Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[snarflemike]

uch:

Catholic-Atheist-Catholic

This is supposed to be a serious thread for Catholics concerning Holy Communion. Do you really suppose if someone put anthrax on a thread ouch the first thing they’d be doing is going around telling people who were about to consume it that they did ?

Please take comments like the one quoted above to the clubhouse or something.

It’s called a thought experiment. I await your answer.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Right, but the physical accidents aren’t removed from the bread and wine; they’re still there. So this question has nothing to do with the topic of whether physical things can be transmitted into our body by other physical things.

The question is not whether Christ is present in the bread and wine. We know He is, let’s move on. The question is whether the physical accidents can carry viruses and bacteria into our bodies. Since our Lord never promised that the consecrated Host could kill viruses and bacteria I won’t assume that it will.

I don’t think we can move on until you can answer how we should somehow hypothetically be able to separate Our Blessed Lord from the accidents.We know that as long as those appearances/accidents are present, the consecrated Host remains the Body (Blood, Soul and Divinity) of Christ - God in person. Hence my question. The explanation you offer so far has already separated Our Blessed Lord from the accidents, yet you rightly claim at the same time that He is present in the (consecrated species which have the appearances of) bread and wine ; and yet you have already previously said that , “Our Lord isn’t the transmitter of disease.”

So the only logical answer left is that there is some kind of separation between our Blessed Lord - Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity, and the accidents of bread and wine.

Thanks for contributing Marc Anthony, I have a fairly heavy apostolate tomorrow and Monday, so I may not be able to check back on the thread till Monday evening.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut a lot -

A short excerpt from : Behind The Mass, Rev. Albert Joseph Mary Shamon ; [pg27]

First of all, transubstantiation does not explain how our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament. That is a mystery of faith. transubstatiation simply shows that the doctrine of His Presence is not something contrary to reason.

God bless, Marc Anthony.
Have a good evening.

 

[NeedImprovement]

A final reflection from Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical *Mysterium Fidei * (Mystery of Faith , 9/3/65 )

. . . the Fathers took special care to warn the faithful that in reflecting on this most august Sacrament, they should not trust to their senses, which reach only the properties of bread and wine, but rather to the words of Christ which have power to transform, change and transmute the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. For, as those same Fathers often said, the power that accomplishes this is that same power by which God Almighty, at the beginning of time, created the world out of nothing.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t think we can move on until you can answer how we should somehow hypothetically be able to separate Our Blessed Lord from the accidents.We know that as long as those appearances/accidents are present, the consecrated Host remains the Body (Blood, Soul and Divinity) of Christ - God in person. Hence my question. The explanation you offer so far has already separated Our Blessed Lord from the accidents, yet you rightly claim at the same time that He is present in the (consecrated species which have the appearances of) bread and wine ; and yet you have already previously said that , “Our Lord isn’t the transmitter of disease.”

No, bacteria and viruses are. They are on the accidents. He is only the transmitter of disease in the sense that God is indirectly responsible for everything in the world that exists He never promised that He would kill all of the bacteria and disease on the Host.

So the only logical answer left is that there is some kind of separation between our Blessed Lord - Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity, and the accidents of bread and wine.

No, the logical answer is that our Lord is indeed present in the accidents but the accidents are physical and as such CAN carry viruses and bacteria-our Lord has never said otherwise.

Thanks for contributing Marc Anthony, I have a fairly heavy apostolate tomorrow and Monday, so I may not be able to check back on the thread till Monday evening.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut a lot -

Have a good evening.

Thank you Very gracious. Your graciousness has indeed made me realize that I have been pretty rude and I do apologize and will try and conduct myself more charitably.

I need to take my own advice and remember 1 Peter 3:15 when talking of Apologetics.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

**First of all, transubstantiation does not explain how our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament. That is a mystery of faith. transubstatiation simply shows that the doctrine of His Presence is not something contrary to reason. **

Of course Nobody is denying that.

**. . . the Fathers took special care to warn the faithful that in reflecting on this most august Sacrament, they should not trust to their senses, which reach only the properties of bread and wine, but rather to the words of Christ which have power to transform, change and transmute the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. For, as those same Fathers often said, the power that accomplishes this is that same power by which God Almighty, at the beginning of time, created the world out of nothing. **

I’m not disputing that. But the fact of the matter is although we know that it is truly our Lord in the bread and wine the accidents do remain bread and wine and as such can still carry viruses and bacteria.

 

[JimG]

So in other words, you are saying that a consecrated Host can transmit disease ?

Member C here. I’m not sure why this has become such a big issue. Christ is present in a consecrated host or chalice under the appearances of bread and wine. We are not consubstantiationists. He is not present IN them, and the accidents of bread and wine after consecration do not inhere in the body and blood of Christ. The accidents of bread and wine after consecration, are freestanding accidents, as it were.

The body and blood of Christ cannot transmit disease.
But the accidents of bread and wine–which are exactly the same as they were before consecration–can. The accidents can of course transmit anything they come in contact with. They are not Christ.

I’ve never known anyone, myself included, who had any fear of receiving communion even during a flu outbreak. The risk is minimal. But we are not protected from contagion by miraculous intervention simply because transubstantiation has taken place. Transubstantiation changes the substance, not the accidents.

 

[bhcordova]

From my understanding of this issue, it is not the consumption of the hosts that is of concern - rather, the consumption of the wine from a common cup. Consider - the cup (the physical container of the wine,) can become contaminated if a sick person drinks of it. Therefore, if I have strep throat, it is only common sense for me to abstain from taking the cup. Alternately, it is also only common sense to refrain from giving the cup during a flu outbreak, and in my diocese, the bishop routinely forbids reception of the cup during those times.

 

[JimG]

From my understanding of this issue, it is not the consumption of the hosts that is of concern - rather, the consumption of the wine from a common cup. Consider - the cup (the physical container of the wine,) can become contaminated if a sick person drinks of it. Therefore, if I have strep throat, it is only common sense for me to abstain from taking the cup. Alternately, it is also only common sense to refrain from giving the cup during a flu outbreak, and in my diocese, the bishop routinely forbids reception of the cup during those times.

Yes, that makes sense.

The fact that the accidents of bread and wine remain, and remain as physical properties of bread and wine, is simply part of Catholic belief about the Eucharist. The Eucharist does unite us intimately with Christ. Even more astonishing is that we do not believe that the Eucharist either multiplies or divides Christ.

When I receive communion, I don’t receive a different Christ than my neighbor, but the same Christ, even though we receive different accidents. Thus, since we receive the same Christ–body and blood, soul and divinity–we really are in communion not only with him but with one another.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t remember our Lord promising that the physical accidents of the bread and wine carried no viruses or bacteria.

Our Lord isn’t the transmitter of disease, but the bacteria and viruses that get into the accidents of the bread and wine certainly are.

For this reason I prefer to receive the Eucharist by hand. If that option is removed I will of course receive by mouth but while I have the choice I’d rather take as little risk regarding disease as possible.

Since our Lord never promised that basic biology would cease on the consecrated bread and wine I will assume that bacteria and viruses are still quite active.

EDIT: And by all means, if you want to quote me later please feel free to use my username. I have no shame regarding these views.

To me this is a poor excuse (I am not directing this to you personally, I know you just learned this from someone else so please take no personal offense to this). We say that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ indeed, yet through the course of this explanation we just eliminated any reasoning for that. We read the Gospels and we see people getting healed by touching the cloak of Christ. We get angry when anti-Christians claim this is just a fairy tale, yet we stir up a complicated argument justifying why the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Since I have a slight paranoia about sickness given the choice I prefer to receive the Eucharist by hand as long as it is valid and licit-which it currently is.

If that option was to be taken away of course I would receive the Eucharist directly in the mouth-but while I have the choose to receive by hand I will do so!

As for the Blood of our Lord I do not receive it since receiving our Lord’s body is sufficient. I would receive the Precious Blood if I had a gluten allergy and could not receive the host.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We get angry when anti-Christians claim this is just a fairy tale, yet we stir up a complicated argument justifying why the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine.

I’m not arguing that at all.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

From my understanding of this issue, it is not the consumption of the hosts that is of concern - rather, the consumption of the wine from a common cup. Consider - the cup (the physical container of the wine,) can become contaminated if a sick person drinks of it. Therefore, if I have strep throat, it is only common sense for me to abstain from taking the cup. Alternately, it is also only common sense to refrain from giving the cup during a flu outbreak, and in my diocese, the bishop routinely forbids reception of the cup during those times.

Yes, that makes sense.

The fact that the accidents of bread and wine remain, and remain as physical properties of bread and wine, is simply part of Catholic belief about the Eucharist. The Eucharist does unite us intimately with Christ. Even more astonishing is that we do not believe that the Eucharist either multiplies or divides Christ.

When I receive communion, I don’t receive a different Christ than my neighbor, but the same Christ, even though we receive different accidents. Thus, since we receive the same Christ–body and blood, soul and divinity–we really are in communion not only with him but with one another.

ConstantineTG, I think this is a difference between Latin theology and Eastern theology. The “accidents-substance” distinction is very scholastic. As much as I respect the Easterns I am definitely very scholastic in a lot of ways and this is one of them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not arguing that at all.

But that is what that lengthy argument transmits as its message. The Eucharist is not just bread and when, except when it is (the accidents).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But that is what that lengthy argument transmits as its message. The Eucharist is not just bread and when, except when it is (the accidents).

There has to be a distinction made, or else why does it not taste like human flesh?

Scholastic theology tries to put into words an explanation of the perceived issue. Eastern theology, from the little I’ve read of it, doesn’t really think an explanation is possible but I agree with the Scholastics on this point.

 

[snarflemike]

To me this is a poor excuse (I am not directing this to you personally, I know you just learned this from someone else so please take no personal offense to this). We say that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ indeed, yet through the course of this explanation we just eliminated any reasoning for that. We read the Gospels and we see people getting healed by touching the cloak of Christ. We get angry when anti-Christians claim this is just a fairy tale, yet we stir up a complicated argument justifying why the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment. Let me just ask two questions:

Is there any scientific experiment that can distinguish between unconsecrated and consecrated wine? Between unconsecrated and consecrated bread? Please elaborate.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think this is a fair assessment. Let me just ask two questions:

Is there any scientific experiment that can distinguish between unconsecrated and consecrated wine? Between unconsecrated and consecrated bread? Please elaborate.

If I may interject–no, there is not. Consecrated and unconsecrated are physically indistinguishable, which is in accord with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[snarflemike]

If I may interject–no, there is not. Consecrated and unconsecrated are physically indistinguishable, which is in accord with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And I believe Orthodox teaching would agree, but I await confirmation of that.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

… and so it follows that experiments regarding determining Holy Communion from a matzoh must fail. This must include experiments having two diseased hosts and only one consecrated trying to determine which is which. Which means that the attribute of the host “carrier of diesase” must remain even after consecration.

If Christ could carry the cross and have that not affect his incorruptibility, then the Eucharist could carry disease with similar un-results.

 

[TheDoctor]

Maybe I am thinking this too simply.

If I drink too much of the precious blood I will get drunk. This is not speculation, it is fact. There is no alcohol in Jesus’ blood, yet I get drunk just the same because the blood still has all the accidents of wine and transmits those accidents to me. Why does Jesus mean for me to get drunk?

Depending on where I am receiving, the eucharist may be a flat wafer or a thick piece or leavened (if I am at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy). Each ones is the body of Christ yet they all taste different because they transmit the accidents of bread to my mouth. If I pick up the Eucharist that has fallen to the floor, I taste the grit and dirt that it picked up.

If the host and the blood can transmit the diferent ingredients, flavors and textures incorporated on and in the accidents then I find it logical to see it would also transmit any germs or virus that were on it as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not some Bishops remove receiving from the cup during the last avian flu scare? Is that not recognition on the part of our “teachers” that the blood could pass on disease?

 

[Mintaka]

Let’s take this a little more simply.

We who are communicants know, by observation of ourselves, that consumption or skin/tongue contact with Our Lord’s Body and Blood does not kill us or make us vanish. It is the experience of the Church that dropping a Host on a plant or having an animal touch it does not kill either of these kinds of living creatures. It also does not melt the ciborium or the chalice, or the altar linens or floor if (God forbid) the Host or the Precious Blood is dropped or spilled.

So if the Lord doesn’t smite large living creatures or large non-living creatures for touching Him (though of course He could if He wanted to), one would assume that He also would not smite those tiny but well-loved microorganisms which He created. They are not evil, though in this fallen world they can harm us. They are doing nothing wrong, that they should be smote out of existence.

If they are alive and sitting on the accidents, they can get on us and in us, and they can make us sick. That’s natural law, which God made and loves also.

It is our responsibility to treat receiving Our Lord with respect, and not to spread sickness on a chalice that other people will have to touch with their lips. It is not His responsibility to spare us from the consequences of our fellow Catholics’ folly or disrespect. Generally we don’t get sick that way, or we don’t worry about it; but exercising prudence in such a matter is respectful.

Otherwise, it would be totally okay to use Father’s wiping cloth for the chalice to wipe our own noses, on the grounds that God would keep sacred objects from passing on sickness. But the point is that we shouldn’t be blowing our noses on sacred objects, because they are God’s.

• You will notice that when contagious people in the hospital receive Communion, Father brings them Communion individually. He doesn’t gather all the sick people together and have them breathe and sneeze on each other and share a chalice of the Precious Blood.