The Flu Season & Receiving the Blood of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter AServantofGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Podo2004:
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
Click to expand...
Ummm Podo, here is my source: Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1390 “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharist grace.” 👍
:blessyou: :amen: !!!
 
40.png
Podo2004:
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
Click to expand...
A. It is only in very recent modern times that the chalice is even offered. Up until lthen for umpteen years it was solely the host.

B. It is church doctrine that when one receives the Eucharistic host one totally, completely receives the body and blood of Christ.
 
I would appreciate it if anyone could offer an example that is 100% genuine where anyone became sick through the reception of this Holy Sacrament.

I have always understood that God will not allow this to happen, so the faithful will always receive Holy Communion.
I have even heard this may be miraculous. I have received Holy Communion from the hands of people with flu’s and viruses many times, and never got sick.

Yours in Jesus, Mary & Joseph,

John
 
40.png
AServantofGod:
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?
Click to expand...
Oh so ya’ll think this is bad, get this…
  1. The cup is NO longer an option until further notice.
  2. No holding hands during the our father (Kind of a good thing in disguise)
  3. Communion is to be recieved in the Hand ONLY.
  4. During the sign of peace, do not shake other peoples hands, just a simple bow will do.
  5. Be carefull with the holy water.
Words of my priest.
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
  1. During the sign of peace, do not shake other peoples hands, just a simple bow will do.
  2. Be carefull with the holy water.
Words of my priest.
Click to expand...
 
In response to the above quote by Roman Ryan. We didn’t get the be careful with the holy water speech. Also the sign of peace was so awkward with people bowing & nodding in a very unnatural way. The next week everybody started shaking hands again.

I do appreciate the attempt to protect us from ourselves. I guess not everybody is wise enough to say, “I’m sick so I don’t want to shake your hand. Peace be with you.” But you can’t avoid contact all together. After all in many of our churches we are packed so tightly together that germs may pass this way as well.
 
Tantum Ergo, Just a small note about online ettiquette. When you use all caps for more than one word in a row it’s generally considered shouting. I’m sure that’s not what you mean, but I feel afronted at times reading your posts.

It’s very simplistic to take the easy road here and say, the Bishops told us to and we’re supposed to be obedient, so accept it and like it. There are different forms of obedience. It is easy to act in obedience, but it is entirely a different thing to grant true obedience of the will. This is not possible until someone understands fully the positive and negetive aspects of the act that they are asked to undertake. I will recieve under only one species because it is what has been asked of me, but I must descent of my will until I understand exactly what I am doing in recieving or not recieving under both species and what repercussions that has to my faith as well as the faith of those around me.

I also don’t believe it is entitlement to desire the fullest sign of the real pressence of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass. I mean, what is a sacrament but the outward sign of an inward grace. In the case of the Eucharist that sign is the Host. In truly authentic liturgy we should be striving to make use of the signs and symbols of the church in the fullest way possible, in this case the sign of which species we recieve the Eucharist under.(please don’t confuse my use of teh word sign to think I mean a symbolic pressence in the Eucharist. a symbol has no participation in what it is that it represents, whereas a sign participates in that which it represents. Therefore the Host, containing the true and real pressence of Jesus Christ participates in His true and real pressence and is therefore a sign of Christ’s pressence) Therefore, in striving for the most authentic liturgy possible we should be using the sign of Christ’s pressence in both the prescious host and prescious blood.

Also, why has no one addressed the issue of fear? What type of message does it send to our children and to our visitors when we tell them that the reason we do not recieve from the cup is because we are afraid that drinking the prescious blood will make us sick? Why do we continue to show such little faith. If we recieve Christ in the form of the Eucharist adn recieve him in true humility and humbleness as we should, then what is there to fear?
 
I addressed this on another thread. I think it quite silly to worry about catching the flu no matter how you receive. It seems like if you receive Our Lord, catch the flu and kick off, your reward would be great in Heaven.

That said, people are still worried and the bishop is well within his jurisdiction to halt the cup if it makes some feel better or for whatever reason.
 
Instead of putting a halt to the cup in order to make some people feel better, shouldn’t we instead carry on and attempt to enlighten the faithful that there is no need to fear reception of the eucharist?
 
40.png
Podo2004:
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
Click to expand...
Before Vatican II, very few received the Precious Blood at Mass,except the Pope at a Papal Mass or persons who couldn’t eat the Host. The CHurch didn’t start with Vatican II you know.
 
40.png
Bradley:
Instead of putting a halt to the cup in order to make some people feel better, shouldn’t we instead carry on and attempt to enlighten the faithful that there is no need to fear reception of the eucharist?
Click to expand...
How about catechesis on the fact that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained in both species in it’s entirety? I really don’t understand why people are so anxious about this since they aren’t being denied anything! Why should the bishops feel compelled to cotinue on with the cup to please the other half of the congregation? This is basically coming down to people wanting the bishop to decide to do what they want him to do - the pro-cup people and the anti-cup people. I say if the bishop is doing something that’s within the powers Rome gave him, let him do it and be at peace. Your bishop may choose to halt the cup all together. We don’t have the cup in our Church ever because it’s full of wobbly old people (besides us, the average age is 79) who are more than likely to spill the Precious Blood of Our Lord. I’d spend time worrying about all of the things that are out of the bishop’s jurisdiction which they do not have the authority to do but they are doing it anyway.
 
The CHurch didn’t start with Vatican II you know.
Click to expand...
It didn’t end with Vatican II either! 😉 Now before you go and say that you didn’t say that, nobody said it started with VII either.
 
We strain at gnats and swallow camels. If you fear catching the flu from recieving the cup, Then dont recieve from the cup. If you do not fear catching the flu from the communion cup, then recieve. Chances are, the ones who do not partake of the cup are going to catch the flu anyway from some other means if they are succeptible. The ones who recieve from the cup probably caught it some other place besides the cup. I think we can all be responsible and not recieve from the cup when we are sick or have a cold. How hard can it be? The real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are fully present in either species.
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
Oh so ya’ll think this is bad, get this…
  1. The cup is NO longer an option until further notice.
  2. No holding hands during the our father (Kind of a good thing in disguise)
  3. Communion is to be recieved in the Hand ONLY.
  4. During the sign of peace, do not shake other peoples hands, just a simple bow will do.
  5. Be carefull with the holy water.
Words of my priest.
Click to expand...
Oh my gosh! This is almost exactly word for word the same document here in Singapore when we were hit by the SARS epidemic!

SARS is worse than flu - lots of people died, including a Christian pastor who administered to his parishioner. Doctors, nurses, parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc. died too.

Confessions, anointing of the sick, funeral services of victims, were cancelled too!

The bishop said we had approval from Rome.

My problems with all these are: -
  1. DO WE BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE?
    The Body and Blood of the Saviour who give us eternal life is tainted? Will kill us?
  2. DO WE PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACH?
    At RCIA, a priest adamantly said that Annointing of the Sick is a very IMPORTANT and POWERFUL sacrament - why then deny it to those most in need?
    Did the priests run away during the Black Plague?
    Did Christ and Fr. Damian run away from the lepers?
  3. WOULD I CHICKEN OUT WHEN FACED WITH THE CHOICES?
    Perhaps…yes? no?
 
Even though the substance of the elements become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents remain that of bread and wine. One could still get intoxicated from too much of the Precious Blood or die from a virus transmitted in the Host.

This would be an accidental death.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Even though the substance of the elements become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents remain that of bread and wine. One could still get intoxicated from too much of the Precious Blood or die from a virus transmitted in the Host.

This would be an accidental death.
Click to expand...
… and martyrdom?
 
40.png
joshua1:
I think we can all be responsible and not recieve from the cup when we are sick or have a cold. How hard can it be? The real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are fully present in either species.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My husband is recovering from the flu. I have not yet become ill, but out of respect for everyone else attending I opted to only receive the Body of Christ and not the Blood (and yes, I know that the bread is both Body and Blood). It’s just common sense and courtesy IMO- many of my fellow choir members are elderly and in case I am carrying the virus I don’t want to expose them any more than I have to.
 
  1. Communion is to be recieved in the Hand ONLY.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to start a whole hand/tongue debate but can the Bishop/priest actually prohibit communion on the tongue? Everything else on the list is either at the option of the priest already (sign of peace, Commmunion under both species) or not officially a part of Mass anyway (holding hands for the Our Father and Holy Water - it’s not part of the Mass itself). But I thought that Communion on the tongue was always the option of the Communicant.
 
Not a problem, if offered I take the precious blood and trust that nothing impure will contaminate our Lord. Just a faith thing and no real theological point of view. 🙂

God Bless
 
40.png
kmktexas:
I don’t want to start a whole hand/tongue debate but can the Bishop/priest actually prohibit communion on the tongue? Everything else on the list is either at the option of the priest already (sign of peace, Commmunion under both species) or not officially a part of Mass anyway (holding hands for the Our Father and Holy Water - it’s not part of the Mass itself). But I thought that Communion on the tongue was always the option of the Communicant.
Click to expand...
Try this quote from Mysty101,

Quote:
I respect the Bishops, but there are far more problems in the Mass and diocese than hanging the folks who kneel.

Please do not get angry I do respect your thoughts, but I have realized that it is far less stressful to follow the guidance of lawful authority.

OK you say you respect the Bishops. They have set their norms, which have been approved and allowed you to act otherwise, so what is it that you want?

You are swimming upstream, and angry because the majority will not see your point?

This is from RS, April 2004

**
Quote:

90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

From the US Adaptations

Quote:
Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.**** Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top