The Flu Season & Receiving the Blood of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter AServantofGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AServantofGod

Guest
Here’s an interesting occurence from our diocese. Sunday we were all surprised to hear that our Bishop is not allowing the Blood of Christ to be distributed during mass. He has also discouraged physical contact during the sign of peace. All of this was said to be in attempt to reduce spread of germs during the upcoming flu season. We would be notified when the flu season was over and former practices would resume.

What is occuring across the country, and what do you fell about this practice?
 
This practice also happened during the black plague of course the church gets critisized from witholding the cup during the middle ages but it made a lot of sense during the time and times when their are flu epidemics.
 
maybe i’m a bit reform-minded on this one, but wouldn’t cases like this be an argument for a priest dipping and giving communion on the tongue during flu season? Just a thought.

What are yall’s thoughts on that?

I say no matter what, the Blood of Christ should be an option at Mass.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
maybe i’m a bit reform-minded on this one, but wouldn’t cases like this be an argument for a priest dipping and giving communion on the tongue during flu season? Just a thought…
Click to expand...
In fact, this is the only way that communion by intinction is supposed to be offered: The priest takes a host, dips it in the precious blood using an intinction chalice, and places it directly on the tongue. Or as a Redemptorist priest friend used to say, “Nobody’s going to hand you a soggy host!”
 
In the Eucharist you get the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ.
 
I find this topic very disturbing, and it is the reason I have sought out this website. If someone has a concern about catching something from the reception of teh precious blood, then why is it that they can’t simply refrain from recieving? Our pastor just announced this morning at mass that it would be the last time we could recieve from the cup until the end of flu season. After mass I approached him about it and he said that it was because the parish doctor advised him to do this. Since when do Medical doctors dictate the appropriateness of the sacraments?

I have perfect faith that the lord will allow me to recieve the sacraments and remain healthy, and I have no concern whatsoever with recieving the precious blood from a common cup. If I feel ill or have a cold, I refrain out of respect for others, but otherwise I truly value my ability to do so.

Does anyone know of any pertinant church documents that I might point to in trying to get The precious blood offered at our masses again?
 
There are no Church documents that I know of. The chalice is not necessary to receive and is left up to the discrection of the bishops as far as I know.

Let your heart be light. You might just want to use this time to on the fact that all you need for spiritual food is contained in the Host. You are truly not being denied anything by only receiving the Host since it is Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in it’s entirety.
 
This is the case in our diocese too, since 10/31/04.
Since we all know that receiving the Body results in our receiving the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, there is no NECESSITY to receive from the chalice. I believe it is ALWAYS the prerogative of the bishop of an individual diocese to judge when and under what circumstances the Precious Blood is offered, is it not?

What I mean is, we’re not ‘entitled’ to the Precious Blood per se. We aren’t even ‘entitled’ to the Precious Body, that is, we shouldn’t receive if we are in a state of grave sin.

We may feel (with all due respect) more COMPLETE receiving both Body and Blood, but that is only a SUBJECTIVE FEELING. It is not a TRUTH. We do not get “MORE” if we receive both species.

And, again with all due respect, I would ask you to have consideration for those at risk during the flu season. The bishops have made prudent decisions. (Face it, my area, Burlington, is extremely at risk for infection. People aren’t outside regularly–it’s too dang cold–so when they ARE in social situations, like church, they are more likely to be at risk from infectious disease.) And many of our members are frail elderly, brought up in the grand quasi Puritan tradition where you go to Mass no matter if there are 6 feet of snow or huge epidemics, or if you yourself can drag yourself out with a temperature of 103. It WOULD be prudent to limit any NON ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL CONTACT. It would also be charitable. Even if somebody doesn’t DIE from the flu (and they can, you know), they and their families/ caregivers can suffer lingering aftereffects. Flu in December often leads to pneumonia in January, slow convalescence in February, and sadly fatal complications in March.

It seems little enough to me to offer up a sacrifice in not having the Precious Blood for a LIMITED period of time if it benefits–or even is hoped to benefit–my fellows.
 
You know? If the blood is not necessary to drink, then why did Jesus share his Body and Blood(In the form of bread AND wine) and told us to do that in remembrance of him at the last supper(which he shared both the bread and the wine) Why don’t we offer both? Because we are too afraid to get sick apparently?:rolleyes: Site your sources where it says by only eating the body can you recieve the blood also.

Podo
 
I understand the health concern posted by the Bishop of our diocese. However, the ironic thing is that throughout the mass where we were told we would no longer be offered the blood of Christ, Father was couging & coughing into the hand he uses to distribute communion. What once may not have been noticed by the congregation became very apparent.

What procedures are used in general by priests to decrease the spread of germs?

By the way this Sunday people either forgot or ignored the suggestion to not shake hands during the sign of peace. It really was quite awkward last Sunday just nodding to each other.
 
I am fully aware that the full and true pressence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, is present in both the precious body and precious blood consecrated at the mass. I am also fully aware that some people are presented with a health risk at even the most minor chance of coming in contact with any type of communicable illness.

However, Christ did tell us that we should “eat my body and drink my blood” so that we may have eternal life. If it is not so necessary to recieve from the challice, then why do we even bother consecrating the wine? It is important, so important that the Mass cannot be said without it. Don’t you think that something so important should be AVAILABLE to any member of the Body, should they desire it’s reception?

In my mind it comes down to this: offer the cup to those who want to take it, if you’re scared of catching something, or you are someone who has a lowered immune system, then don’t recieve it. Just because you offer reception of the Precious blood to the congregation, does not mean you are forcing it on them. Many people argue for the removal of this option because it puts others at risk. People who argue in this way make it seem that every person in the pews is required to recieve everything that is availed to them at the mass. However, as someone already mentioned, there are times when we should not recieve communion at all, so no one should feel as though they must recieve under both species at all times. Why can’t churches simply make a statement at the beginning of flu season advising people that there is a risk of transmition (although from what I’ve read this risk is practically immeasurable), and they should not recieve from the cup if they feel they are at risk. Really, to deny the cup to the whole congregation seems overkill to me.
 
It’s a non-issue at my parish, since we routinely receive the communion host only. With 7 Masses each weekend and perhaps 9,000 people total attending, it would be just too unwieldy, altho I suppose it could be done.

It is of course required that the priest consecrate and receive both species, but it’s not a requirement that the congregation receive under both species. It is a fuller sign, but it does not change the fact that Jesus is wholly present under each species.
 
In response to Podo and Bradley I’ve provided some links on the Church teachings on God, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host and why it’s not necessary to receive from the chalice. Too long to cut and paste here. Let me know if you need more. If you look in the articles you will see the teachings quoted.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/bas_hsc.htm
catholicherald.com/saunders/98ws/ws980625.htm
cin.org/chrysos/formeuch2.html
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1897&highlight=host+blood
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1390.htm
 
40.png
Bradley:
I find this topic very disturbing, and it is the reason I have sought out this website. If someone has a concern about catching something from the reception of teh precious blood, then why is it that they can’t simply refrain from recieving? Our pastor just announced this morning at mass that it would be the last time we could recieve from the cup until the end of flu season. After mass I approached him about it and he said that it was because the parish doctor advised him to do this. Since when do Medical doctors dictate the appropriateness of the sacraments?
Click to expand...
Since parishoners started suing the church.:eek:
 
40.png
Bradley:
Why can’t churches simply make a statement at the beginning of flu season advising people that there is a risk of transmition (although from what I’ve read this risk is practically immeasurable), and they should not recieve from the cup if they feel they are at risk. Really, to deny the cup to the whole congregation seems overkill to me.
Click to expand...
AGREED!
 
Again, I am fully aware of the true and real pressence of Christ in both species of the eucharist. That was not my question. Your links are great, and I appreciate them, however I also point to the Catechism which states “But 'the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Shouldn’t we strive for the fullest representation of what our lord intends us to do? Shouldn’t we at least be offered the opportunity to recieve from both species, so as to be offered the clearest understanding of the reality of Christ’s pressence?

It seems to me that any practice that denies people the right to the fullest participation possible in the reception of our Lord’s precious body and blood is based on fear - fear of spilling, fear of spreading sickness, etc. - and that Fear is one of THE LAST things we should associate with the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass. Churches that ban reception of the eucharist under both species only perpetuate this fear and do not, in my opinion, best serve the practicing faithful.
 
Brad, (and Podo), the danger here is not that people are somehow “denied” what they deserve, a “full communion”.

The danger is that zealots will take a good (and receiving communion, whether under one or both species) IS GOOD. . .

and turn it into a battlefield.

From the catechism:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
Click to expand...
This is the FULL form of the quote you gave, Brad. Under “bread alone” we receive ALL THE FRUIT OF EUCHARISTIC GRACE. Under “bread alone” this manner has been LEGITIMATELY ESTABLISHED AS THE MOST COMMON FORM IN THE LATIN RITE.

And, as the bishop is head of a diocese, the bishop can determine WHAT FORM we use and WHEN.

We are called to obedience.
And once again, this whole “shouldn’t we have” idea seems to hover perilously close to an idea that we are ENTITLED TO GET WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED SUITS US BEST, whether it is offered to us or not. Whether it is prudent or not. Whether it is in accordance with obedience or not.
 
Keep in mind that there are places in the world where Catholics do well to have a priest visit once a month for communion and confessions, and here we are worrying about whether or not we get to receive under both species, every week or every day!
 
40.png
Bradley:
Again, I am fully aware of the true and real pressence of Christ in both species of the eucharist. That was not my question. Your links are great, and I appreciate them, however I also point to the Catechism which states “But 'the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Shouldn’t we strive for the fullest representation of what our lord intends us to do? Shouldn’t we at least be offered the opportunity to recieve from both species, so as to be offered the clearest understanding of the reality of Christ’s pressence?

It seems to me that any practice that denies people the right to the fullest participation possible in the reception of our Lord’s precious body and blood is based on fear - fear of spilling, fear of spreading sickness, etc. - and that Fear is one of THE LAST things we should associate with the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass. Churches that ban reception of the eucharist under both species only perpetuate this fear and do not, in my opinion, best serve the practicing faithful.
Click to expand...
I was just trying to answer 2 for 1 so not all applies to you. :rolleyes: You asked “If it is not so necessary to receive from the challice, then why do we even bother consecrating the wine?” and “Don’t you think that something so important should be AVAILABLE to any member of the Body, should they desire it’s reception?” I believe one of the articles addressed these questions. Ultimately, it is left up to the bishop and it is his authority. I don’t think the catechism said anything about the “fullest participation”. Basically it said that receiving Communion under both species is a clearer sign for those who don’t understand that the Host or the Blood is Christ in his entirety. Unfortunately there are many out there who don’t understand this. Just look at those who have celiac children who are throwing a fit because they don’t want to have their kids just receive the wine. Now they are pulling their kids out of the Catholic Church completely over this which is utterly ridiculous. They are the ones who are doing the denying. Those who are only allowed to take the Host are being denied nothing. They are receiving Christ in His entirety.
Shouldn’t we strive for the fullest representation of what our lord intends us to do? Shouldn’t we at least be offered the opportunity to recieve from both species, so as to be offered the clearest understanding of the reality of Christ’s pressence?
Click to expand...
In answer to this I would sayt hat we are receiving the fullest representation of what Our Lord intends us to do. Fullest and clearest are 2 different things. As to the second question, what we need is good catechisis on the Real Presence and then there should be no problem accepting the directions of the bishop of our diocese. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top