Taking the Body AND Blood?

[TrueLight]

I am a public health nurse, and I am always horrified to see elderly taking of the Precious Blood at our Mass. Rest assured that the chalice is teeming with germs during cold and flu season - any number of which could spell “the end” for an immune-compromised communicant. If one truly believes that the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ, then one should also realize that human blood is a perfect conduit for myriad bacteria and viruses. There is no reason to believe that Christ’s blood is impervious to influenza. Taking of the Most Holy Host is sufficient and offers the fullness of the sacrament in a much more hygienic capacity. I believe it is time that we end the filthy, dangerous practice of sharing all from the same (beautiful) chalice to partake of the Blood. There has got to be a better, safer way!

In fact, during the H1N1 outbreak last year, I had a stern discussion with the local pastor about temporarily stopping service of The Blood due to the fact that so many pregnant women, children and elderly were succumbing to that particular flu. He decided to continue to offer it, but did put a note in the bulletin that those who were immune-compromised or who wished to avoid the flu should not partake of the Blood and should use hand sanitizer after the sign of peace, or refrain from shaking hands entirely.

Is there any chance of the Catholic church ever receiving the blood from those little glass cups that they use at some Protestant churches?

 

[nickybr38]

Is there any chance of the Catholic church ever receiving the blood from those little glass cups that they use at some Protestant churches?

My guess would be no. I would think that would be disrespectful to our God.

 

[wsxyz]

I actually have a similar thread running where I posted the following from the CC … So I take this to mean that taking under both species is preferable but not necessary.

That quote doesn’t say anything about what is preferable. It says that the symbolism of the action (which exists in addition to, and separately from, the sacramentality of the action) is more complete when one receives both species.

Whether it is preferable depends on other factors. For example: Are the sacred species adequately protected from profanation? Are the liturgical laws of the Church being ignored/abused with the justification therefore being the provision of Holy Communion under both species? and so on.

Offering Holy Communion to the faithful under both species might be preferable if it were done in such a way as to safeguard the sacred species from profanation and in such a way that avoided the use of unnecessary extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The way the Eastern Catholics do it, for example.

The way it is done at the average American parish is not preferable.

 

[wsxyz]

My guess would be no. I would think that would be disrespectful to our God.

In particular, the chances of profanation of the Blood of Christ would be very high.

You might think – Well, the chances of profanation with little glasses wouldn’t be much different than the chances of profanation of the species of bread when it is given in the hand – and you would be right.

That is exactly why reception of Holy Communion in the hand was forbidden for over 1000 years, and should be forbidden today.

 

[SanctaMommy]

In particular, the chances of profanation of the Blood of Christ would be very high.

You might think – Well, the chances of profanation with little glasses wouldn’t be much different than the chances of profanation of the species of bread when it is given in the hand – and you would be right.

That is exactly why reception of Holy Communion in the hand was forbidden for over 1000 years, and should be forbidden today.

Frankly, a line of people opening their often unclean mouths and sticking out their tongues for Father seems more than a little unappealing. Not everyone is that confident in their dentition to get “up close and personal” with Father and present the tongue for him. It is a conundrum!

Having said that, our parish has done away with using patens, which frightens me! It is as though it would not be too big a deal for the Most Holy Host to drop upon the floor (which, of course, could happen however The Blessed Eucharist is administered!!!)

 

[redrosetea]

I think that we receive communion ,and not take it…take sort of implies it is just anyone’s for the grabbing

 

[wsxyz]

Frankly, a line of people opening their often unclean mouths and sticking out their tongues for Father seems more than a little unappealing. Not everyone is that confident in their dentition to get “up close and personal” with Father and present the tongue for him. It is a conundrum!

Knowing that:

1. Communion in the hand was forbidden by the Church for well over 1000 years for very good reasons
2. Communion in the hand was a practice associated with protestants who explicitly denied the Real Presence.
3. Communion in the hand was neither requested by, nor permitted by the II Vatican Council.
4. Communion in the hand was reintroduced disobediently and illicitly.
5. Communion in the hand is provably responsible for profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.

The condition of my teeth, the appearance of my tongue, and the smell of my breath are absolutely the least of my worries.

 

[SanctaMommy]

Knowing that:

1. Communion in the hand was forbidden by the Church for well over 1000 years for very good reasons
2. Communion in the hand was a practice associated with protestants who explicitly denied the Real Presence.
3. Communion in the hand was neither requested by, nor permitted by the II Vatican Council.
4. Communion in the hand was reintroduced disobediently and illicitly.
5. Communion in the hand is provably responsible for profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.

The condition of my teeth, the appearance of my tongue, and the smell of my breath are absolutely the least of my worries.

Interesting perspective. Can you provide the backup that indicates accepting communion in hand is illicit and was reintroduced disobediently? I’m curious to learn more about this!

 

[wsxyz]

Interesting perspective. Can you provide the backup that indicates accepting communion in hand is illicit and was reintroduced disobediently? I’m curious to learn more about this!

It is not illicit now. But it was reintroduced in some parts of Europe many years before it was finally permitted. The reintroduction itself was illicit and disobedient.

Communion in the hand was first permitted in the U.S. in 1977.

 

[redrosetea]

Many quite holy people including Mother Theresa were against receiving in the hand…

I am not sure that it will return ,but I think we still might have the option of receiving on the tongue…placing a host in someones hand is no less germy than placing it on the tongue…people do cough and sneeze and blow their nose during mass ,so the germs are on their hand, and if the priest’s hand touches theirs ,the germs spread…besides these germs are airborne and in the very air we breathe

I am not sure sanitary reasons is a very good argument

 

[obliviuossquire]

“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.” – Trent 21, Canon 1

“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.” – Trent 21, Canon 2

“If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.” – Trent 13, Canon 3

"If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema. – Trent 21, Canon 3

Thank you for the information, I stand quite well corrected!

 

[TrueLight]

Many quite holy people including Mother Theresa were against receiving in the hand…

I am not sure that it will return ,but I think we still might have the option of receiving on the tongue…placing a host in someones hand is no less germy than placing it on the tongue…people do cough and sneeze and blow their nose during mass ,so the germs are on their hand, and if the priest’s hand touches theirs ,the germs spread…besides these germs are airborne and in the very air we breathe

I am not sure sanitary reasons is a very good argument

There is a big difference between the priest’s germs (1 person) and 50 people depositing their germs.

I used to wonder about that but then thought that the alcohol kills the germs, but I guess that’s not the case.

 

[redrosetea]

What if the priest touches everyone’s hand when he distributes? It is not just his germs but the germs on everyone’s hand…it is simply not possible to avoid germs ,and frankly I think your chances at the grocery store of contracting something ,are far greater than at church

 

[SanctaMommy]

What if the priest touches everyone’s hand when he distributes? It is not just his germs but the germs on everyone’s hand…it is simply not possible to avoid germs ,and frankly I think your chances at the grocery store of contracting something ,are far greater than at church

True, there is no way to totally eliminate disease transfer - but drinking from the same cup is MUCH more dangerous than Father distributing communion. And wiping the chalice off with a cloth? Might as well not - it certainly doesn’t sanitize the thing.

Taking of the Most Holy Precious Blood in the chalice is essentially the same, germ-wise, as 50+ strangers sharing the same Coke at McDonald’s. Germs, particles of mouth mucosa, backwash, blech.

 

[redrosetea]

True, there is no way to totally eliminate disease transfer - but drinking from the same cup is MUCH more dangerous than Father distributing communion. And wiping the chalice off with a cloth? Might as well not - it certainly doesn’t sanitize the thing.

Taking of the Most Holy Precious Blood in the chalice is essentially the same, germ-wise, as 50+ strangers sharing the same Coke at McDonald’s. Germs, particles of mouth mucosa, backwash, blech.

You aren’t obliged to receive under both species…I don’t…others like it

 

[ConstantineTG]

It was my understanding that should one decide to go the gluten-free host route they’d have to pay for it themselves. At least at my parish this is the case.

To me it’s not worth the hassle but people with more severe issues with gluten would probably want the gluten-free host.

Well, its an option. I don’t think it costs a lot, and you don’t need a lot of it. Either leave it with the priest or be in Mass early enough that you can give one host to the server or to the priest so they can have it by the altar when Mass starts.

Anyway, just trying to help. I just think the experience of the Eucharist is a moment of joy and happiness and that any discomfort should be minimized, if not eliminated.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is there any chance of the Catholic church ever receiving the blood from those little glass cups that they use at some Protestant churches?

One thing is we cannot pour out the Precious Blood. So even if you use little golden cups, which will be really expensive, would you have hundreds of those cups so that everyone can receive?

Intinction is the way to go.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Knowing that:

1. Communion in the hand was forbidden by the Church for well over 1000 years for very good reasons

Not throughout the universal Church. Although most particular Churches in most Rites do not have CITH for quite a while.

1. Communion in the hand was a practice associated with protestants who explicitly denied the Real Presence.

Actually, Franciscans were receiving CITH well before Martin Luther existed. Also Communion in the Hand is standard practice for clergy in all Rites.

1. Communion in the hand was neither requested by, nor permitted by the II Vatican Council.

It doesn’t have to be a council to change the discipline of a Particular Church.

1. Communion in the hand was reintroduced disobediently and illicitly.

Yes, but still its legal today. Today’s reading at Divine Liturgy was about Peter and the unclean animals he was asked to kill and eat. If something is allowed today even though it was not allowed in the past, it shouldn’t be an issue. Those who practised it when it was not allowed sinned against the Church. But those who practice it today do not sin.

1. Communion in the hand is provably responsible for profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Not so. Do you think the Eucharist was never intentionally profaned by those who receive it on their tongues or directly in their mouths?

The condition of my teeth, the appearance of my tongue, and the smell of my breath are absolutely the least of my worries.

But we should do our best to brush our teeth before going to Mass as a matter of practice and good habits

 

[wsxyz]

Actually, Franciscans were receiving CITH well before Martin Luther existed. Also Communion in the Hand is standard practice for clergy in all Rites.

Communion in the hand was standard practice for the priest celebrant - not for clergy assisting in choir. They received kneeling on the tongue just like everyone else.

It doesn’t have to be a council to change the discipline of a Particular Church.

True - but Communion in the Hand is often justified by reference to the II Vatican Council, so it is important to point out that the council did not request or permit Communion in the Hand.

Those who practised it when it was not allowed sinned against the Church. But those who practice it today do not sin.

Did I say that people who receive Communion in the Hand sin? I don’t think so.

Do you think the Eucharist was never intentionally profaned by those who receive it on their tongues or directly in their mouths?

I’m not talking about intentional profanation by the recipient. I’m talking about two things:

1. profanation by people who treat the sacrament with disrespect due to the casual treatment of the species. You may put this down to lack of effective catechesis, but Communion on the Tongue simply doesn’t require massive catechesis because the mode of reception itself makes it very clear that what is being received isn’t a ritz cracker.
2. profanation of the sacrament by insensitivity to the issue of fragments which, so long they are distinguishable as the species of bread, are Christ whole and entire, being brushed off on people’s pants and dropped on the floor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Communion in the hand was standard practice for the priest celebrant - not for clergy assisting in choir. They received kneeling on the tongue just like everyone else.

Celebrants and concelebrants. You are correct.

True - but Communion in the Hand is often justified by reference to the II Vatican Council, so it is important to point out that the council did not request or permit Communion in the Hand.

Of course that is wrong because CITH came way after Vatican II. But I don’t believe its the pro-CITH crowd who assigns the practice to Vatican II, but rather those who are against it. And those who are against it are typically those who blame all the problems of the Church on Vatican II.

Did I say that people who receive Communion in the Hand sin? I don’t think so.

Disobedience to the Church is sin.

I’m not talking about intentional profanation by the recipient. I’m talking about two things:

1. profanation by people who treat the sacrament with disrespect due to the casual treatment of the species. You may put this down to lack of effective catechesis, but Communion on the Tongue simply doesn’t require massive catechesis because the mode of reception itself makes it very clear that what is being received isn’t a ritz cracker.

I’ve relayed this experience so many times in these forums. I saw a kid play with the Eucharist in his mouth at a TLM in a FSSP parish. The host was halfway outside his mouth as he passed me by my pew. I was seated 3/4 of the way to the back.

If people will be careless about the Eucharist, they will be no matter how they receive it.

1. profanation of the sacrament by insensitivity to the issue of fragments which, so long they are distinguishable as the species of bread, are Christ whole and entire, being brushed off on people’s pants and dropped on the floor.

And who’s to say that there are no fragments that fall on our chin or from the priest’s hand?