Question:
I have not heard of it happening amongst Orthodox or any other Roman Catholic churches. I -have- heard that the black plague during the medieval times decimated the numbers of priests. One can assume the shared Chalice -may- have been a factor, but with the office of anointing the sick and dying this cannot be taken at a given. It says a lot about the value of a sacrament if it can sicken or kill you to receive it. You must have a puny and worthless god if his blood won’t protect you against a damn microbe.
We are mortal. God didn’t ‘protect’ the great early martyrs from painful deaths. He didn’t even ‘protect’ two of the Fatima visionaries from dying young. In fact, I believe Our Blessed Mother, in that vision, predicted that they would die young. It says more about YOUR worthless god of cyncism and cryptic comments. Anyone can be a critic. Marlyn Manson prob. fancies himself such a wise old fool for his insight and criticism of everything about humanity and the human condition. Needlesstosay, his symbols and followers are satanic. It’s, rather, a lack of understanding of the human condition that wallows in conceited criticism, always well short of conversion and repentance to God, and His Holy Church. The truncated life of the OUTRAGGEEDEDEDED, is nothing but the pride of the Pharisee, but 10 times less worthy. Peace. * When one finds nothing more to say to God, * but just knows He is there — * that, in itself, is the best of prayers. [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Response:
In other words it is a pharisee legalistic document. The church of the pharisees has many such things. Sadly, the religion of Rome forgets we are to worship in spirit and truth rather than their way which is a complicated set of legal rules and regulations.
You mean to tell me that non-Catolic Christain groups have no rules to follow? How…anarchistic of them. — Buny —-"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus
Response:
<<In other words it is a pharisee legalistic document. The church of the pharisees has many such things. Sadly, the religion of Rome forgets we are to worship in spirit and truth rather than their way which is a complicated set of legal rules and regulations. Ciao, Falcon It’s not complicated. Different folks do different things at mass, and this spells out who does what and why. Unless you come from some fringe anarchic sect, your church has a weekly order of worship, with defined times for song and prayer, and whose going to lead each. That’s what the GIRM does for us.
Response:
"Gabby" said, in part: Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM.
What is the "GIRM?" I am a life-long Catholic, but do not recognize the name of this particular document. Thanks in advance, and blessings to all. — Stanley Sramek Houston, Texas
Response:
"Gabby" said, in part: Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM. What is the "GIRM?" I am a life-long Catholic, but do not recognize the name of this particular document.
General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The document that provides the do’s and don’ts for Mass. A document that most Catholics have never heard of, but that everyone involved in Liturgy should have read more than once. I’m also a cradle Catholic and went 44 years without even knowing about the document. It’s worth familiarizing yourself with it even if you’re not involved in preparing Liturgy. It has recently been revised and I believe the English translation is now in Rome for approval. The new edition should be ready by the new year (so our Bishop tells us). To read the GIRM online you need only go to Google and type GIRM. You’ll find a few good sites. Suzanne
Response:
"Gabby" said, in part: Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM. What is the "GIRM?" I am a life-long Catholic, but do not recognize the name of this particular document. General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The document that provides the do’s and don’ts for Mass.
In other words it is a pharisee legalistic document. The church of the pharisees has many such things. Sadly, the religion of Rome forgets we are to worship in spirit and truth rather than their way which is a complicated set of legal rules and regulations. Ciao, Falcon — # BIBLE: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth # # "Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test." – God #
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else.
Since I have allergies, and usally have the sniffles or a cough (from asthma) in Mass, I usually pass on the Cup so others will not feel that they might "catch’ something from me….if I actually *did* have a cold, I would definately pass on the cup for the same reasons…Since I am in the choir, which is located just to the side of the congregation, when I am sniffling or coughing, it is quite obvious to all. — Buny —-"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Since receiving under either species is whole and entire, reception of both, though a privilege, is not required. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. That’s an extremely large assumption. I have arthritis in both wrists. It rarely causes me much trouble, but I also rarely receive from the chalice. I’ve yet to see a chalice that looks light enough for me to hold with confidence. Nothing to do with not wanting to drink after someone else, everything to do with respect for the Sacrament and not wanting to drop the chalice.
Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I never even considered possibilities such as that. Mark Anthony Ferrante – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Others may not receive from the chalice because they prefer to return immediately to the pew to consider what they have just received (rather than watching to see what other people are doing….). Others may only be able to stand for just so long (my elderly parents fall into this mode – if my mother does leave the pew to receive (e.g. if the priest or minister does not come to her, as happens when they visit me) she simply isn’t stable enough on her feet to wait in the second line to receive the chalice). Others may not receive out of consideration for those who follow – I know people who, if they have a streaming cold for instance, will not receive from the chalice. I’m sorry, but you do seem to assume too much, and impute motives to people…. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)? Intinction. I believe it depends on the bishop’s conference, but it’s not normally done in the Latin rite….(I *think* there are circumstances where it is and is not allowed – I know there was a vogue for it in the 70s and special chalices were made). It’s more commonly found in the Russian rites, in particular. In the Russian rite, the Host is put into the chalice, and people receive from a spoon.
‘Quod scripsi scripsi’ – ‘What I have written I have Written.’– Pontius Pilate
Response:
Actually since it is a re-presentation, the SAME sacrafice is made present. It is blasphemy to demand MORE of His blood, He gave all He needed than sat down at the right hand of God. Not still hanging on the cross for leeches to demand more of the blood He shed.
Then you deny scripture as in Revelations Christ is in heaven portrayed as a Lamb being slain. That heaven is eternal and unchanging might be missed on you, but it is. Christ’s sacrafice is eternal. It is the same Blood shed on the cross. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So no additional ‘pain is inflicted’. Also in revelations Christ is portrayed as a lamb being slain. The sacrafice God made for us is eternal. lastly this ‘pagan ritual’ as you call it is the Lords Supper. As often as we celebrate it we do as Christ did. So do you often call Christ pagan? I have never called our savior pagan, it is the Catholic who added that to their religion. You can tow the "party" line all you want but the truth is you mock the one time, once for all sacrifice, of our Lord.
It’s the Lord’s supper, if you wish to call it a pagan ritual then you call Christ pagan, it is that simple.
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood.
Since receiving under either species is whole and entire, reception of both, though a privilege, is not required. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else.
That’s an extremely large assumption. I have arthritis in both wrists. It rarely causes me much trouble, but I also rarely receive from the chalice. I’ve yet to see a chalice that looks light enough for me to hold with confidence. Nothing to do with not wanting to drink after someone else, everything to do with respect for the Sacrament and not wanting to drop the chalice. Others may not receive from the chalice because they prefer to return immediately to the pew to consider what they have just received (rather than watching to see what other people are doing….). Others may only be able to stand for just so long (my elderly parents fall into this mode – if my mother does leave the pew to receive (e.g. if the priest or minister does not come to her, as happens when they visit me) she simply isn’t stable enough on her feet to wait in the second line to receive the chalice). Others may not receive out of consideration for those who follow – I know people who, if they have a streaming cold for instance, will not receive from the chalice. I’m sorry, but you do seem to assume too much, and impute motives to people…. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)?
Intinction. I believe it depends on the bishop’s conference, but it’s not normally done in the Latin rite….(I *think* there are circumstances where it is and is not allowed – I know there was a vogue for it in the 70s and special chalices were made). It’s more commonly found in the Russian rites, in particular. In the Russian rite, the Host is put into the chalice, and people receive from a spoon. — janet
Response:
<<Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM.
The religion of the Pharisees, have rules, laws and deterministic regulations for everything. So did the religion of Moses, David and Jesus. "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Response:
<<It is blasphemy to demand MORE of His blood, He gave all He needed than sat down at the right hand of God. Not still hanging on the cross for leeches to demand more of the blood He shed. Falcon, it isn’t MORE blood, it is the SAME blood. We don’t demand it, He offers it. "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." Mt 28 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Cor 11:26ff Notice, the ONE death of the Lord, the ONLY body and blood of the Lord.
Response:
Actually since it is a re-presentation, the SAME sacrafice is made present.
It is blasphemy to demand MORE of His blood, He gave all He needed than sat down at the right hand of God. Not still hanging on the cross for leeches to demand more of the blood He shed. So no additional ‘pain is inflicted’. Also in revelations Christ is portrayed as a lamb being slain. The sacrafice God made for us is eternal. lastly this ‘pagan ritual’ as you call it is the Lords Supper. As often as we celebrate it we do as Christ did. So do you often call Christ pagan?
I have never called our savior pagan, it is the Catholic who added that to their religion. You can tow the "party" line all you want but the truth is you mock the one time, once for all sacrifice, of our Lord. Ciao, Falcon — # BIBLE: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth # # "Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test." – God #
Response:
Well I agree. I just don’t think it’s sanitary. Sure they wipe the cup with a cloth. But they wipe it with the SAME cloth and in the same place on the same cloth. Thus spreading more and more germs, person after person. There’s no way I’m drinking the wine until they come up with a better method of hygiene. My personal belief is any practice in worship that could potentially be harmful is not valid. Note! I’m not saying the drinking of the wine is invalid, only the method of distribution. The logistics of the distribution of the precious blood needs to change to make it safer.
Response:
<<Several years ago, I switched from being a two-species communicant to being a one-species communicant, and the frequency of my own catching of colds and similar minor illnesses has gone down dramatically. That should only be true if you switched to Precious Blood only. The most unhealthy practice is the selection of hosts by hand and placing them in the region of your mouth. A hand goes everywhere and touches everything. By the time the minister or priest gets to communion, he/she has touched prayer books, the ambo, notes for the homily, and dozens of other places where germs are found. Not to mention the fact that the recipient is breathing, coughing, wheezing on the hand that will communicate the next person. The next most dangerous is placing the host in the recipient’s hand. There we have two hands, but at least the recipient own hand is the one approaching the mouth. And there is no mouth contamination of the minister. The least dangerous is the common cup. People who are ill often come to receive the Host, but usually will avoid the common cup. The cup is offered, then wiped, then turned, so that the next person is receiving from basically a cleaned fresh surface. The wiping is done with a fresh clean purificator, which further ensures cleanliness. So if you can only receive one, choose the cup.
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)?
Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM. Some say they prefer that as it eliminates any possibility of passing germs, yet I’ve read studies that say not one case of illness has ever been documented to have come from sharing The Cup.
I believe the CDC did a study for the Anglican church and did come up with that conclusion. I read it just a few weeks ago when we had a workshop for our Eucharistic ministers. As to intinction being "cleaner", not a chance if it’s done by the communicant him/herself as is done, wrongly, in many parishes. Having their hands all over the bread then dipping it into the cup transmits more germs to the cup than someone healthy who drinks from it. That being said, there is nothing wrong with reminding people that if they have a cold, or cold sores or whatever they should not receive from the cup. There was a case within the last year in New Brunswick, Canada where someone received from the cup at either a wedding or a funeral and then came down with meningitis the next day. Everyone who received from the same cup was offered antibiotics as a precaution. Since there were no further news reports on the case one can only assume that no one who shared the cup also came down with meningitis or the media would have run with it. Again, your thoughts?
I always receive from the cup unless I know I’m contagious. Suzanne Mark Anthony Ferrante ‘Quod scripsi scripsi’ – ‘What I have written I have Written.’– Pontius
Pilate
Response:
It says a lot about the value of a sacrament if it can sicken or kill you to receive it.
Friend, the Bible teaches as much. Some became sick and even died after receiving Holy Communion with an unrepentant heart. (1st Corinthians 11.) You must have a puny and worthless god if his blood won’t protect you against a damn microbe.
One can assume the microbes (as you put it) were on the outside of the chalice where the lips touch. Perhaps the chalice was not wiped. St Paul was a man of faith whose hankies healed the sick, yet he suffered from a sore in his side which would not be healed by God. God never promised to keep us from all pain and sickness in -this- life, but to be with us while we walked the path to the next where these things will be finished with. Peaced and grace. Fr James.
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)? Intinction. It is only allowed when done by the priest. The method is very well described in the GIRM.
The religion of the Pharisees, have rules, laws and deterministic regulations for everything. Ciao, Falcon — # BIBLE: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth # # "Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test." – God #
Response:
Actually since it is a re-presentation, the SAME sacrafice is made present. So no additional ‘pain is inflicted’. Also in revelations Christ is portrayed as a lamb being slain. The sacrafice God made for us is eternal. lastly this ‘pagan ritual’ as you call it is the Lords Supper. As often as we celebrate it we do as Christ did. So do you often call Christ pagan? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] The only thing contrary to this pagan ritual of the Catholic religion is the truth of God. Hebrews 7:27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself The book of Hebrews tells the truth, the blood of Christ is not daily, it was once for all time. Since the eucharistic ritual claims to "re-present" all that Christ suffered for our sins, Jesus must undergo the same experience millions of times every day. Worse yet than the unending brutality and mockery He must suffer is the continual experience of the agony of separation from His Father, which caused Jesus to "sweat…as it were great drops of blood…" and to appeal to His Father to "remove this cup from me" if it were possible.
Response:
—– snip all prior material —– Several years ago, I switched from being a two-species communicant to being a one-species communicant, and the frequency of my own catching of colds and similar minor illnesses has gone down dramatically. The transmission of minor infections on the rim of the communion cup does not disprove the Catholic doctrine of the True Presence. Any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense.
The only thing contrary to this pagan ritual of the Catholic religion is the truth of God. Hebrews 7:27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself The book of Hebrews tells the truth, the blood of Christ is not daily, it was once for all time. Since the eucharistic ritual claims to "re-present" all that Christ suffered for our sins, Jesus must undergo the same experience millions of times every day. Worse yet than the unending brutality and mockery He must suffer is the continual experience of the agony of separation from His Father, which caused Jesus to "sweat…as it were great drops of blood…" and to appeal to His Father to "remove this cup from me" if it were possible. Ciao, Falcon — # BIBLE: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth # # "Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test." – God #
Response:
—– snip all prior material —– Several years ago, I switched from being a two-species communicant to being a one-species communicant, and the frequency of my own catching of colds and similar minor illnesses has gone down dramatically. The transmission of minor infections on the rim of the communion cup does not disprove the Catholic doctrine of the True Presence. Any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense. — Stanley Sramek Houston, Texas
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood.
It’s not required. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else.
Their perogative. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)?
It’s called intinction and AFAIK it’s allowed as long as the priest does it. Self-intinction (taking the host and dipping it in the chalice oneself) is not allowed. Some say they prefer that as it eliminates any possibility of passing germs, yet I’ve read studies that say not one case of illness has ever been documented to have come from sharing The Cup.
Assuming the chalice won’t transfer germs is superstition. That being said, when both species is offered, I usually do take them.
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)? Some say they prefer that as it eliminates any possibility of passing germs, yet I’ve read studies that say not one case of illness has ever been documented to have come from sharing The Cup. Again, your thoughts? Mark Anthony Ferrante
Anglican and Catholic Churches in Tasmania (Australia) have recently been ‘requested’ by the health authorities there to amend the way the faithful receive the Prescious Blood after three people caught the dreaded meningalcocal disease. (I believe they all died as a result). I am not sure which Church they linked the passing of the disease on to but I -think- it was the Anglican. I have not heard of it happening amongst Orthodox or any other Roman Catholic churches. I -have- heard that the black plague during the medieval times decimated the numbers of priests. One can assume the shared Chalice -may- have been a factor, but with the office of anointing the sick and dying this cannot be taken at a given. Peace and grace. Fr James (Eastern Orthodox)
Response:
Since either specie is complete there is nothing wrong or incomplete about receiving under one kind. I many parishes the cup is not offered as a matter of course due to practical constraints such as number of parishoners. Or the preference of the Priest presiding. The term as far as I recall is intinction for the mingling of the consecrated species before distribution. Again it is a matter of preference and local customs. The argument I have heard is that it lessens the chance of improper reception. Last week the Priest at our parish had to remind people how to receive communion in the hand. Hold your hands flat and wait for the Eucharist to be placed in your Palm. He said that the ‘Body snatchers’ would no longer be tolerated. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)? Some say they prefer that as it eliminates any possibility of passing germs, yet I’ve read studies that say not one case of illness has ever been documented to have come from sharing The Cup. Again, your thoughts? Mark Anthony Ferrante ‘Quod scripsi scripsi’ – ‘What I have written I have Written.’– Pontius Pilate
Response:
During Mass I watch, in amazement, the people who receive the host but do not accept the blood. Apparently they do not want to drink after someone else. It does not bother me to accept the Blood, but I would like your thoughts on that. Also, are priests allowed to dip the Body into the Blood and then offer it to you (I know there is a term for this, but it escapes me at this moment)? Some say they prefer that as it eliminates any possibility of passing germs, yet I’ve read studies that say not one case of illness has ever been documented to have come from sharing The Cup. Again, your thoughts? Mark Anthony Ferrante ‘Quod scripsi scripsi’ – ‘What I have written I have Written.’– Pontius Pilate
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.