Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[Usagi]

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

So your contention is that the Western substance-accidents explanation of the Real Presence is actually a denial of the Real Presence?

I would, well, deny that, most strenuously. Whether or not you prefer to use the explanation we call Transubstantiation, the whole point of it is to stress that What we receive is truly Christ, not bread and wine at all, even though our senses tell us differently.

That the consecrated species do retain all the empirical properties of bread and wine, at every level of observation or measurement, is not a complication introduced by the teaching of Transubstantiation but simply a fact, and indeed the very fact that Transubstantiation seeks to address.

On the overall topic, I have to side with those who say that you can, at least in theory, catch germs from the consecrated species (or their containers, or the hand of the minister distributing the Host). As was said earlier, if the accidents of wine can intoxicate and the accidents of bread can cause trouble for those whose bodies react badly to gluten, then there is no a priori reason to assume that God would eliminate the danger of germs carried on the accidents. Certainly He could, and perhaps He does – but I don’t see that the doctrine of the Real Presence requires it. Mother Miriam (formerly Rosalind Moss) testifies that she does not experience symptoms of her celiac disease when receiving the Host, so sometimes miraculous exceptions do occur, but other people with the same disease must refrain from receiving the Host or become quite ill. God does not choose in every case to spare them that consequence.

Usagi

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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

No, it’s really not. Read up on Aquinas. Western theology has been clear on this distinction for centuries.

 

[NeedImprovement]

So your contention is that the Western substance-accidents explanation of the Real Presence is actually a denial of the Real Presence? . . .

I’m not sure ConstantineTG is disputing St. Thomas Aquinas’ development of the doctrine as much as he is disagreeing with the convoluted and incomplete way in which what he (St. Thomas Aquinas) has written, is being presented on this thread ; that is, when it is used as a considerably shabby argument to try and assert that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of diseases and that the Blessed Sacrament is a transmitter of disease. If you really look at what is being said , the two members most promoting that idea on this thread, haven’t even agreed amongst themselves to this point (highlights mine) :
"JimG:

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

. . .
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. . .

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .

On the overall topic, I have to side with those who say that you can, at least in theory, catch germs from the consecrated species (or their containers, or the hand of the minister distributing the Host). As was said earlier, if the accidents of wine can intoxicate and the accidents of bread can cause trouble for those whose bodies react badly to gluten, then there is no a priori reason to assume that God would eliminate the danger of germs carried on the accidents. Certainly He could, and perhaps He does – but I don’t see that the doctrine of the Real Presence requires it. Mother Miriam (formerly Rosalind Moss) testifies that she does not experience symptoms of her celiac disease when receiving the Host, so sometimes miraculous exceptions do occur, but other people with the same disease must refrain from receiving the Host or become quite ill. God does not choose in every case to spare them that consequence.

Usagi

BTW , thanks for posting Usagi. In relation to this thread’s topic, the section about Mother Miriam is different ; interesting, but still a variation from the topic of the thread. So I would simply point out that :

The topic of this thread is examination of the erroneous claim that Jesus Christ – truly present in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, is a transmitter of diseases.

. . . The section concerning Mother Miriam does not consider “Our Blessed Lord not being a transmitter of disease” but rather focuses on someone who already suffers from a disease -
In your own words

. . . but other people with the same disease . . .

I only wish to point that out clearly in the hope that this particular topic doesn’t get lost somewhere, because when this particular topic accidentally emerged on another thread, it wasn’t too well received . So this thread was conceived specifically for the topic.

In a parish adjacent to ours, they also make validly consecrated gluten free (very low gluten) hosts available during Holy Communion for those who suffer from celiac disease and related diseases. They’ve been doing it for several years now.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm

 

[NeedImprovement]

No, it’s really not. Read up on Aquinas. Western theology has been clear on this distinction for centuries.

This, (I believe we are going to discover) is good advice for every one of us - not only ConstantineTG.

@ JimG , you know I’ve agreed with most of what I’ve read concerning other subjects you’ve posted on, and @ Marc Anthony , I don’t think this thread would’ve gone very far at all if it hadn’t been for your candidness , and I prefer to think of you guys as brothers, but I believe, on this one, we are going to get into a debate here and that I am going to be vigorously disagreeing with your opinions on this matter. (Hopefully, we’ll all come away from it a little more edified in our understanding of transubstantiation).

Off the top, I can’t see how St. Thomas Aquinas would approve of people saying our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of diseases since

1. 
   *]It is in conflict with our Blessed Lord’s mission, and
   
   *]It is against the law of prayer
   
   Furthermore, I should like to note at this time that, from the beginning of this thread, everyone posting that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of diseases and that the Blessed Sacrament is a transmitter of diseases have not provided any links to support that opinion. IOW they don’t seem to be able to find anything written by the Church Fathers or theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas which would indicate that they also are of that same opinion. I believe it is because they never were of that opinion.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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.

. . . 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.

So we may say then finally, that you believe the Blessed Sacrament is a transmitter of disease, or can be a transmitter of disease ? That still hardly appears as something which would be either pleasing or complimentary to our Blessed Lord .

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .

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. . .

Speculation ? To what extent ?

We know He-God, in his incarnation, was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of His sinless virgin Mother.

The CCC tells us of the consequences of sin :

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

Yet we also know by His own words, that Christ was not subject to the domination of death -

John 10:17-18

This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father."

If our Blessed Lord had been a transmitter of disease then what he did in order to effect the cure of the man born blind from birth (complete text in post # 55) , when *“ He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes,” *would have to be considered reckless – wouldn’t it ?

When we don’t let go of the fact that Jesus is also God – before and as well as being man, how much is speculation really required ?

 

[JimG]

When we don’t let go of the fact that Jesus is also God – before and as well as being man, how much is speculation really required ?

Let me first address this part. Speculation is required, at least for me, because it’s something I don’t know and the Church has not, as far as I know, said anything about the matter.

I know that Jesus was truly man—a human being like us in everything but sin, while also being fully God. And I have not the slightest idea as to whether his human nature, including his human body, differed from any other human body with respect to its bacteriology. We all have bacteria, mostly beneficial, some not, living on and in our bodies. Did Jesus? I don’t know. But I suspect he was like us in his humanity.

Going back to the question of the Eucharist: If one wishes to believe that the accidents of the Eucharist are incapable of transmitting any sort of bacteria or virus, maybe that might qualify as a pious belief. But it’s certainly not one that ought to be imposed on others. It would presumably have to be accomplished through a divine intervention preventing such transmission with each and every Eucharistic consecration and distribution.

And we don’t normally presume such divine intervention. We don’t, for example, advise those with extreme gluten intolerance to receive under both species (unless a low-gluten host has been prepared.)

So I simply know of nothing in Catholic theology that would require such a belief.

 

[interestedman]

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

Of course it can. Why would you think it couldn’t? The church hasn’t made this claim.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think JimG and I mean the same thing, we’re just using imprecise terminology.

Let’s see exactly what St. Thomas’s theology is on the Eucharist:

Just a quick quote from this lovely article (ewtn.com/library/Theology/HETHOSAQ.HTM):

**
The Eucharistic theology of Thomas Aquinas is remarkable for its clarity and perception. But Thomas was not only able to set it out masterfully; his contemplation of the Eucharist was so intense that it tapped a poetic vein and enabled him to imbue with lyrical tones a dogmatic language so perfect and refined as to produce sequences and hymns that we all know and still sing.**

Now more on what we’re talking about:

**Substance—Substance is the primary mode of being and defines what a thing is. Substance is the foundation of reality and cannot be pictured in the mind without also picturing the accidents that inhere in the substance. **
**
The remaining categories of being are accidents: secondary modes of being.

Quantity—quantity allows us to define the parts in a substance. For example, a tabby cat has two ears, two eyes and a multitude of atoms and genetic material.

Quality—quality is a descriptive term such as, the softness and brown color of a tabby cat.

Relation—relation identifies the relative state between two objects. For example, that tabby cat has the same color fur as the Angolan cat.

Action—the action of the subject is also an accident. Action does not necessarily imply motion or change. For example, “the tabby cat is sitting still” is a valid action accident of the cat.

Passion—In the philosophic sense, passion is defined as change. For example, we can say that the aging process of the tabby cat is a passion.

Location—Location is also an accident. For example, we could say that an accident of the tabby cat is that it is sitting on top of the sofa.

Posture—Posture identifies the spatial orientation of the subject. For example, we can say the tabby cat is sitting with all four feet on the floor and it’s tail is in motion.

Temporality—Temporality is the affectation of time on the subject. For example, the tabby cat is seven years old.

State—State seems to imply change in the subject which allows us to identify it from other subjects. For example, the tabby cat currently has both eyes closed and is falling asleep.**

…

**Prime Matter and Substantial Form

Now that we understand the difference between a substance and an accident as well as the ten categories of being, we can attempt to further understand what exactly a substance really is. Aristotle believed that a substance is composed of prime matter and form. Prime matter is not the same thing as physical matter (the kind we usually think of as composed of atoms). Instead, prime matter should be thought of in terms of potency and actuality. Prime matter is nothing more than pure potency. It is the substantial underlying reality of all things, and as such, has the potential to become anything. Prime matter (since it is substantial) has no physical appearance, quality or quantity. Prime matter cannot even be thought of separate from form. Form is what allows prime matter to become substance. For instance, all of the elements on the Periodic Table (such as iron, gold, silver, mercury, etc.) can be thought of as comprised of prime matter. The thing that differentiates the elements from each other is their form. Silver and gold are composed of the same prime matter but have different form. Form and prime matter constitute the substance of any object, and the substance of that object is inhered with accidents that give the substance a physical character.**

Source: saintaquinas.com/primer.html

Now everything but the substance-every physical quality-is still present in the Host. The only thing that changes in the host is the Prime Matter, which is not the same as physical matter, and the form. The PHYSICAL matter is unchanged. Which means there’s no reason it can’t have bacteria on it.

Here’s another question: If the Blessed Sacrament cannot transmit disease, how come people with gluten allergies need to receive a special low gluten form of the host? Theoretically it shouldn’t matter since Jesus is present in the host and wouldn’t somebody receiving Him to get sick.

 

[catholictiger]

I’ll through my :twocents: into this real quick.

all I have to say is ofcourse our blessed Lord Jesus in the Eucharist can transmit disease. Now it is much less likely that it will transmit through the bread because people don’t share that. But there is a much more likely chance that it will be transferred through the wine, because everyone shares it if someone is sick and they reicieve the precious blood, they risk passing that disease along to others who’s immune system may be weak. So I personally would always suggest that if someone is sick, with the exception of the priest, that they do not drink from the chalice if they are sick in anyway. If a priest is sick then the chalice he drinks out of is only drunk out of by him and him alone. A cold can be prevented from spreading by simply not drinking from the chalice when you are sick. This is especially true at seminaries and religious orders. One cold can spread through the half the seminary if people aren’t being carful.

but this doesn’t take away at all from the celebration of the mass, or from the true prescence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Philosophically speaking transubstantiation means this. This is what happens when the priest says this is my body this is … my blood.

at the begining of the Eucharistic prayer you have bread and wine (form) and the accidents of that bread and wine (matter).

at the moment of consecration the bread and wine go through a substantial change. In philosophy, the philosophy most catholics believe, change must have a unchanging substratum (I guess you could say) that underlies the entire change. In our world we mostly observe accidental change, meaning the accidents of a substance change while the substance remains the same. There is no accidental change in the Eucharist, in almost all cases. (see eucharistic miracles for exceptions) What happens with the Eucharist is it goes under a change in substance, meaning the substances change while the accidents stay the same.

so after consecration you have now Jesus but with the accidents of bread and wine.

so to review

before you have form bread and wine, accidents bread and wine.

consecration substantial change

after you have Jesus, accidents bread and wine.

so no disease that would be in the wine before consecration would be gone after, because that would be considered part of the matter. Not sure if we can call it accidents.

so yes Jesus can transmit disease just like if Jesus got sick in his human life he could have made the apostles or those he was healing sick.

 

[catholictiger]

Speculation ? To what extent ?

We know He-God, in his incarnation, was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of His sinless virgin Mother.

The CCC tells us of the consequences of sin :

Yet we also know by His own words, that Christ was not subject to the domination of death -

If our Blessed Lord had been a transmitter of disease then what he did in order to effect the cure of the man born blind from birth (complete text in post # 55) , when *“ He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes,” *would have to be considered reckless – wouldn’t it ?

When we don’t let go of the fact that Jesus is also God – before and as well as being man, how much is speculation really required ?

just because Jesus is God doesn’t mean he can’t get human illness, or the bread and wine are some how resistant to bacteria when it is Jesus.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Going back to the question of the Eucharist: If one wishes to believe that the accidents of the Eucharist are incapable of transmitting any sort of bacteria or virus, maybe that might qualify as a pious belief. But it’s certainly not one that ought to be imposed on others. . . .

Thanks JimG. This (quoted in green highlights above) is central to why I thought it was necessary to start this thread ; although , I’m looking at your same reasoning from the perspective of someone else : If someone has enough trust in our Blessed Lord really being there in the Blessed Sacrament, why should others need to impose their views on them that Jesus is going to somehow make them sick ? No one is “imposing” it , but it is being repeated by roughly 5 members to date on this thread.

---

Guys, I’m appealing for stringency here :

We already have the posts dealing with low gluten hosts, and if anyone bothered to read the links, you 'd discover that it is also remedied by administering the Precious Blood (+ Body, Soul & Divinity) to a communicant under the species of wine. The specific topic of this discussion is *Our Blessed Lord not being a transmitter of disease *(or as is conversely being argued, being a transmitter) - ergo not someone with a pre-existing disease.

In a moment I’m heading off to my Sunday apostolate (pastoral - long-term & palliative care) . Some of the patients suffer from post stroke acute dysphagia and have to be fed with a PEG (some for well over 10 years and counting) .They are however, able to receive the most minute particle of Holy Communion. Without getting into the intricacies of how we administer in this manner, I can tell you that it tends to make a person feel awfully small seeing such a profound faith in one so impeded, and being the one who brings Christ to them. I don’t look for answers as to why, and , again, *this isn’t a case of a disease being transmitted by our Lord . *

One would surmise, from this thread that most posting think themselves able to explain/define how our Blessed Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament.

And this, still without being able to quote any Church Fathers, or Doctors being of the opinion that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease.

(Thanks everybody for posting:thumbsup: . I’ll try to get back to the thread late this evening if time permits).

God Bless all.

 

[saveusfromhell]

There are many alcoholics of which I’m one who will not touch alcohol with a barge poll yet I and many priests who are also reformed alcoholics are happy to take Holy Communion under the species of wine.
This without it reigniting the desire to return to our former ways. Can’t imagine we could do the same with a glass of wine.
I do this because i don’t beleive Jesus will make me sick

 

[JimG]

Thanks JimG. This (quoted in green highlights above) is central to why I thought it was necessary to start this thread ; although , I’m looking at your same reasoning from the perspective of someone else : If someone has enough trust in our Blessed Lord really being there in the Blessed Sacrament, why should others need to impose their views on them that Jesus is going to somehow make them sick ? No one is “imposing” it , but it is being repeated by roughly 5 members to date on this thread. .

Well, yes, as long as one doesn’t impose what is essentially a personal belief on others. One would do a disservice, for example, if in the midst of a great plague, we were to assure everyone that there was simply no danger of infection being passed in the distribution of the Sacrament.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Well, yes, as long as one doesn’t impose what is essentially a personal belief on others. One would do a disservice, for example, if in the midst of a great plague, we were to assure everyone that there was simply no danger of infection being passed in the distribution of the Sacrament.

in your opinion “one would do a diservice” maybe you shouldn’t impose your personal belief on others either.
the comparision of the faith of the woman who believed that if she could simple touch Jesus clothes she would be healed and yours is sad

 

[saveusfromhell]

Well, yes, as long as one doesn’t impose what is essentially a personal belief on others. One would do a disservice, for example, if in the midst of a great plague, we were to assure everyone that there was simply no danger of infection being passed in the distribution of the Sacrament.

satan at his best. Jesus spreads disease.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Well, yes, as long as one doesn’t impose what is essentially a personal belief on others. One would do a disservice, for example, if in the midst of a great plague, we were to assure everyone that there was simply no danger of infection being passed in the distribution of the Sacrament.

maybe you shouldn’t impose your belief that Jesus could possible spread disease. unless you have some evidence. may as well tell people not to take medicine in case you get sick

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We already have the posts dealing with low gluten hosts, and if anyone bothered to read the links, you 'd discover that it is also remedied by administering the Precious Blood (+ Body, Soul & Divinity) to a communicant under the species of wine. The specific topic of this discussion is *Our Blessed Lord not being a transmitter of disease *(or as is conversely being argued, being a transmitter) - ergo not someone with a pre-existing disease.

We know that the communicant can receive under the Precious Blood, or with low gluten hosts. But I see no reason whatsoever why a “pre-existing condition” would make any difference. If Jesus won’t let people who receive Him to get sick why should a pre-existing condition make a difference to the Almighty Lord of the Universe?

One would surmise, from this thread that most posting think themselves able to explain/define how our Blessed Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m using Aquinas’s distinctions, taken from Aristotle, on substance and accidents and relating them to the Eucharist.

And this, still without being able to quote any Church Fathers, or Doctors being of the opinion that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease.

So? You’ve also offered no proof that the species CAN’T be a transmitter of disease. With no dogmatic definitions on this topic and no direct quote from Jesus saying, “No, the Host cannot transmit disease after consecration”. So I see no reason to believe that biology has stalled on the Consecrated Host.

BTW, I think it’s wonderful that you give the Eucharist to people with the disabilities you have described! You’re doing a great service to these people and to the Church by bringing Our Lord to them directly.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, yes, as long as one doesn’t impose what is essentially a personal belief on others. One would do a disservice, for example, if in the midst of a great plague, we were to assure everyone that there was simply no danger of infection being passed in the distribution of the Sacrament.

Not much to say except that I agree.