes here and there won’t make you sick. You need to encounter quite a bit.

Also, alcohol kills most bacteria, and will also deactivate enveloped viruses, such as the influenza virus.

Microbiologically speaking, I have greater fear of getting sick sitting within 4 feet of anyone who is coughing/sneezing with a runny nose for an hour (and even shaking hands at the sign of peace) than I have in getting sick from consuming the Precious Blood.

 

[TigerKitty]

One other thought…

Neisseria meningitidis is a Gram negative diplococcus which is far, far larger than a single water molecule. Since it is Gram negative, it is sensitive to alcohols.

The most common route for transmisstion of N. meningitidis is airborne transmission, which is why it is associated with outbreaks among college students. You would be at risk of contracting this disease simply by sitting near someone for the duration of Mass. People who have meningitis are usually so sick with high fever, chills, severe headache, nausea, etc., that they would be in no shape to attend church.

 

[Jegudiel]

It seems to me the only region that offers the Blood of Christ in everyday Mass is in the U.S. I don’t see this in France, or Germany, or any number of Catholic churches in Asia Pacific. I understand the churches pronouncements.

As for practice here, I’m going by what my microbiologist wife insist. Host only. Nisseria meningititis can hitch a ride on a water molecule. Christ can heal all and the consecrated blood of Christ is holy, but member of the congregation can pass along a nasty bug.

As for the really bad example of CDC not getting involved or having a case of communion transmission as proof of there not being a case, please. There must be a clear relationship between disease and transmission. For example, said microbiologist wife. Contracted a rare bug from working a lab sample. Clear case of medical worker and sample. CDC won’t chase colds caught in a subway, at a church, or at a Knights of Columbus meeting. Now tainted food brings in a different agency.

Your wife can insist on anything she wants to but microbiologist or not, it doesn’t make her insistence of any value whatsoever. I appreciate having posts #51 and 52 to provide some contrast to your wife’s insistence.

 

[Digitonomy]

Also, alcohol kills most bacteria, and will also deactivate enveloped viruses, such as the influenza virus.

Alcohol is an effective killer of bacteria only at much higher concentrations than found in wine. That is why rubbing alcohol is normally sold in pharmacies at 70% concentration.

Wine, IIRC, is generally 18% and below. A couple of articles that you and whipp711’s wife may enjoy are

Bactericidal Effects of Alcohol-Water Mixtures, BMJ 1945 by Archer GTL and
Phenol and Alcohol in T.A.B.C. Vaccine, BMJ 1942 by Cruickshank JC et al

The latter states that in their experiments, it sometimes took longer than 24 hours for their innoculated solution of 22.5% alcohol to become sterile. There are probably not any bacteria (except possibly spore-forming bacteria) in the bottle of wine used for mass, which has been sitting around for many many hours self-sterilizing. However, the research suggests that the brief 10 minutes or so from the first sip of a chalice until the end of communion is insufficient time to kill many bacteria in the accidents of wine.

I would guess that viruses would be easier to kill with alcohol, but I have no idea how much more quickly that would happen.

 

[Lapey]

a lot of people I notice are given the wafer in their hand and they take it and dip it into the chalice and receive the blood that way

As a cup minister, you must try to stop communicants from intincting on their own, only a cleric can do this with the proper set up; a proper set of intinction vessels and/or a paten held under the host as it is moved from the cup to the tongue. It is debatable whether a deacon can distribute by intinction. I have a question in to our office of worship on this very question. But there is no doubt that the laity, EMHC, cannot distribute Holy Communion by intinction.

I’ve been caught off guard once where at a funeral, the guy walked up to me holding the cup, as I spoke the words, “The Blood of Christ.” He quickly dipped the host that I didn’t notice he held cupped in his hand, then quickly consumed it. I was quite surprised. There have been a few other times where I saw what the person was about to do and I stopped them without a scene, although one time I had to put my hand over the cup to block the person from dipping; then she got the message.

I have been taught that to receive by intinction one should hand the host to the minister holding the chalice who dips the Host and hands it back to the communicant.

This too should not be done. If you are taught to do this, please see your pastor about this abuse.

To the disposal of water in the situations mentioned here, there are no situations where it is permissible to put water which contains fragments or anything connected with either species of the Eucharist into the sewer. Linens need to be washed with special care no matter if Precious Blood or Sacred Body particles are visible or not. This water needs to be treated with dignity and reverence as if sacred. The sewer is no place for the sacred, the flower bed outside the church is.

There are no laws, at least just laws, that can prohibit one from properly disposing of this water, whether your church has a sacrorium or not.

As far as the OP’s question, it is a matter of personal choice whether to receive the PB or not, it’s not required. I never pass unless I am sick, and I never fear about getting sick from the cup. My energy is better spent thinking about and praying about what or Who I am receiving. Either way, the linen is a cloth of sacred use, it does not disinfect, nor can it be made to. That would bring up the risk of profanation to the Eucharist. Bishops would stop the practice of offering Communion under both kinds before taking that chance. It is not required to offer both, it is optional.

 

[larsenl1]

As a cup minister, you must try to stop communicants from intincting on their own, only a cleric can do this with the proper set up; a proper set of intinction vessels and/or a paten held under the host as it is moved from the cup to the tongue. It is debatable whether a deacon can distribute by intinction. I have a question in to our office of worship on this very question. But there is no doubt that the laity, EMHC, cannot distribute Holy Communion by intinction.

Thank you for the correction and instruction. I must have misunderstood what our priest said at an instruction class for candidates. He was explaining that sometimes this may be done but was not the ordinary way and then he explained the communicant could not dip the host. I guess I missed the part where it had to be a priest holding the chalice.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for the correction and instruction. I must have misunderstood what our priest said at an instruction class for candidates. He was explaining that sometimes this may be done but was not the ordinary way and then he explained the communicant could not dip the host. I guess I missed the part where it had to be a priest holding the chalice.

To clarify even further, if intinction is being offered, then the Host will not be offered to the communicant; rather the priest will hold both the ciborium and the chalice on a special vessel designed for the purpose - he will take out a Host, intinct it in the chalice, and then place it on the tongue of the communicant. The communicant never touches the Host with his own hands in this case. As mentioned above, it is only the priest who is permitted to do this, and only if the proper vessels are available for him to do it correctly.

 

[otjm]

Precisely. Besides, it is cleaner than the Holy Water font, which is also touched by little children as well as by adults - if you are going to catch something from your fellow parishioners, you already caught it when you blessed yourself at the font.

Best response I have ever read.

 

[Jegudiel]

To clarify even further, if intinction is being offered, then the Host will not be offered to the communicant; rather the priest will hold both the ciborium and the chalice on a special vessel designed for the purpose - he will take out a Host, intinct it in the chalice, and then place it on the tongue of the communicant. The communicant never touches the Host with his own hands in this case. As mentioned above, it is only the priest who is permitted to do this, and only if the proper vessels are available for him to do it correctly.

That’s open to debate. There is no express prohibition from the Church. And that makes sense because there is absolutely no liturgical reason to limit the distribution of Holy Communion by intinction to priests once the Church granted laypersons the approval to distribute communion under specific conditions. Many priests have far shakier hands and worse hand/eye coordination than EMsHC. Like many things it’s ultimately up to the local ordinary.

 

[Lapey]

That’s open to debate. There is no express prohibition from the Church. And that makes sense because there is absolutely no liturgical reason to limit the distribution of Holy Communion by intinction to priests once the Church granted laypersons the approval to distribute communion under specific conditions. Many priests have far shakier hands and worse hand/eye coordination than EMsHC. Like many things it’s ultimately up to the local ordinary.

The lay minister, EMHC, is not commissioned to distribute by intinction. If you notice this paragraph from the 2002 GIRM, you will see it specifically states the priest. I have requested a clarification as to whether a deacon can distribute in this manner, but I haven’t received a response yet from the office of worship in my diocese. But I can assure you that the bishops agree the EMHC is not authorized to distribute by intinction, the deacon is in question.

The reason to limit this practice is simple; it is to limit the possibility of profanation of the Eucharist. There is higher risk involved with intinction.

“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”