Pope Francis distributes Holy Communion to the lay faithful by way of intinction:
There is an interesting article on intinction or rather self intinction at Praytell. I won't link the article as it is about the Protestant version of it. However the article makes some of the points I make about how contagious and unhealthy the common chalice is.
Of course self intinction would be a disaster as numerous fingers could touch the precious Blood thus contaminating the accidents to include other hosts that are touched when one takes his own.
For example, as I have taught over and over again, one can contract a deadly disease from the common chalice. Our bishop allowed us to eliminate the chalice during our recent flu season which was really one of the worst we have had.
But there has been no word about allowing the chalice to return as I am not sure the flu season is over. I had a parishioner get sick with it just two weeks ago! Maybe FRMJK can tell us if he has restored the unhealthy common chalice since he eliminated it.
I did not eliminate it in protest of the fact it is unhealthy year round not just during a particular season. I did warn my parishioners about the dangers of receiving from the common chalice not just during the so-called flu season, but year round.
Why are some priests reprimanded when instituting intinction where only the deacon or the priest intinct the Host:
It is ideological because some bishops simply want people to receive in the hand and they want hoards of Eucharistic Ministers holding the common chalice for unsuspecting victims of disease.
But somehow I missed this in our revised 2002 Roman Missal's General Instruction for the USA on intinction which, oddly enough, the Praytell article quoted (a Protestant author quotes it astonishingly):
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, 24.2)
Interesting no?
This is a portion of a post I wrote in 2012 and yes in the 2012 photo I am offering Holy Communion to a first communicant by way of intinction:
Of course self intinction would be a disaster as numerous fingers could touch the precious Blood thus contaminating the accidents to include other hosts that are touched when one takes his own.
For example, as I have taught over and over again, one can contract a deadly disease from the common chalice. Our bishop allowed us to eliminate the chalice during our recent flu season which was really one of the worst we have had.
But there has been no word about allowing the chalice to return as I am not sure the flu season is over. I had a parishioner get sick with it just two weeks ago! Maybe FRMJK can tell us if he has restored the unhealthy common chalice since he eliminated it.
I did not eliminate it in protest of the fact it is unhealthy year round not just during a particular season. I did warn my parishioners about the dangers of receiving from the common chalice not just during the so-called flu season, but year round.
Why are some priests reprimanded when instituting intinction where only the deacon or the priest intinct the Host:
It is ideological because some bishops simply want people to receive in the hand and they want hoards of Eucharistic Ministers holding the common chalice for unsuspecting victims of disease.
But somehow I missed this in our revised 2002 Roman Missal's General Instruction for the USA on intinction which, oddly enough, the Praytell article quoted (a Protestant author quotes it astonishingly):
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, 24.2)
Interesting no?
This is a portion of a post I wrote in 2012 and yes in the 2012 photo I am offering Holy Communion to a first communicant by way of intinction:
INTINCTION IS ONE OF TWO LAWFUL WAYS TO DISTRIBUTE THE MOST PRECIOUS BLOOD OF OUR RISEN LORD TO THE LAITY
Some have commented that they thought "intinction" was no longer lawful in the Latin Rite. What is unlawful is for the communicant to take the host in their hand and dip it into the Precious Blood themselves. However it is perfectly lawful minister of Holy communion to intinct the Host for the communicant and the General Instruction of the Revised English and Latin Roman Missal makes it quite clear that it is:
IV. SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR ALL FORMS OF MASS
284. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,
a. The chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is present, by a
priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy
Communion, or by a member of the faithful who in case of necessity has been
entrusted with this duty for a single occasion;
IV. SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR ALL FORMS OF MASS
284. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,
a. The chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is present, by a
priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy
Communion, or by a member of the faithful who in case of necessity has been
entrusted with this duty for a single occasion;
31 comments:
"For example, as I have taught over and over again, one can contract a deadly disease from the common chalice."
Yes, you have. And you have been reminded over and over again that the scientific evidence, which overrides your fear of germs, teaches that the chance of contracting a deadly disease from the common cup in insignificant and not a reasonable basis for discontinuing the practice.
You may not know the flu season is over, but the rest of the world does.
Yes, after the flu season came to and end - and it was a bad one - we reinstituted use of the common cup.
Then you are really illogical and there was absolutely no reason to eliminate the common chalice in the first place AS YOU DID! Stunning inconsistency!
Odds are very high that you will not be struck by lightning...but, are you going to stand outside during an electrical storm?
Odds against being bitten by a venomous snake in America are very high...but, if you know nothing about snakes, are you going to go and randomly pick them up in the woods?
Odds against being eaten by an alligator are extremely high...but, are you going to go swimming in Louisiana bayous with gators on the banks?
It is common sense, Kavanaugh, to avoid exposing yourself to possible harm even when the odds are against it.
I explained to you why I temporarily discontinued the use of the common cup, Allan. That you choose to ignore what you read is what is stunning.
No, Gene, it's not common sense.
We expose ourselves to possible harm every day. A woman was just killed in a freak accident on a Southwest airline flight, but you are going to stop flying because you might get sucked out of a window at 30,000 feet? Of course not.
Are you going to stop driving because there are drunks behind the wheel all over creation? Of course not.
Are you going to stop taking Tylenol or other over the counter potions because someone might have tampered with the product, adding deadly poison? Of course not.
Even the germophobe Fr. McDonald is going to keep touching doorknobs. And he's going to continue distributing communion in a way that, at times, includes touching the lips and/or tongue of the communicants. He's not going to stop giving communion because there is some infinitesimally small chance that HE might be personally responsible, and civilly liable to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for causing the death of one of his parishioners.
Don't be so silly.
Kavanaugh, your idea of "science" is the Global Warming Religion.
It's not best to do superior things for inferior reasons. The reason communion from a common chalice in the current fashion was done away with over a millenium ago was not to avoid feared spread of disease, but because of increased reverence for the sacred species. This is still the best reason, especially now that communion in both kinds is employed primarily as a pretext for requiring otherwise unnecessary EMHC's--desired for ideological reasons (being mostly female)--and involves other abuses.
"Are you going to stop driving because there are drunks behind the wheel all over creation? Of course not."
I find this to be a poor argument. No one is saying to abstain from receiving Our Lord, present in the sacrament. Of course, the Eucharist contains the fullness of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Lord and so the sacred vessel is not a requirement for the laity as it contains all the same as well. That being said, am I the only one that's more concerned about the confusion the laity has over the Eucharistic presence in these forms from lack of Catechesis and poor treatment of the sacred vessels by anyone who wants to waltz up to the altar like they own the place?
At any rate, with an extensive background in microbiology, I would argue that its ~probably not safe to share anything orally with tens to hundreds of people.
TJM - Well, actually, religion relies on faith, a supernatural gift, while science relies on facts that are supported with evidence and analysis. So the idea that I, or anyone, has an idea of a science based on religion is just silly.
A good article, with lots of evidence, about the human contribution to climate change (aka global warming) can be found here:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Wt3wsExFw5s
Good point Henry, just yesterday a Precious Blood was spiked on our floor by accident giving the other meaning to the Catholic word accident!
"Within the CDC, the consensus of the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis is that a theoretic risk of transmitting infectious diseases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetectable. The CDC has not been called on to investigate any episodes or outbreaks of infectious diseases that have been allegedly linked to the use of a common communion cup."
"In summary, the risk for infectious disease transmission by a common communion cup is very low, and appropriate safeguards-that is, wiping the interior and exterior rim between communicants, use of care to rotate the cloth during use, and use of a clean cloth for each service-would further diminish this risk."
"UNDETECTABLE"
http://www.ntnl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Common-Cup-CDC.pdf
"Interest and concern that the shared communion cup may act as a vehicle for indirectly transmitting infectious disease was reawakened when the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was detected in the saliva of infected persons. Bacteriological experiments have shown that the occasional transmission of micro-organisms is unaffected by the alcoholic content of the wine, the constituent material of the cup or the practice of partially rotating it, but is appreciably reduced when a cloth is used to wipe the lip of the cup between communicants. Nevertheless, transmission does not necessarily imply inoculation or infection. Consideration of the epidemiology of micro-organisms that may be transmitted via saliva, particularly the herpes group of viruses, suggests that indirect transmission of infection is rare and in most instances a much greater opportunity exists for direct transmission by other means. There is substantial evidence that neither infection with hepatitis B virus nor HIV can be transmitted directly via saliva so that indirect transmission via inanimate objects is even less likely. No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported. Currently available data do not provide any support for suggesting that the practice of sharing a common communion cup should be abandoned because it might spread infection."
"No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284951
"Finally, in 1998 the CDC reported there had never been an outbreak of infection related to the communion cup.23 They referenced a study from 1997 in which 681 participants who drank daily from a common cup were at no higher risk of infection than those who participated less frequently or who completely abstained from Christian services. They concluded that it is probably safe to participate in services where a common cup is used, with the caveat that any member of the congregation with active respiratory illness or open labial or mouth sores abstain from partaking.23
In conclusion, there is experimental evidence suggesting that sharing a communion cup contaminates the wine and cup. However, there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature."
"...there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971213001872
Kavanaugh,
That's politics dressed up as science. If you attack the premise, the true believers go bonkers. Global Warming is just a new version of Communism. How does redistributing wealth fix the planet? The US is THE leader in reducing carbon emissions via the free enterprise system. All the socialist nations are the lagers. Read this for a reality check:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-cuts-global-warming-gases-faster-than-anyone-else-but-media-ignore-it/
Kavanaugh,
That's politics dressed up as science. If you attack the premise, the true believers go bonkers. Global Warming is just a new version of Communism. How does redistributing wealth fix the planet? The US is THE leader in reducing carbon emissions via the free enterprise system. All the socialist nations are the lagers. Read this for a reality check:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-cuts-global-warming-gases-faster-than-anyone-else-but-media-ignore-it/
Ann. @10:38, thank you for your common sense that trumps the silliness of the comment at 11:16 am.
"At any rate, with an extensive background in microbiology, I would argue that its ~probably not safe to share anything orally with tens to hundreds of people."
You don't need scientific dribble only common sense and from one trained in microbiology!
""...there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature."
And likely never will be, since definite causality in such a case is inherently unprovable.
Reliance on such reasoning as a basis for inference illustrates the sort of scientific ignorance that a prudent person would keep hidden, rather than displaying it for all of us to see. Especially since we hardly need more evidence than we've already seen repeatedly.
TJM asserts: "That's politics dressed up as science."
Sorry, but measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere are not politics.
And neither are these data:
•Arctic sea ice extent is diminishing.
•Ocean heat content is increasing.
•Air temperature over ocean is increasing.
•Sea surface temperature is increasing.
•Global sea level is rising.
•Humidity is increasing (causing more warming).
•Temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.
•Air temperature over land is increasing.
•Snow cover is reduced, and snow is melting earlier.
•Glaciers are melting.
"The redistribution of wealth" does not appear in the article I cited. I conclude you did not read it.
"You don't need scientific dribble only common sense and from one trained in microbiology!"
Doesn't that kinda sound like "You don't need scientific dribble, only common sense from one trained in neurosurgery!"
Or "You don't need scientific dribble, only common sense from one trained in astrophysics!"
What, precisely, do you think separates "scientific dribble" from training in microbiology one wonders....
It is not the lip of the chalice per-se that is the problem when it comes to infection transmission. It is more in each communicant taking the chalice with their hands.
Take heed of the request you see posted in medical facilities:"wash your hands"-
"lavos las manos".
Mike is usually a stickler for people who argue from correlation without being able to show causation. Amazingly, that requirement doesn't seem to apply to his arguments. It's almost like he's a hypocrite. Almost.
Common sense observation:
"Showing ordinary walking-around common sense is what distinguishes the typical man on the street from a progressive cleric.
The problem is easily solved by receiving the body and blood of our Lord via. the host only. It is complete and fortunately allows one to avoid the lipstick and whatever else might be clinging to the cup's rim or, has mixed with the consecrated wine.
Kavanaugh,
Thanks for your fake scientific "facts." They have been debunked time and time again. They are used by Big Government propagandists to assert more control over the canaille (or the Deplorables in Felonia Von Pantsuit's charming and compassionate lexicon) According to the High Priest of the Global Warming Religion, Al the Bore (who uses private jets, lives in a McMansion, and has a huge personal carbon footprint) New Yawk and Florida should have been underwater by now, and snow in New England was supposed to be a thing of the past. A priest who is this caught up in big government scams is one sad character and someone I would not take seriously as a priest. People (including priests) who have lost faith in themselves and God generally turn to Big Government. That worked out well for the Germans, Chinese and the Russians.
Most times when I see a Catholic Mass from the Mideast, Intinction is the normal way of distribution of the Eucharist. Don't the Eastern Orthodox also distribute as a form of Intinction? For the Eucharistic ministers I have recently read that one of the arguments for bringing back the Diaconate was that the Priest needed help to distribute the Eucharist. The Deacon was supposed to assist, though they rarely do and because of that I do think there is some Church politics involved in limiting Intinction. Science is also influenced by politics. One common anti-religion microbiology experiment is to check Holy Water fonts for bacterial contamination and that bacterial evidence is always found. I hope that the Blessed Sacrament is not cultured for a microbiological survey! Personal Preference? Either only the Host distributed or Intinction at the larger Masses. Distribution of Host and Chalice should be limited to a few family Masses. I don't know if this puts me on the side of Fr. MJK or Fr. AJM
Thanks for your fake scientific "facts." They have been debunked time and time again.
Only in your mind...
Kavanaugh at 6:30 am, if your mind is not closed like a trap like most global warming fanatics, chew on this:
https://fee.org/articles/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
Only in your mind . . .
fee.org is a Koch-Funded, libertarian (Pelagian) "foundation" that exists to spread propaganda.
Among its related organization is the State Policy Network (SPN) which is a major driver of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC-backed corporate agenda hijacks state legislatures nationwide, and has deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.
The idol of FEE and ALEC is "free enterprise."
Catholics cannot be idol worshippers.
Kavanaugh,
LOL!! Look who's calling the kettle black. Here are the facts on your left-wing loon, propaganda spreading "scientific organization:
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/
Only in your mind . . .
"Activist Facts" takes the Union to task over the notion that we should be cautious in introducing new products for human use/consumption. "Activist" laughs at the idea that we should show, scientifically, that no significant harm might come from such a new product.
Would that a cautious approach had been followed in the case of Thalidomide.
Of course, fee.org might argue in a Libertarian (Pelagian) sort of way that the "market" can regulate dangerous drugs/chemicals out of our environment. After all, if a product proves to be harmful, people will stop buying/using it, right?
Tell that to the mothers of deformed children.
This tortured thread reminds me once again what a blessing is to attend a parish that's never gone down the slippery slope of regular communion in both kinds. And with 4 Sunday English or Latin Masses with an average attendance of perhaps 250, our 2 priests and 3 deacons ordinarily distributing only the Sacred Host, the bonus of not needing the horde of EMHC's that are the scourge of so many parishes.
One last comment on the big government scam adored by leftists and fake catholics:
In the 1970s it was Global Cooling. The answer was to restrict industry, lower the proles' standard of living, and vastly increase government control of people's lives.
In the 2000 it was Global Warming. The answer was to restrict industry, lower the proles' standard of living, and vastly increase government control of people's lives.
Now it is "Climate Change". The answer is to restrict industry, lower the proles' standard of living, and vastly increase government control of people's lives.
Only in your own mind....
Post a Comment