Tuesday, January 4, 2011

I INTERUPT MY VACATION FOR BREAKING NEWS ON DISEASE AND HOLY COMMUNION'S COMMON CHALICE!

This is a safe way!

This would be a very safe way, individually wrapped and consecrated host and wine, open yourself containers!


From the New York Daily News:
Churchgoers who received Communion at a Catholic church in Long Island on Christmas Day could have been infected with hepatitis A, the Nassau County Health Department warned Monday.
Department and church officials did not name the source of the virus, but said that people who attended services at 10:30 a.m. and noon at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Massapequa Park could have been exposed during the Communion ceremony, when priests, deacons and selected parishioners distribute wafers and wine.
Mary Ellen Laurain, a spokeswoman for the Nassau County Department of Health, said that “a person involved in the Communion process has tested positive for hepatitis A.”
“We feel the transmission [level] is low,” she told Newsday, saying only a few people were possibly exposed. “And to protect the public from potential illness, those who received Holy Communion on Dec. 25 should receive prophylactic treatment.”
Hepatitis A is not as dangerous as hepatitis B and C. Most people infected with it experience flu symptoms like fever, nausea and diarrhea. It does not lead to chronic liver disease, like hepatitis B and C.
It is normally transmitted by food or drink that is handled by an infected person who has not washed his or her hands properly, or if an infected person’s stool comes in contact with food.

And while we're at it an interesting interview with Cardinal Burke on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the actual reform of the reformed Mass and Holy Communion kneeling:

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a small world. My brother was visiting for New Years and told me about a protestant church that had what he called Communion Happy Meals. There is a company that packages wafers and wine in little containers similar to the cheese and cracker snacks. He said they would take at the end of the service and go home to enjoy and share with shut ins. We had a big laugh over it, but it is sort of scary. We are so insulated from each other now, has it come to making holy MRE to consume in the bunker? Maybe when the bishop wears a tin foil zucchetta.

rcg

pinanv525 said...

OMG! Not those Lord's Supper trays they use down at the "Sword of Joshua Baptist Church by the Frontage Road!" No...nonononono!!!

How about...receiving in one kind only on the tongue. But, we've been here before. This does sort of give the old Bronx cheer to Ignotus/Hus/Anonymous, however. LOL!

Anonymous said...

I wonder how long it would take to "purify" all those little cups! Yikes -

Anonymous said...

Oh Father... how VERY Protestant of you! -pgal

John Hus said...

Sorry, Pinanv525, we're still waiting for a report in a medical journal that links the common cup to an epidemic, large or small.

We know that infection "may" happen with the use of the common cup. The question is whether or not the risk of contagion warrants eliminating the use of the common cup. To date there is no credible evidence that it does.

Cheer away!

Frajm said...

The Nile is not just a river that runs through Egypt. You know the famous truth, "what is the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?" "You can negotiate with a terrorist." The principle of the drinking from the common cup has been so ingrained in certain people as an absolute necessity, even to the point of brainwashing, that to give it up is just unthinkable despite health concerns. Unbelievable!

John Hus said...

Father, if you show that the health concerns have any basis in fact, we can talk.

Drinking from the cup is not "an absolute necessity." Neither is it an "absolute necessity" to discontinue its use because there is a minimal risk of contagion.

What's sauce for the goose...

Frajm said...

Let's compromise and talk about intinction then, the second choice that is perfectly legitimate in the USA's adaptation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 2002.

John Hus said...

Sorry, there is no "compromise" on the fact that no epidemic, large or small, has been reported in the scientific literature as resulting from the use of the common communion cup.

Henry said...

Whether communion from a common cup is desirable may depend on one's theological opinion, or on one's opinion of the probability of infection, or on one's opinion of the attendant multiplication of EMHC's (which I assume to be the principal reason liturgists favor it so insistently).

However, it is a fact that common cup communion prevents me from sharing that "fullness of sign", because I will not do it.

Intinction does permit me that blessing. Of course, it's not about me and how I feel, but to me there are few words more powerful than Corpus et sanguis Christi.

Incidentally, at the daily Mass I frequent, the servers and EHMC's receive by intinction, whereas the "ordinary people" attend in the ordinary way, though many on them on the tongue and some kneeling.

Frajm said...

You confirm my terrorist anecdote and there is no compromise in doing what the GIRM allows.

pinanv525 said...

Ignotus/Hus, the stated possibility is enough. If only one person has been infected (which the published article seemed to indicate) that is enough. Perhaps if the possibility of infection only included the common cold, it might be dismissed. However, there are many worse diseases that could be transmitted. Science has, in many instances, smugly asserted "facts" and "theories" only to have them disproven by later events.

Compromising with people like Ignotus is a null proposition. It is like wrestling with a hog...you both get muddy and only the hog enjoys it. Ignotus types, like the terrorists you mentioned, view compromise as weakness and capitulation. Pour it on. LOL!

John Hus said...

Reading Comprehension here seems to need a bit of work -

Father you did not offer a "compromise" on the matter of infection resulting from the use of a common communion cup. You changed subjects. No, there is no compromise on the infection question. If you want to change topics now and address intinction, have at it, but don't suggest that that is a compromise.


Pinanv525 - The NY Daily News item does not "seem to indicate" that a person has been infected. It says "could have been infected," "could have been exposed,and "only a few people were possibly exposed."

Yes, reading comprehension is needed.

Frajm said...

Then let's write about the merits of the healthy alternative intinction over the festering germ and death inducing common cup.

pinanv525 said...

Hus/Ignotus, There is nothing wrong with mine or Fr.'s reading comprehension. Your common sense, however, may well be in question. Apparently, the health department felt that the common cup was likely enough to have been the source that they encouraged everyone who took Communion on Dec. 23rd to get treatment. If that is their public stance, what are they saying among themselves...they who understand these things?

Anonymous said...

Pinanv525 - You state, "If only one person has been infected (which the published article seemed to indicate)...)" What part of this published article seems to indicate this? Could you quote the passage that leads to to believe that anyone has been infected?

Further, there has been no 'compromise.' Fr. McDonald suggested a compromise when he was, rather, trying to steer the discussion away from contagion to his preference for intinction.

Further, virtually every medical procedure, every drug therapy, every medical intervention you have willingly accepted to maintain or repair your health has been based on the science that you so smugly dismiss as subject to being subsequently "disproven by later events." Seems to me you have a wicked obvious double-standard here.

Father, if you want to discuss intinction, we can do that based on the merits of that practice, but not on the baseless claim that sharing a common cup is so fraught with danger that it should, therefore, be discontinued.

Can you cite ONE published study that shows a link between sharing the common cup and an epidemic, large or small? Without such, it seems your opposition to the common cup is baseless in terms of public safety.

Frajm said...

I cite common sense mandates of bishops here concerning h1n1 that prevented an epidemic and in australia and the request that those who are sick not approach the cup. That's good enough for me.

pinanv525 said...

Ignotus, The article in question presents a strong anecdotal case for contamination from the common cup. If you cannot comprehend that, then I am sorry. I believe the health department's response indicates a concern among professional health care people, as well.

There is no double standard in my statements. Pointing to the errors of science or its occasional enthusiastic false pronouncements in no way means that we cannot appreciate its major successes. Why, scientists and physicians are capable of peforming such amazing feats as removing someone's head from amazingly small places. You should contact them...

Anonymous said...

Recalling Typhoid Mary, we can say that there is evidence that relatively small amount of contact can lead to mass infection. In another forum we are discussing Sylvester II and his dedication to the scientific process in "The Dark Ages". It would be irresponsible, unscientific, and unethical in the Catholic sense, to rest on the old findings knowing that the conditions for those investigations were restricted and are changed. The answer may very well be the same, but we know that it can change and knowing that some of the assumptions have changed requires us to ask the question. Dismissing the person who asks it is not the way to encourage confidence in the answer. More importantly simply citing a study and not exploring connection is not scientific, but superstitious.

rcg

Anonymous said...

Hi, Fr. McDonald. I hope you are enjoying the warm weather in Miami...and applying lots of sunscreen!

I understand the change in Mass regarding the common cup. However, I sure do miss the exchange of the sign of peace. Any thoughts on bringing that back into the Mass?

Anonymous said...

Excellent interview with Cardinal Burke. Not only can we learn from the Holy Father but also from the Cardinal in the way he listens, observes and obeys the Holy Father. A fine example for other Cardinals, but even more so, Bishops..They are the most obstinant group.

Anonymous said...

Eliminate EMHC and so if it takes 5 minutes longer for the Priest to distribute then so be it. Less people distributing will decrease the risk of said person being sick. SImple mathematics.

pinanv525 said...

The sign of peace never went away at St. Jo's.

Anonymous said...

We attended Mass this summer at St Mary's in Greenville, SC. Fr Dwight Longnecker was the Celebrant. Not only was the Mass orthodox, reverent & beautiful, it was celebrated Ad Orientum.

When it came time to receive, only the Host was distributed. The Priest along with the Deacon distributed - NO EMHCs. The church is a decent size & it was packed to the rafters (tons of young families), but the distribution only took about 3-5 minutes longer than with EMHC's & the precious blood.

Though I am a 'fan' of the Precious Blood, I did not 'feel cheated' in any way as the Mass was so orthodox & Holy Communion was done so reverently. I also truly appreciated receiving from those who I was 'meant' to receive as opposed to the typical extra-ordinary setting that has become the ordinary setting in America.

Distribution of the Host was at this Mass was predominantly on the tongue. While that is also an issue, peoples hands are dirty as well, so at some point one has to trust God more than the germs!
-pgal