Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[NeedImprovement]

Member C here. I’m not sure why this has become such a big issue. . .

I don’t think I could have done any more to try and leave you free (as Member C) to not feel obliged to continue JimG. But I’m kind of glad you did continue (thanks). Maybe you wouldn’t mind too much if efforts were made in several areas towards the clarification of certain things . . . such as

. We are not consubstantiationists… . . .

• I don’t quite see how consubstantiation ever enters into it. To date, no one has claimed that our Blessed Lord assumes the nature of bread.

I thought precisely where I take issue was clearly stated in the original post ; that is, with people claiming and/or implying that our Blessed Lord, in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar, is a transmitter of diseases.

I can’t personally recall having read even one serious exegete, who in his/her effort to provide us with a concept of what transubstantiation entails, had ever included in said concept any indication that a consecrated Host can transmit disease . Any need to do that would appear inordinate in that it does pose a risk of inhibiting someone else from receiving Holy Communion; or in the very least providing them with an unnecessary distraction when they do receive.

Nobody on this earth can completely understand the mystery of transubstantiation – therefore no one can demystify it. I believe it would be a most unfortunate thing for someone to be walking around thinking they were able to fully explain transubstantiation only because they were able to repeat the doctrine as it has been developed to date in terms of accidents and substance. To date it there is evidence to believe each of us 9myself included) posting on this thread are also expressing an interpretation of transubstantiation which tends in its latter stages towards the subjective. And we would understandably become a little adamant about our view on this subject, particularly if we felt it was being challenged.

To give an example from the most recent post, I thought it was interesting from my own personal perspective to be presented with someone else’s idea of God “smiting” creatures ; whereas in my own mind I figure all our Blessed Lord would have to say or will, regarding the microorganisms might be , “ I am God – the God of nature. You may continue to live , but you shall not cause any harm to my beloved”, or, the possibilities are almost endless; who knows?. . . Maybe even something like, “I , the God and creator of nature have chosen to be present under these species that I may be intimately united with my beloved, so they are to be treated as sacred species . Although humans in their free will may reject my love and fail to consider these species as sacred, you shall glorify your Creator . . . “

 

[NeedImprovement]

Continuing with the theme of everyone having a personalized interpretation of transubstantiation , I believe your own post (quoted below) which I took issue with, is not clear in several aspects :
Member “C”:

. . . Christ does not assume or take on the accidents of bread and wine. He has his own proper accidents. The substance of bread and wine is gone. The accidents of bread and wine remain but do not inhere in any substance, and are indistinguishable from the accidents of bread and wine because they are the accidents of bread and wine. As such they can transmit germs or whatever, and are corruptible. The accidents are not Christ. Christ is present under the accidents of bread and wine, not in them. Now, back to the topic!

I’d like to begin with
Member “C”:

. . . Christ does not assume or take on the accidents of bread and wine. He has his own proper accidents . . .

Indeed, and if you are (hopefully) familiar with the nine accidents which Aristotle was the first to list and which St. Thomas Aquinas (by extension) also uses analytically and necessarily classifies apart from substance, then I believe you need to ask yourself why Christ would have chosen for His Body and Blood to be tangibly present for our consumption under/beneath the accidents of bread and wine rather than the (“own proper”) accidents of His own Body and Blood .

For anyone else whom that part might escape , here’s an extremely strong hint, again , from St. Thomas Aquinas (where have I heard that name before?) :

St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons why it is fitting that God intervenes in this miraculous way (III, 75, 5).

1. Because it is not customary but horrible for men to eat human flesh and drink human blood; hence Christ’s flesh and blood are given to us under the species of those things more commonly consumed by men.
2. Lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, were we to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species.
3. That while we receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
   rosary-center.org/ll49n3.htm

Note again how St. Thomas confirms for us in # 2 that although we eat our Blessed Lord’s Body and drink His Blood , we do not do so under His own proper species .
Member “C”:

. . . Christ is present under the accidents of bread and wine, not in them . . .

The term “species” identifies the “accidents”:

From Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon S.J.

SPECIES. Appearances, especially those of bread and wine, after the Eucharistic consecration. The term “species” is used by the Council of Trent (Denzinger 1652) to identify the accidents, i.e., the size, weight, color, resistance, taste, and odor of bread, which remain exactly the same after transubstantiation. They are not mere appearances as though these physical properties were unreal. But they are appearances because after the consecration they lack any substance that underlies them or in which they inhere.

Hence “species” also connotes what we perceive with our senses as the *consecrated Host.*Christ is present in the Host – He is present in the smallest particle of any area of the surface of the consecrated Host and all they way through it :

. . . While the three foregoing theses contain dogmas of faith, there is a fourth proposition which is merely a theological conclusion, namely, that even before the actual division of the Species, Christ is present wholly and entirely in each particle of the still unbroken Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice. For were not Christ present in His entire Personality in every single particle of the Eucharistic Species even before their division took place, we should be forced to conclude that it is the process of dividing which brings about the Totality of Presence, whereas according to the teaching of the Church the operative cause of the Real and Total Presence is to be found in Transubstantiation alone.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

**Our own Founder ** has no problem believing that . . .

Christ is equally present in every particle of the host, no matter how small, and in every drop of the precious blood, as long as these retain the appearances of bread and wine.

I see no reason why anyone else calling themselves Catholic would wish to post differently, unless, of course . . . . . . it were an accident.

 

[JimG]

Dear NeedImprovement,

You’ve given some great quotes regarding the difference between substance and accidents. All of them are quite orthodox, and in accord with the Church’s teaching, and also are in accord with what I’ve written here with respect to substance and accidents.

Yes, accidents are also referred to as “species.”

After transubstantiation, Christ is present whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine.

I’ve said that he does not “assume” or “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. Those accidents do not inhere in him or in any substance after the consecration. I do not use the term “in” to describe this. I don’t say that Christ is present “in” the bread and wine, for the sake of clarity, because the implication then would be that his substance is somehow intermixed with the accidents of bread and wine, but it is not. When we break the host in half or quarters, we do not thereby break Christ. He remains present whole and entire under the appearances of each particle of the consecrated species.

The whole point is that the species—or appearances—or accidents—of bread and wine remain entirely unaffected by consecration. They remain the same before and after, while the underlying reality or substance has changed into Christ.

I know of nothing in Catholic theology which would imply that those species have somehow acquired an immunity from carrying bacteria, simply through the process of consecration. That’s all I’m saying.

It’s true that Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease. Of course. But the species of bread and wine can. There’s really nothing remarkable about that, and nothing particularly to fear from it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Dear NeedImprovement,

You’ve given some great quotes regarding the difference between substance and accidents. All of them are quite orthodox, and in accord with the Church’s teaching, and also are in accord with what I’ve written here with respect to substance and accidents.

Yes, accidents are also referred to as “species.”

After transubstantiation, Christ is present whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine.

I’ve said that he does not “assume” or “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. Those accidents do not inhere in him or in any substance after the consecration. I do not use the term “in” to describe this. I don’t say that Christ is present “in” the bread and wine, for the sake of clarity, because the implication then would be that his substance is somehow intermixed with the accidents of bread and wine, but it is not. When we break the host in half or quarters, we do not thereby break Christ. He remains present whole and entire under the appearances of each particle of the consecrated species.

The whole point is that the species—or appearances—or accidents—of bread and wine remain entirely unaffected by consecration. They remain the same before and after, while the underlying reality or substance has changed into Christ.

I know of nothing in Catholic theology which would imply that those species have somehow acquired an immunity from carrying bacteria, simply through the process of consecration. That’s all I’m saying.

It’s true that Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease. Of course. But the species of bread and wine can. There’s really nothing remarkable about that, and nothing particularly to fear from it.

Which leads up to me saying that only because I am given the choice I continue to receive the Eucharist in the hand. If I did not have that choice I would of course receive the Eucharist on the tongue.

Is this slightly paranoid, and does it show that I’m a bit of a hypochondriac? Yes, it does. Receiving on the tongue is really no big deal. But since I’m allowed it makes me feel better to humor myself.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Jesus can die for us on the Cross then we can drink Him at communion–who CARES?

Why should ANYONE CARE about diseases?

Did Jesus care about diseases that might have been on the actual cross?!

Seems like He turned out alright!

If you die from diseases contracted through drinking the cup at Holy Communion rejoice and count it as God’s will!–the same way you should rejoice if you contract them through eating His body at Holy Communion!

The germ o phobe people never get it!

It’s called Life!

 

[NeedImprovement]

Which leads up to me saying that only because I am given the choice I continue to receive the Eucharist in the hand. If I did not have that choice I would of course receive the Eucharist on the tongue.

Is this slightly paranoid, and does it show that I’m a bit of a hypochondriac? Yes, it does. Receiving on the tongue is really no big deal. But since I’m allowed it makes me feel better to humor myself.

I was hesitant to start this thread because it was bound to probe into some sensitive corner of a person’s Eucharistic beliefs sooner or later. You should be commended for being so candid about it.

And it is great that if the indult for Communion in the hand were ever revoked you wouldn’t let it prevent you -- from what our Blessed Lord desires most - intimate union with each one of us - personally, in Holy Communion.

About the potential slight preoccupation concerning sickness , I don’t think you should be hitting yourself over the head too hard about it . Let’s put it into perspective : We live in a germaphobic society (I actually read that “germaphobic” commentary from a priest giving an exegesis on the True Presence but I’m not going searching for links right now). One advantage you would have in your current position, is the ability to see more easily what might happen to someone else who would need to deal with a more acute phobia (sorry if that’s not the right word) in this regard :

Consider for a moment, someone with a more pronounced paranoia - even an induced one, combined with society’s germaphobic element/influence ; being repeatedly told that germs are being transmitted when they receive Holy Communion. How long do we figure it will be before saying such things places an obstacle between that person and our Blessed Lord in this Sacrament ?

You might appreciate the following:

A very good friend of mine who is a deacon and about 12 years my senior, has a more pronounced paranoia about sickness. I can’t talk to him any more about the consecrated Hosts which I’d consumed after mishaps which sometimes occur in my long term & palliative care apostolate , because the one time I did, it made him extremely uncomfortable - to the point where he was trying to tell me, “You can’t do that.” My answer was, “Yes, actually, I can do that - following the example and counsel of my spiritual director. What is true brother deacon, is that you can’t do that.” This deacon is a very holy man and he has a profound love and respect for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. But for whatever reason, he just has this thing about sickness.

Incidentally, the current Catholic chaplain I serve under in that apostolate is also oriented towards a preoccupation/slight paranoia about sickness. He is from the Republic of the Congo . He explained it to me one day : He grew up in his brother’s house rather than his mother’s. His brother was a doctor. He told me that because his brother was a doctor and that sick people were sometimes brought to the house ,everything always had to be spotless and they were constantly being bombarded with information about germs as an explanation to why all this preoccupation with cleanliness was necessary. ( He’s actually a great guy to call if you ever need things thrown out and you can’t decide - totally indiscriminate ] )

 

[NeedImprovement]

@ JimG : Thanks for posting your latest - kind of stuck working for the rest of the afternoon - should be able to provide a reply this evening.

 

[NeedImprovement]

In the interim, I thought that this might be good for rmination, as it does apply to every one of us.

I read the following at this link therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

An insidious obstacle to an understanding of the Real Presence (of course it can never be fully understood in this life) is the almost overwhelming influence of the imagination. The imagination is a picture-making power which accompanies all our thinking; but it is distinct from the intellect and it deals only with what can be seen, touched or in some way sensed. The deeper level of being, accessible to the intellect, is beyond the reach of the imagination. However, the imagination still provides images, and these easily mislead us.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .
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.
. . .

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.

. . . It’s true that Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease. Of course. But the species of bread and wine can. There’s really nothing remarkable about that, and nothing particularly to fear from it.

So what all three of the posts quoted above are saying is that a consecrated Host (containing our Blessed Lord- Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity) can transmit disease to a communicant who receives and consumes it , because He is present under the species of bread and wine , but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted . . .

 

[TheDoctor]

So what all three of the posts quoted above are saying is that a consecrated Host (containing our Blessed Lord- Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity) can transmit disease to a communicant who receives and consumes it , because He is present under the species of bread and wine , but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted . . .

Uh, can you show me specifically where I said that “…but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted .”

Never did. I think the Host and the Blood can transmit disease through the accidents and I have seen nothing that says to me you cannot get sick from it. Again, and you may have missed when I posted this earlier, if the blood could not transmit disease and make someone sick why would Bishops order parishes to withhold the cup when there is danger of flu? Are the Bishops not saying that the chance is there that disease will be transmitted?

 

[JimG]

So what all three of the posts quoted above are saying is that a consecrated Host (containing our Blessed Lord- Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity) can transmit disease to a communicant who receives and consumes it , because He is present under the species of bread and wine , but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted . . .

No, no one said that. The fact is, we do not consume the Body and Blood of Christ under his own proper species. In his own proper species, as he lived on eath, he was (and remains) fully human, and could easily transmit germs as could any other human being.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I was hesitant to start this thread because it was bound to probe into some sensitive corner of a person’s Eucharistic beliefs sooner or later. You should be commended for being so candid about it.

Thank you, you have handled yourself very nicely throughout the thread

And it is great that if the indult for Communion in the hand were ever revoked you wouldn’t let it prevent you -- from what our Blessed Lord desires most - intimate union with each one of us - personally, in Holy Communion.

I have my priorities correct at least

About the potential slight preoccupation concerning sickness , I don’t think you should be hitting yourself over the head too hard about it . Let’s put it into perspective : We live in a germaphobic society (I actually read that “germaphobic” commentary from a priest giving an exegesis on the True Presence but I’m not going searching for links right now). One advantage you would have in your current position, is the ability to see more easily what might happen to someone else who would need to deal with a more acute phobia (sorry if that’s not the right word) in this regard :

Consider for a moment, someone with a more pronounced paranoia - even an induced one, combined with society’s germaphobic element/influence ; being repeatedly told that germs are being transmitted when they receive Holy Communion. How long do we figure it will be before saying such things places an obstacle between that person and our Blessed Lord in this Sacrament ?

Fair point. In my case, it’s a minor thing that won’t keep me from receiving if necessary, so in that sense I’m lucky.

You might appreciate the following:

A very good friend of mine who is a deacon and about 12 years my senior, has a more pronounced paranoia about sickness. I can’t talk to him any more about the consecrated Hosts which I’d consumed after mishaps which sometimes occur in my long term & palliative care apostolate , because the one time I did, it made him extremely uncomfortable - to the point where he was trying to tell me, “You can’t do that.” My answer was, “Yes, actually, I can do that - following the example and counsel of my spiritual director. What is true brother deacon, is that you can’t do that.” This deacon is a very holy man and he has a profound love and respect for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. But for whatever reason, he just has this thing about sickness.

Incidentally, the current Catholic chaplain I serve under in that apostolate is also oriented towards a preoccupation/slight paranoia about sickness. He is from the Republic of the Congo . He explained it to me one day : He grew up in his brother’s house rather than his mother’s. His brother was a doctor. He told me that because his brother was a doctor and that sick people were sometimes brought to the house ,everything always had to be spotless and they were constantly being bombarded with information about germs as an explanation to why all this preoccupation with cleanliness was necessary. ( He’s actually a great guy to call if you ever need things thrown out and you can’t decide - totally indiscriminate ] )

Thank you for the stories -our society has a certain paranoia about germs, it’s true.

I would say that a lot, if not most, of it is justified, but it’s not hard to see how it can be taken to extremes. Kind of like scrupulosity. Dwelling on the gravity of our sins, for most people, is a very good reminder of the necessity of reconciliation. But it’s not hard to see how people can get scrupulosity either, even though it’s relatively rare.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Uh, can you show me specifically where I said that “…but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted .”

Never did. . . . ?

Okay, forgive me on that one for making an assumption. Are you then saying instead that the Body and Blood of Christ, whether it be under the species of consecrated bread and wine or under Our blessed Lord’s proper species of His own Flesh and Blood , in both cases can transmit diseases if the communicant consumes them - because I think that is the only other option left ? Or are we not speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ? . . . Or perhaps, only selectively so ?

Re your comment about the bishops, I don’t live in the US, but I do recall several members posting something to the effect of what you’re saying. However the only recommendation made by the USCCB was for people to wash their hands and for individuals to feel free to voluntarily refrain from receiving from the chalice if they felt sick. Up here in our archdiocese we had a much worse circus going - in stark contrast to the wisdom exhibited by the USCCB’s statement. But the purpose of this thread isn’t to blame people in higher places in this archdiocese for their lack of faith and excess of H1N1 paranoia ; for me it’s to present the plausibility of our Blessed Lord not being a transmitter of diseases.

 

[NeedImprovement]

So what all three of the posts quoted above are saying is that a consecrated Host (containing our Blessed Lord- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) can transmit disease to a communicant who receives and consumes it , because He is present under the species of bread and wine , but they simultaneously claim that if we were to consume the Body and Blood of Christ – specifically, if we were we to “eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species” , then no disease could be transmitted . . .

No, no one said that. The fact is, we do not consume the Body and Blood of Christ under his own proper species. In his own proper species, as he lived on eath, he was (and remains) fully human, and could easily transmit germs as could any other human being.

I disagree. I believe you did say it, but I don’t think you realize you said/are saying it . Please have another look :
"JimG:

. . It’s true that Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease. Of course. But the species of bread and wine can. There’s really nothing remarkable about that, and nothing particularly to fear from it.

. . . 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. . .

“Christ’s Body and Blood do not transmit disease.”
“The Body and Blood of Christ cannot transmit disease.”

If we aren’t permitted, by your definition to say that *Christ’s Body and Blood under the accidents of bread and wine “do not transmit disease”, * and now, according to your latest post, we are further prevented by your definition from saying Christ’s Body and Blood under His proper accidents of His Flesh and Blood “cannot transmit disease” , then how could it ever be said at all that Christ’s Body and Blood cannot transmit disease ?

There are only two kinds of accidents we know of in our world beneath which Christ’s Body and Blood are present , namely : either the species of bread and wine through the miracle of transubstantiation, or Christ’s own proper species of His Body and Blood namely His physical Flesh and Blood (through the hypostatic union) . Without accidents , even viral pneumonia couldn’t transmit disease because it wouldn’t be a physical reality.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . In his own proper species, as he lived on eath, he was (and remains) fully human, and could easily transmit germs as could any other human being.

I think you might be forgetting that death and sickness are consequences of sin. Christ was fully human, but He was also sinless. His humanity was not a fallen humanity as ours is.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Although our own mothers would probably strongly advise us against going around and doing this kind of thing, it appears the only “disease” which was transmitted on this particular occasion, was the miraculous cure of a man blind from birth.

John 9:1-6

**As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth.

His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.

We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work.

While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes,

and said to him, “Go wash 3 in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see. **

 

[NeedImprovement]

From The Eucharisitc Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Robert Barron

Let us attend to Thomas’s response with some care. He first observes that the true body and blood (verum corpus Christi et sanguinem) are in the Eucharistic sacrament but not in such a way as to be apprehended by the senses; they are “visible” only through faith, which rests upon the divine authority. We recall that many of the church fathers emphasized the importance . . .

Then how do we explain the perdurance of the accidents, once their proper substances have been changed? Once again, Thomas invokes the divine power. Though God customarily sustains accidents through their proper substances, he can, for his own purposes, suspend the secondary causality and sustain them directly himself. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said that, at the Eucharistic change, the bread and wine lose their independence as creatures and become, through God’s power, pure signs of Christ’s presence. They no longer point to themselves in any relevant sense, for they have become utterly transparent to the Christ who makes himself manifest through them.

. . . Thomas Aquinas is arguing that, at the Eucharist, the appearances of bread and wine do not tell the deepest truth about what is really present and that, in point of fact, the authoritative word of Christ does.

Let us return to Ratzinger’s point. In light of his clarification, we can appreciate the eschatological significance of the doctrine of transubstantiation.** The Eucharistic elements, fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, are not destroyed or annihilated through the power of Christ; rather, they are transfigured, elevated into vehicles for Christ’s self-communication**

 

[JimG]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease because He is not present under his own proper species. The only species with which we come in contact are the accidents of bread and wine. It is those that can transmit germs because it is those that are preceptible to our senses.

As to whether or not Jesus when present on earth in his own proper species was exempt from the carrying of germs, I suppose that is a matter for speculation. Since he was and is fully human, I would guess that bacteria affected his body much the same as anyone else’s body, including of course, the beneficial bacteria.

When I spoke of him not transmitting disease under his own species, I meant in the Sacrament, because sacramentally, his own proper species do not appear.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ’s body and blood do not transmit disease because He is not present under his own proper species. The only species with which we come in contact are the accidents of bread and wine. It is those that can transmit germs because it is those that are preceptible to our senses.

As to whether or not Jesus when present on earth in his own proper species was exempt from the carrying of germs, I suppose that is a matter for speculation. Since he was and is fully human, I would guess that bacteria affected his body much the same as anyone else’s body, including of course, the beneficial bacteria.

When I spoke of him not transmitting disease under his own species, I meant in the Sacrament, because sacramentally, his own proper species do not appear.

Agreed. Not much for me to add here.

 

[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.

Arguing about “physical accidents” is just a sublime way of saying its just bread and wine.