Receiving frome the Chalice and Teetotal Ministers

[Cristo]

Hi All, I’ve tried searching (googled here and on open internet) for something on how a Minister of the Eucharistic receiving from the Chalice (the blood of Christ) does not break a teetotal pledge but could not find anything.
I’d like to use an authoritative source to explain it.
Any help would be appreciated.
Not sure if I’m in the correct place/forum
God Bless.
Cristo

 

[drforjc]

I don’t think you are going to find an authoritative source from the Church, simply because the Church doesn’t make it her business to govern “teetotal pledges.”

In other words, since she doesn’t define or regulate private pledges, particularly those that originate outside herself, she is not going to issue a ruling on what does or does not violate such a pledge.

She would likely leave such a thing to the conscience of the individual.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Since it is transubstantiated into the precious blood, it should be covered? Interesting question though.

 

[Cristo]

Hi All, Thank you for your replies. I believe receiving the Precious Blood does not break the pledge to abstain from alcohol as at the consecration the bread and wine offerings are changed absolutely and completely into the Body and Blood of Christ. i.e. there is no element of the bread or wine left so therefore there can be no alcohol to break the pledge.
When asking about an authoritative source I was hoping a church father might have addressed it or even a CA tract explaining this would suffice. I go with Crusaderbear and wonder what (name removed by moderator) thinks of my understanding. I was expecting everyone to agree with me as I think it’s a fundamental part of our beliefs. Thanks again for your replies.Cristo

 

[TheDoctor]

Hi All, I’ve tried searching (googled here and on open internet) for something on how a Minister of the Eucharistic receiving from the Chalice (the blood of Christ) does not break a teetotal pledge but could not find anything. I’d like to use an authoritative source to explain it. Any help would be appreciated. Not sure if I’m in the correct place/forum God Bless. Cristo

Not really sure of the question you want answered so please allow me to clarify:

If by “Minister of the Eucharistic” you mean an ordained Priest, the question is moot because a Priest would no take a personal “teetoal” pledge.

If by “Minister of the Eucharistic” you mean a non-ordained Extraordinary Minister Of Holy Communion" the question is moot since they are not required to take any of the precious blood at any time and could refrain with no issue.

Is there something else you are asking please?

 

[Usige]

To follow on to what Deacon Jeff said, you have to understand the distinction between the physical and spiritual nature of the world for lack of a better term. The physical aspects of the wine do not change at the consecration, but rather the substance or spiritual nature is changed into the Precious Blood. It is only in rare instances of Eucharistic miracles that the physcial aspect is transformed from bread or wine into flesh and blood that we can see with our eyes. My apologies, Deacon, is my explanation is theologically off base.

The real question would hinge on the underlying basis of the teetotaler pledge. If it is to abstain from alcohol as a drink for personal pleasure, then I would think the Precious Blood would fall into the same category as someone who takes medication with an alcohol base and not violate the spirit of the pledge. On the other hand if it is a very strict pledge that no alcohol will ever pass their lips then the Precious Blood would violate that vow as all Precious Blood will have some level of alcohol.

 

[dmar198]

I think you two might be saying the same thing in different words. We believe that after the consecration, no wine remains on the altar, but only the appearance of wine. Since there is no wine on the altar at that point, there is also no alcohol.

But the blood does have the properties of alcohol, so it might violate the pledge in that way. As another poster pointed out, Eucharistic ministers are not required to receive the Eucharist, particularly if they are in mortal sin. Therefore if somebody has taken a teetotaler pledge and thinks that receiving the blood would violate the pledge, they could still be a Eucharistic minister and just not receive.

CCC 1375 quotes from a saint who uses the word “transforms” to describe the change of substance. (Well, an equivalent greek word.) I think it is clear that he is speaking non-technically, and it is okay to be imprecise when speaking this way. Precision is good, but not always necessary when teaching a non-academic audience.

 

[Cristo]

To the Doctor, Yes it was a non- ordained Extraordinary Minister Of Holy Communion. (They are called Extraordinary Minister Of the Eucharist in our parish) One of our EME’s (can I use that short cut?). accepts the Chalice at the consecration but quite obviously does not partake but just tips the Chalice to his lips. I think he would be better to refrain like those who are celiac receive only from the Chalice.
To (name removed by moderator), yes I understand the accidents remain as you outlined however I (without thinking too deeply on it) understood it to mean that while we can see and taste the bread and wine we are receiving only the Body and Blood of Jesus. My understanding of the real presence is the substance is changed (Transubstantiation) and we receive nothing else. Therefore if we’re not receiving Bread or Wine, despite the chemical effects we are not receiving alcohol and would not mean a pledge would broken. From all I’ve been taught I find it difficult to accept what you say but I bow to your more detailed knowledge as a Deacon and will reflect deeply on my understanding/misunderstanding.
Cristo

 

[Cristo]

Sorry, I didn’t see the additional replies before I posted. Cristo

 

[Brendan]

An example that I am familiar with is*Ireland’s Pioneer Total Abstinence Society.

They give up alcoholic drinks as a form of fasting and prayer, especially on behalf of those who are addicted to alcohol.

The Pioneers do not consider the species of wine*at Holy Mass to fall under the classification of being alcohol. As noted, while it has the accidents of alcohol, the substance differs.

In addition, it would be contrary to the prayerful nature of the pledge of abstinence.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you two might be saying the same thing in different words.

No, not really.

We believe that after the consecration, no wine remains on the altar, but only the appearance of wine. Since there is no wine on the altar at that point, there is also no alcohol.

Incorrect. What’s on altar retains the physical properties of bread and wine. Inasmuch as that means that they retain the physical properties of bread (i.e., gluten), that also means that they continue to have the physical properties of wine (i.e., alcohol).

But the blood does have the properties of alcohol

Not sure of the distinction you’re attempting to make here, by asserting “no alcohol, but the properties of alcohol.” In any case, alcohol is physically measurable in the Precious Blood, so if a person is unable (or unwilling) to consume alcohol, then he should defer receiving from the chalice.

Cristo:

if we’re not receiving Bread or Wine, despite the chemical effects we are not receiving alcohol and would not mean a pledge would broken.

It would seem to be a rather superficial understanding of such a pledge that “I only promised to defer consuming alcohol, but not to defer consuming those things that merely are phyiscally identical to alcohol.”

 

[Phemie]

I don’t think you are going to find an authoritative source from the Church, simply because the Church doesn’t make it her business to govern “teetotal pledges.”

In other words, since she doesn’t define or regulate private pledges, particularly those that originate outside herself, she is not going to issue a ruling on what does or does not violate such a pledge.

She would likely leave such a thing to the conscience of the individual.

We were made to take a pledge to not drink until we were 25 during our Confirmation Mass when I was 7.

One kid refused, telling his mother, “What if I get married before I’m 25? I want to be able to drink champagne at my wedding!” Not many of us thought that far ahead; I don’t know about my fellow confirmands but that pledge was far from my mind when I had my first beer at the age of 16.

 

[drforjc]

We were made to take a pledge to not drink until we were 25 during our Confirmation Mass when I was 7.

One kid refused, telling his mother, “What if I get married before I’m 25? I want to be able to drink champagne at my wedding!” Not many of us thought that far ahead; I don’t know about my fellow confirmands but that pledge was far from my mind when I had my first beer at the age of 16.

That is actually quite funny!

It’s hard to imagine the mindset of someone who would even think a 7 year old is capable of understanding the implications… except that one really perceptive kid!

 

[Phemie]

That is actually quite funny!

It’s hard to imagine the mindset of someone who would even think a 7 year old is capable of understanding the implications… except that one really perceptive kid!

I can remember his mother saying, “Well, I guess he has no plans of becoming a priest.”