eek in the cup. Certainly, studies have shown that the practices generally used (wiping the rim, turning the cup slightly between communicants, etc.) do help to prevent disease, but that doesn’t mean germs aren’t there.It takes faith to believe in the Real Presence, while simultaneously recognizing the sacred species as vectors of contagion.
I feel troubled by this, Until very recently we took both the host and the chalice, believing it to be the real body and blood of Christ. This is a great leap of faith to fully trust this to be so.
Yes, and the Church teaches us that each element is the entire or whole person of Christ. The consecrated host is the body, blood, soul and divinity. The consecrated wine is the body, blood, soul and divinity. We do not have to receive both the receive all of Christ.
In the Latin Church, communion under both species was practiced for many years, but was generally suppressed by Trent in reaction to Protestantism and its inherent heresies. While the optional practice was restored in the post-Vatican II era, it is just that: an option. The underlying truth is constant: reception of the Eucharist by the faithful is complete under either specie.
Do you know what I mean?Is your faith so weak!?
Well, the priests wouldn’t get sick more since they 1) drink first, and 2) have seperate chalices (most do, anyway).
No, the priests have to finish whatever is left over after everyone else has partaken. Usually there is a good slurp-sized portion, sometimes rather more. They do not use a separate chalice in the Anglican tradition (though there may be more than one, the priest’s is also used for the congregation.) I believe that is also true for the Orthodox - though they use that little spoon of course.
in what manner does the presence or absence of a flu or other virus in a community affect the reality of the sacrament? There is at no time a requirement for anyone other than the priest to receive from the chalice, and in many places and times the faithful are seldom if ever offered the chalice. If one believes that this in some way diminishes their full reception of the sacrament and its graces, they require further complete catechesis in the nature of the Eucharist and the sacramental presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity complete and entire under either or both species. There is absolutely no dictate that the faithful be offered the chalice at all, that is local decision by bishop and priest.
Ah. I see what you mean… our parish usually finishes it all, so I never see our priest do that.
Karl Keating provides anecdotal evidence from a priest. Karl Keating’s E-Letter of January 16, 2007
Not quite - he said they should receive it. Lutherans consider receiving in one kind only to be perfectly fine from the point of view of the Sacrament, but they think that since Christ gave both kinds to us, they should both be offered to all. That is why they were given, that is how they should be used. Some Lutherans do receive in one kind only, if there is a special reason to. This general principle is also why Lutherans, though they believe it is important to give the Eucharist due reverence and treat it respectfully, do not participate in adoration of the Eucharist (outside of what happens at the Eucharist itself). That was not the purpose for which it was given, in their view, God meant for us to eat it.
Disease, life and death are in the hands of God, and I just put my trust in God when I take the chalice.