No wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mz_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mz_P

Guest
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?
 
Mz_P said:
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?
Click to expand...
My parish ( a rather large and profitable one) also decided to not offer the BLOOD OF CHRIST (not ‘wine’). I know some Parishes choose to repeal the Blood of Christ once the flu, cold, and sick seasons start rolling in. Yours may be one of them. However, by:
they still do not offer it
Click to expand...
do you mean to say that they stopped altogether? They have just started to stop again? Please clarify.

Also, welcome to the Forums.

~ Pius :knight1:
 
Mz_P said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Cup is normally withheld is most places around the world. From about the Council of Trent until Vatican II, the Cup was completely withheld from the laity to reinforce the teaching that Christ is whole and undivided, and fully present in each of the Eucharistic Species.
 
True in the Council of Trent it was stated that anyone who said that the Church did not have sufficient reason to withold the sacramental wine was anathema. The main reason was the spreading of disease as well as the risk of spilling the Blood of Christ:eek:
 
It’s sad to think that people would think GOD would allow a virus into HIS blood. Where has the faith gone…
 
Well, I would sure hope no church would be offering wine. 🤷 The precious blood of Jesus, on the other hand…

Anyway, withholding the cup is a valid and legitimate practice and has been done for centuries. The offering of the cup was reintroduced after VII, as an option. The main intent was to combat the heresy that the division of the elements was a division of Christ, that is, only the sacred host contained Jesus’s body and only the precious blood contained His blood.
 
FrCorey said:
It’s sad to think that people would think GOD would allow a virus into HIS blood. Where has the faith gone…
Click to expand...
CANON 11.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema

One of these just reasons and causes was to prevent the spread of disease. So was there any faith in the Dogmatic**** Council of Trent?

Read it here:

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
CANON 11.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema

One of these just reasons and causes was to prevent the spread of disease. So was there any faith in the Dogmatic**** Council of Trent?

Read it here:

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html
Click to expand...
Read the Canon again carefully. It says that Catholics are not permitted to deny that the Church in the 16th century had just reason for instituting a *temporary prudential disciplinary ruling * to withhold the chalice from laymen. It does not say that Catholics are required to believe that the chalice mustfor all time and everywhere be withheld from laymen. Nor does it say that reasons advanced in the 16th century would always justify such a discipline.

The Church’s prudential judgments in these matters are fallible. For example it now appears that the then fears about the spread of disease were overstated. Especially today when we have antibiotics, vaccination, better sanitation etc.

And in any case the only just cause and reason necessary for the Pope and bishops to make any disciplinary ruling about how and by whom any of the sacraments is to be received, is the fact that our Lord appointed St Peter and the other Apostles and their successors to rule His Church in all matters temporal and spiritual.
 
FrCorey said:
It’s sad to think that people would think GOD would allow a virus into HIS blood. Where has the faith gone…
Click to expand...
Father Corey, the Church herself recognizes this. Because the accidents remain, the physical world reacts the same way to it. I know I’ve read something in the past that says as such, I just have to recall what document it was so I can share a link to it.
 
FrCorey said:
It’s sad to think that people would think GOD would allow a virus into HIS blood. Where has the faith gone…
Click to expand...
So Father, do we conclude that you believe that during His earthly life, our Lord never suffered from a cold or flu or any other infectious disease? Scripture and Tradition tell us otherwise, that He lived our human life in all its joys and sufferings in exactly the same way we do except that He did not sin.
 
Petergee said:
Read the Canon again carefully. It says that Catholics are not permitted to deny that the Church in the 16th century had just reason for instituting a *temporary prudential disciplinary ruling * to withhold the chalice from laymen. It does not say that Catholics are required to believe that the chalice mustfor all time and everywhere be withheld from laymen. Nor does it say that reasons advanced in the 16th century would always justify such a discipline.

The Church’s prudential judgments in these matters are fallible. For example it now appears that the then fears about the spread of disease were overstated. Especially today when we have antibiotics, vaccination, better sanitation etc.

And in any case the only just cause and reason necessary for the Pope and bishops to make any disciplinary ruling about how and by whom any of the sacraments is to be received, is the fact that our Lord appointed St Peter and the other Apostles and their successors to rule His Church in all matters temporal and spiritual.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FrCorey said:
It’s sad to think that people would think GOD would allow a virus into HIS blood. Where has the faith gone…
Click to expand...
Fr. Corey. I’m really surprized to see a priest making this statement. An accidental property of wine is that it can carry virii. That, would of course, remain.

Likewise, if there was a poison that could be dissolved in wine, it would also be dissolved in the species of wine.

If that were not so, there really would be a physical test that a scientist could run to distinguish wine from the species of wine.

If virii were introduced and remained, it was simply wine. If the virii vanished, it was the Precious Blood.

But that is NOT how Christ instituted the Sacrament. He chose to do so with the Accidents, the measurable physical properties, veiling His Divinity.
 
Mz P,

The Church ALLOWS both species to be offered to the faithful, under certain circumstances.

But it does not REQUIRE that both species be offered.

The species of bread, and the species of wine are indentical in Substance. In other words, it is the same thing, (Christ) it just appears differently to our senses.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Father Corey, the Church herself recognizes this. Because the accidents remain, the physical world reacts the same way to it. I know I’ve read something in the past that says as such, I just have to recall what document it was so I can share a link to it.
Click to expand...
WRONG again Constantine, the church has always said that disease could not be passed through reception of Holy Communion.
 
ciero said:
WRONG again Constantine, the church has always said that disease could not be passed through reception of Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Your comment has greatly interested me. Is the Church saying that no pathogen can be transmitted through the reception of Holy Communion? Does it teach that it cannot be transmitted via the Sacred Species themselves? What about transmission via materials such as he chalice or the purificator used to wipe the chalice or transmission via the hands of the Communion ministers.

I would be really grateful if you could cite some sources I could read upon this.

Thanks!
 
ciero said:
WRONG again Constantine, the church has always said that disease could not be passed through reception of Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Is this a pious Orthodox claim or something? It’s certainly not something the Catholic Church has ever said. Constantine is quite right.
 
ciero said:
WRONG again Constantine, the church has always said that disease could not be passed through reception of Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
WRONG again, ciero, the Church has always said that the accidents of wine remain after transubstantiation.

If you set a cup of common wine next to a chalice bearing the blood of Christ, do you suppose that viruses, bacteria, et cetera are capable of some sort of metaphysical calculus, which allows them to distinguish into which one which one they may be carried?

tee
 
MarkThompson said:
Is this a pious Orthodox claim or something? It’s certainly not something the Catholic Church has ever said. Constantine is quite right.
Click to expand...
tee_eff_em said:
WRONG again, ciero, the Church has always said that the accidents of wine remain after transubstantiation.

If you set a cup of common wine next to a chalice bearing the blood of Christ, do you suppose that viruses, bacteria, et cetera are capable of some sort of metaphysical calculus, which allows them to distinguish into which one which one they may be carried?

tee
Click to expand...
So, pathogens can be transmitted during Holy Communion.

“Metaphysical calculus” new one on me tee!🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top