No wine

[tee_eff_em]

So, pathogens can be transmitted during Holy Communion.

“Metaphysical calculus” new one on me tee!

*…What our senses fail to fathom
Let us grasp through *corruptibility’s consent…

Does not trip off the tongue the same way, does it?

tee

 

[ConstantineTG]

WRONG again Constantine, the church has always said that disease could not be passed through reception of Holy Communion.

From Karl Keating, Catholic Answers:

CAN YOU CATCH A COLD FROM THE COMMUNION CUP?

The chalice or cup used at Mass is just as likely (or just as unlikely) to transmit disease as is any other cup that is shared among multiple people. The Consecration has no effect whatsoever on this.

Why? Because the Consecration affects only the substance of the wine, not its accidents. After the Consecration, what is in the cup is properly called the Blood of Christ, but it maintains all the outward properties of wine. Moreover, the Consecration has no effect on anything in the cup that is not wine.

If there are any contaminants in the wine prior to the Consecration, they remain in the cup. The contaminants are not themselves transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ. So, if there had been a particle of dust prior to the Consecration, there remains a particle of (unconsecrated) dust afterward.

Similarly, any foreign substance, such as a bacterium or virus, that is intruded into the cup after the Consecration remains what it is. It does not become consecrated into the Blood of Christ–nor does it lose its nature as a bacterium or virus.

Some pious people think that any contaminant, of any sort, is somehow neutralized by the Precious Blood. This is not true.

Others think that bacteria and viruses in particular are neutralized by the alcoholic nature of the now-consecrated wine. Again, untrue.

Alcohol kills only in almost-pure concentration. Altar wine commonly is no more than about 12 percent alcohol, far too low a percentage to kill off microscopic intruders. So, even though the consecrated wine (now the Precious Blood) maintains the accidents of the wine and, thus, the alcoholic properties that the wine had, those alcoholic properties aren’t enough to get rid of bacteria or viruses.

Bottom line: You are just as likely (or unlikely) to pass along disease through sharing a Communion cup as you are in sharing a cup of plain wine.

If you do not hesitate to use a wine glass that fifty other people already have used, then you should not hesitate to receive from the Communion cup that fifty other people already have received from.

If you think there is a problem with drinking from that glass of plain wine, you should think there is the same problem drinking from the Communion cup.

It’s your choice.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040615.asp

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Others think that bacteria and viruses in particular are neutralized by the alcoholic nature of the now-consecrated wine. Again, untrue.

Correct!

If alcohol (ethanol to be precise) killed microorganisms (and at some very high concentrations it can kill some) we wouldn’t have alcohol in the first place. Altar (and all other forms of) wine starts out as juice extracted from a fruit (grapes for altar wine but other fruits can be used for other types of wine); microorganisms, i.e. single-celled fungi (yeasts) convert sugars (fructose), under anaerobic conditions, in the fruit juice into alcohol (ethanol), converting non-alcoholic fruit (grape) juice into alcoholic wine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Correct!

If alcohol (ethanol to be precise) killed microorganisms (and at some very high concentrations it can kill some) we wouldn’t have alcohol in the first place. Altar (and all other forms of) wine starts out as juice extracted from a fruit (grapes for altar wine but other fruits can be used for other types of wine); microorganisms, i.e. single-celled fungi (yeasts) convert sugars (fructose), under anaerobic conditions, in the fruit juice into alcohol (ethanol), converting non-alcoholic fruit (grape) juice into alcoholic wine.

I do have faith in its correctness as its from Karl Keating

 

[Phemie]

From Karl Keating, Catholic Answers:

CAN YOU CATCH A COLD FROM THE COMMUNION CUP?

The chalice or cup used at Mass is just as likely (or just as unlikely) to transmit disease as is any other cup that is shared among multiple people. The Consecration has no effect whatsoever on this.

As true as all that is, there seems to not be a recorded instance when someone was infected from drinking from the Chalice. That’s not to say it has never happened, just that there is no record. In New Brunswick, Canada, in 2001 (my, how time flies when you get to my age) there was a case of a patient diagnosed with meningitis who had received from the Chalice at a funeral the day before. An alert went out for anyone who had also received from the Chalice to report to Public Health for treatment and many were prescribed antibiotics.

A few years ago I posted a link to an article from that time but that link appears to be broken. Here is the article from the Toronto “Globe and Mail”

THE CHALICE IS SACRED, BUT IS IT SAFE? MENINGITIS CASE IN NEW BRUNSWICK REVIVES DEBATE OVER HYGIENE IN CHURCH
February 21, 2001
Globe and Mail
A1
Michael Valpy and Kevin Cox
theglobeandmail.com/gam/N…21/UCUPPN.html
A woman diagnosed with deadly meningitis after attending a New Brunswick village funeral has, according to this story, reignited debate in the Anglican Church over whether the common communion cup is unhygienic and spreads disease.

About 80 people who drank from the same cup as the woman at a service in the tiny community of Bay du Vin have been told by public-health officials to visit their family doctors or community clinics. Many of them have been prescribed antibiotics. The woman, from Quebec, was diagnosed with meningitis shortly after the funeral.

David Assaff, medical officer of health for New Brunswick’s northern Miramichi region, was cited as saying the chances of contracting meningitis from the shared cup are extremely low but theoretically possible. The research supports Dr. Assaff. No case of communion-cup infection has ever been documented. But Anglicans – and to a lesser degree Lutherans and Roman Catholics – have been arguing about the issue ever since bacteria-born diseases have been known about.

The story says there are two camps: those who sip and those who dip – the latter practice (known as intincture) being to dip the communion bread in the wine contained in the chalice rather than to sip the wine from the cup.

Sault Ste. Marie cardiologist David Gould, whose study for the Anglican Church on common cup hygiene was reported in the Anglican Journal late last year, was cited as declaring dipping to be more unhygienic than sipping. His reasoning was that fingers (which hold the bread being dipped) carry more bacteria than lips (whose point of contact with the cup is wiped clean by the person administering communion after every use). Dr. Gould’s conclusions, in fact, have set off another debate within the church about shaking hands during the liturgical greetings of peace in the worship service – a practice some Anglicans still do not like.

 

[Petergee]

You misunderstand, I was responding to a post regarding there is no faith in those who believe the accident of wine can carry disease even when it has become the Blood of Christ. All I meant was that fear of disease is a reasonable pretense to refuse the Blood of Christ to laymen and clergy not saying Mass.

OK, but then what did you mean by

So was there any faith in the Dogmatic Council of Trent?

 

[Petergee]

I get the impression the chalice must be offered regularly in the US. I think it is still the Church’s norm to only give the Sacred Body at Communion and the Precious Blood only on cetain occasions.

Yes, that is the Church’s norm. And the Church’s main concern about the chalicce being given to the laity is the risk of profanation. The Church directes that if there is any risk of profanation, the chalice is not to be offered. This is a far more important concern than the slightly increased risk of disease transmission.

On the other issue witholding the Chalice because of seasonal viral illnesses such as colds and flu is an overreaction. For the vast majority of people they’re annoying but not serious illnesses. For those at high risk there are vaccination programmes. If someone in Church has a cold or flu you’ve a very good chance of catching it whether you drink from the same chalice or not.

Or it could just be a correction tothe previous overreaction in many places whetre the chalcie was offered to everyone at every Mass.

You might as well stop giving the Sacred Body as well - the virus could pass from one communicant’s hand to the communion minister’s hand to the next communicant’s hand. Communion on the tongue is likely to increase the risk considerably.

No that’s infinitesimally unlikely. Unless the communion minister has really sloppy technique, he never touches the hand/tongue of a communicant with his own hand.

But then there are those ministers who insist on tracing a “blessing” on the foreheads of children who are non-communicants but join the procession anyway. This really revolts me as well as cheeses me off. I do not want the germs from a dozen kids’ foreheads on the Host that I receive!

 

[puzzleannie]

We sometimes go to mass at a very small parish in northern California. They stopped offering wine during the Eucharist last year when the H1N1 scare was at it’s height but they still do not offer it. Is there something going on in California that I am not aware of?

not California specifically, your parish, it is up to the pastor and I am sure he has good and sufficient reasons.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No that’s infinitesimally unlikely. Unless the communion minister has really sloppy technique, he never touches the hand/tongue of a communicant with his own hand.

The probability does exist and may not arise from sloppy technique but because of the way viruses can transmit. The crux of my argument was that really if you’re in a church, or elsewhere, and there’s someone with an illness such as cold or flu then there’s a high chance of you catching it. Receiving communion only increases the risk marginally.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As true as all that is, there seems to not be a recorded instance when someone was infected from drinking from the Chalice. That’s not to say it has never happened, just that there is no record.

Basically, it just isn’t worth doing. It is possible to do, in theory, but the time, money, resources are just not worth it for such relatively minor illnesses. A lot of us will get seasonal viral illnesses and never know how we caught it. For me personally it’d be no big deal that I might have got this winter’s cold from the Chalice.

[Off topic - but daily dose of Vitamin C. Been taking it for 3 years and not had one upper respiratory tract illness, e.g. cold, flu in all that time]

 

[ConstantineTG]

As true as all that is, there seems to not be a recorded instance when someone was infected from drinking from the Chalice. That’s not to say it has never happened, just that there is no record. In New Brunswick, Canada, in 2001 (my, how time flies when you get to my age) there was a case of a patient diagnosed with meningitis who had received from the Chalice at a funeral the day before. An alert went out for anyone who had also received from the Chalice to report to Public Health for treatment and many were prescribed antibiotics.

A few years ago I posted a link to an article from that time but that link appears to be broken. Here is the article from the Toronto “Globe and Mail”

I think the reason the Church never teaches that is because they don’t want to turn the Eucharist into a superstition as some sort of power pill that can cure illnesses. I do believe that the Body and Blood of Christ can cure all diseases and is disease free, but only if our faith is in the right place. It may not happen for everyone depending on God’s Will and the Church does not want people to get the wrong understanding of it. If one drinks from the Cup and gets a cold, then what? The Church is fake? I think thats the scenario the Church is avoiding.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

not California specifically, your parish, it is up to the pastor and I am sure he has good and sufficient reasons.

Hopefully he was able to dump one or more EMHC as unnecessary.

 

[tee_eff_em]

As true as all that is, there seems to not be a recorded instance when someone was infected from drinking from the Chalice. That’s not to say it has never happened, just that there is no record.

As often as I have caught cold, I could not reliably “record” the vector of contagion for more than a handful of them.

I once collected a sampling of conflicting reports on the subject: [post=1824552]Karl Keating’s E-Letter of January 16, 2007[/post]. cf also the E-Letter that thread refers to for anecdotal evidence of a priest feeling infected by the chalice.

tee

 

[Aramis]

We sometimes go to mass at a very small parish in northern California. They stopped offering wine during the Eucharist last year when the H1N1 scare was at it’s height but they still do not offer it. Is there something going on in California that I am not aware of?

As long as the priest has wine to transubstantiate, and consumes the blood, it’s valid and licit.

There is no requirement to offer both species of the Eucharist to the faithful.

 

[Petergee]

The probability does exist and may not arise from sloppy technique but because of the way viruses can transmit. The crux of my argument was that really if you’re in a church, or elsewhere, and there’s someone with an illness such as cold or flu then there’s a high chance of you catching it.

Yes, if you come close enough for him to breathe on you, or if he touches you, or you touch something that he has touched.

Receiving communion only increases the risk marginally.

Yes and that’s true regardless of whether it’s CitH or CotT.