Finally, in these troubling times there is a great need for some positive moves from the American bishops that touch all the people. Intinction does this visually, practically and religiously.
The Eucharist is the soul of Catholic practice, the sacrament of sacraments. Actively fostering intinction would show that the bishops are concerned about the health of their people.
The American bishops need a positive sign to regain confidence today. Intinction is already in their quiver.
--NCR, National Catholic Reporter!
And young people can get meningitis and die within three days after drinking after someone, like a Coke can. I offered a funeral Mass (Requiem at which I did preach) for a 19 year old girl who died within three days of the same!
Yes the common chalice and make you very sick and may even lead to your death if you have a compromised immune system!
I fully expect bishops will ban the common chalice and allow for intinction as soon as lawsuits force them rather than commonsense!
And now of all publications, The National Catholic Reporter backs up common sense science about this. Fr. MJK, please take note (btw) he in his common sense did eliminate the chalice in his parish last flu season.
Is sipping from the communion cup a hazard to your health?
A priest prepares to distribute Communion during a Divine
Liturgy at Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Cathedral in Brooklyn, N.Y. The
practice of intinction, or dipping the consecrated bread into the
consecrated wine, is common in Eastern-rite communities of the Roman
Catholic Church. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
Flu, pneumonia and viral cold season is upon us. Is sipping from the communion cup a hazard to your health? Certainly, it is risky.
One medical doctor colleague who served as a minister of the cup told us of his experience after all the people had communicated. He consumed the remaining Precious Blood. Not long afterward he came down with mononucleosis. He could think of no other reason for contracting mono than his experience of drinking the remains of the cup. Whether our friend's analysis is correct or not, it discouraged him from being a communion minister and drinking from the cup.
A church organist told us she stopped receiving the Blood of Christ years ago when she found she was frequently getting sick with upper respiratory infections. One of our communion ministers of the cup recounted that at the end of communion when she looked into the cup with particles floating around and remembering all the people who have sipped, it turned her stomach. She would no longer
serve as a communion minister because she said "what should be uplifting is gross."
Why do more than 50 percent of Catholics after receiving the consecrated host hesitate to drink from the same cup at liturgy? Health! Most medical people would advise against the congregation drinking from the same cup.
Some people suggest that the alcohol in the wine protects the drinker. Unfortunately, the low alcohol content of the wine is not antiseptic. A swab from the cup and onto a nutrient petri dish would prove the point to the most devout communicant.
In the United States it is not our custom to share cups, utensils or straws. Consider the reaction of guests if you were the host of a party, put only one large cup of wine on the table and told the guests that they should pass this cup of wine around and share. A congregation drinking from the same cup is a time bomb waiting to happen.
There is a practical solution for receiving the Precious Blood already approved by the American bishops. The United States Bishop's Conference in 2017 issued Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion. Norms presents another form for distributing the Precious Blood. It is intinction.
Intinction means that the consecrated bread is placed in or dipped into the consecrated wine; people then receive in one eating action the Body and Blood of Christ.
As a medical doctor for over 27 years and in family practice, I never drink from the cup unless I am the first after the priest. Most parishioners are quite capable of casual exposure to bacteria or virus particles. But the elderly, the frail or those otherwise immunocompromised are at much greater risk of severe illness when drinking from a common cup. Today, the elderly often make up a large portion of the congregation.
Additionally, infected parishioners fail to understand when they are contagious. We have watched people who are coughing violently after a week of moderately severe influenza and then take from the cup first in the communion line. Despite warnings from the liturgical office of our diocese, they do not recall or advert to the harm of those who follow or the last person who consumes the remains.
Potentially the most infection risk to parishioners is the most insidious. Most viral infections have an incubation period after inoculation and before they feel symptoms. The person does not feel ill. These people shed infectious material several days before the symptoms illness and thus drink unaware that they may be spreading infection.
There are also significant inconsistencies between teaching and practice with our children. Teachers instruct children not to drink from the same cup, drink from other's milk, or share straws. Then at liturgy we go with an opposite message — share the one cup. What a contradiction!
Intinction is another way of distribution. It has many positive factors. Intinction removes entirely the health risks of multiple people drinking from the same cup. It doubles the number of persons receiving both Body and Blood of the Lord. Good results!
During Advent 2017, the Parish of St. Joseph in Randolph, Ohio, practiced intinction and 95 percent of the people received the Body and Blood of Christ. As the administrator of this parish and a priest for 55 years, I can attest there were no drippings and no accidents. The congregation approved of this adult and healthy way of receiving the Eucharist and spoke eloquently with their feet
We handled intinction in the following way. We obtained intinction sets that were used in the Maronite Catholic Rite. The dish in the middle is very shallow and, in this cup, we poured some very red wine for consecration.
At Communion the consecrated host was dipped into the wine by the communion minister but only allowing a small ring of the Precious Blood to form as a crescent on the bottom of the host. The intincted host was then presented to the communicant with the words, "The Body and Blood of Christ." They received the intincted host at the top by their fingers and placed it themselves in their mouth.
An even simpler way would have the communicants
themselves dip the host into the shallow cup after the minister offered
the cup with the words, "The Blood of Christ." According to the Norms
document, this is not self-communication since both Body and Blood are
presented (offered) to the communicant. This manner of communicating is
adult, reverent and healthy.
Intinction almost entirely eliminates the health issue. Bishop George Murry of the Diocese of Youngstown, remarked to one of us that at times when he places a host on the tongue, the person closes their mouth on his fingers. Intinction avoids this since the communicant places the host in their own mouth, a very adult way.
If a person has an alcohol reservation, that person would not proceed to the cup. Our experiment indicated that the number of people receiving both Body and Blood of Christ rose from less than 50 percent to at least 95 percent. So many more received the "fuller sign" in accordance with the church's wishes. This added to the people's religious faith, participation and devotion.
Some church men object, perhaps many of them liturgists, calling this self-intinction. There is no such word self-intinction in the bishops' document. We avoided the problem of self-communication because there was always a minister saying the Body of Christ or The Blood of Christ. We also used intinction positively for First Communion.
Finally, in these troubling times there is a great need for some positive moves from the American bishops that touch all the people. Intinction does this visually, practically and religiously.
The Eucharist is the soul of Catholic practice, the sacrament of sacraments. Actively fostering intinction would show that the bishops are concerned about the health of their people.
The American bishops need a positive sign to regain confidence today. Intinction is already in their quiver.
[Jesuit Fr. Thomas S. Acker, Ph.D., is the administrator St. Joseph Parish, in Randolph, Ohio. He is president emeritus of Wheeling Jesuit University. He received his Ph.D. in biology from Stanford University and has taught microbiology and parasitology. He has been an ordained priest for 55 years. Brian Cain, M.D., has spent 27 years in family practice and is an active parishioner of St. Joseph Parish. He is married to a practicing nurse and is the father of three children. He received his M.D. from Northeast Ohio Medical University.]
Intinction almost entirely eliminates the health issue. Bishop George Murry of the Diocese of Youngstown, remarked to one of us that at times when he places a host on the tongue, the person closes their mouth on his fingers. Intinction avoids this since the communicant places the host in their own mouth, a very adult way.
If a person has an alcohol reservation, that person would not proceed to the cup. Our experiment indicated that the number of people receiving both Body and Blood of Christ rose from less than 50 percent to at least 95 percent. So many more received the "fuller sign" in accordance with the church's wishes. This added to the people's religious faith, participation and devotion.
Some church men object, perhaps many of them liturgists, calling this self-intinction. There is no such word self-intinction in the bishops' document. We avoided the problem of self-communication because there was always a minister saying the Body of Christ or The Blood of Christ. We also used intinction positively for First Communion.
Finally, in these troubling times there is a great need for some positive moves from the American bishops that touch all the people. Intinction does this visually, practically and religiously.
The Eucharist is the soul of Catholic practice, the sacrament of sacraments. Actively fostering intinction would show that the bishops are concerned about the health of their people.
The American bishops need a positive sign to regain confidence today. Intinction is already in their quiver.
[Jesuit Fr. Thomas S. Acker, Ph.D., is the administrator St. Joseph Parish, in Randolph, Ohio. He is president emeritus of Wheeling Jesuit University. He received his Ph.D. in biology from Stanford University and has taught microbiology and parasitology. He has been an ordained priest for 55 years. Brian Cain, M.D., has spent 27 years in family practice and is an active parishioner of St. Joseph Parish. He is married to a practicing nurse and is the father of three children. He received his M.D. from Northeast Ohio Medical University.]
23 comments:
Kavanaugh hardest hit!!!
Thoughts...
"During Advent 2017, the Parish of St. Joseph in Randolph, Ohio, practiced intinction and 95 percent of the people received the Body and Blood of Christ."
No, they received the same Jesus, Body and Blood, Humanity and Divinity, whether they received just the Consecrated Host, just the Precious Blood, or both.
"So many more received the "fuller sign" in accordance with the church's wishes."
No, the "fuller sign" is taking the cup and drinking from it, not dipping the host in the Precious Blood.
Receiving and intincted host from the minister would have to be a very delicate and unnecessary operation.
"Actively fostering intinction would show that the bishops are concerned about the health of their people."
The false presumption is that by not ending the use of the common cup the bishops are showing contempt for the health of the people. We know from the studies - no the individual anecdotes - that the common cup does not pose a risk that would make ending the practice necessary.
People get sick and a very, very small (statistically insignificant) number DIE from vaccinations every year. If you think the common cup is so dangerous that it should be discontinued, you should also be urging your congregation to avoid vaccinations since, as the medical literature shows, a person CAN DIE from them . . .
However....
I dislike the "fuller sign" rhetoric taught by liturgists who could care less about people's health! And FRMJK, the ecumenist you are, should know better than to insult our Eastern Orthodox, as well as Eastern Rite who use a spoon to place both Precious Blood and Consecrated Host in the mouth of communicants as though this isn't a fuller sign!
However validly and worthily a communicant receives the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in Holy Communion from either the consecrated Host or the Consecrated Blood or both by way of a straw, spoon, intinction and so on is a the fullest sign of receiving our Lord, but the most important sign is that the communicant is not conscious of any mortal sins that haven't been forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance and any venial sins that aren't forgiven.
And don't get me started on the immense pleasures of drinking a fine class of Chianti by dipping my homemade Italian bread into it and finishing the very last crumb and drop of both by this joyous method of eating and drinking!
Thank you, Fr. AJM. Reading critically, Fr. MJK did say host but, for the avoidance of doubt, drinking from the cup as opposed to intinction might be the fuller sign for YOU, not Eastern Catholics and Orthodox of the Byzantine tradition.
The term "fuller sign" is devoid of any doctrinal or theological meaning, and thus is characteristic of vacuous and meaningless post-Vatican II language.
Nevertheless, I might admit that on those occasions when I've received by intinction--the priest dipping the Host in the Cup before placing it on my tongue--I've felt as though I'd received a fuller sign (getting into the post-Vatican mode of vaguely "feeling" something instead of thinking or believing anything specific).
I think it is also prudent to consider the number of people with ‘compromised’ immune systems. Not only old folks but the young mother fighting leukemia, e.g. it deserves a serious look. But I also think it is less dangerous than our host believes.
ByzRC - I am a Latin Riter. My views are directed to that Rite, not the Easterners. The Eastern Rites are a "foreign country and they do things differently there." Meaning that I don't judge Eastern Rites by the practices of Westerners like me.
Fr. McDonald opines, "...but the most important sign is that the communicant is not conscious of any mortal sins..."
No, that's not a "sign" at all. That's a reality.
The author of the N"C"R article ruins it by recommending an odd and illicit means of distributing Holy Communion involving intinction. The proper method is to place the Host -- having been touched to the Precious Blood -- on the tongue.
Of course, the N"C"R would never recommend communion on the tongue!
I am not certain, but I don’t think parishioners are allowed to dip the host themselves. I think the priest must do that and I think it must be received on the tongue. I remember reading that a while back but can’t remember the source.
that is correct! The communicant is not to take the Host and then place the Host in the Precious Blood, the minister must do the intincting.
But apart from that, to have everyone self-intincting means that many different fingers, some clean, some not so clean and some quite nasty would touch the Precious Blood thus contaminating it with fecal fragments and whatever else the communicant touched.
This is true also of Communion in the hand. It is difficult for me as a priest with over 40 years of practice not to touch some part of the person's hand as I place the Host on their palm or they grab it from me or do some other strange thing with their hands to receive. If their hands aren't washed, God only knows what germs are transferred to me and then to the next person who receives from me.
But when one receives on the tongue while kneeling, it is much easier to avoid touching the tongue of the communicant. Not so much when they stand and are taller or don't properly stick out their tongue.
good call F Fox. I'm sure this is just a move to allow lay persons(EMHC) to do the intinction. totally not allowed!!! Intinction can only be done by the priest and can only be given on the tounge.
Saint Michael the Arch Angel defend us in battle....
For what it's worth, my parish offers Holy Communion by intinction once a year, at First Communion. The children come up with their parents, kneel on kneelers. The deacon stands beside me with the paten and I hold the chalice. It is very quiet and calm; the children themselves seem to like it a lot. They are far less nervous than I've seen in other situations. Also, it avoids the problem of children reacting negatively to the taste of the Precious Blood, and there's no danger of anything being dropped.
I wouldn't be against trying to offer Holy Communion in this fashion on other occasions, but I might have to find the special "intinction" set. Also, I wonder what the reaction would be if I no longer offered the chalice alone. I have one person who needs a low-gluten host, and another who can't even handle that; she drinks from the cup alone.
I really don't want to end up having intinction on the Mary side, and a different arrangement on the Joseph side!
Well, I will keep on receiving the precious blood at my parish in 30327...but our pastor has wisely warned us not to partake if we are sick, and of course that communion in one species is sufficient....
The laity as communicants may not self-intinct (which some do illicitly). However lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion when there is a "need" may offer Holy Communion to communicants by intinction. This is permissible under current liturgical law but the bishop can nix intinction in any parish or diocese although it is clearly in the GIRM of the Roman Missal other American adaptations. I'm puzzled why a bishop would micromanage this permission in the GIRM but not micromanage which Eucharistic Prayer to use, which form of the Penitential Act or the use of the Rite of Sprinkling Holy Water and anywhere else there are options allow.
"I'm puzzled why a bishop would micromanage this permission in the GIRM but not micromanage which Eucharistic Prayer to use, which form of the Penitential Act or the use of the Rite of Sprinkling Holy Water and anywhere else there are options allow."
Don't you know your own bishop's email address and postal address? Ask him - and then let us know what he says.
Some years ago there was the threat of a swine 'flu epidemic, which didn't in fact materialize. My local parish (which I occasionally graced with my presence, faute de mieux) decreed that the use of the common chalice be suspended (which wouldn't have affected me anyway) and that Communion not be given on the tongue (which would indeed have affected me, but not the vast majority of communicants).
However, the 'holy handshake' was retained, and the collection plate was still passed from hand to hand.
Inalmost forgot the happy handshake. During that same period a woman in my parish refused to shake hands, and I was grateful, but she was determined to explain it to me with the same fervor usually reserved for tales of Black Helicopter.
Question - Considering how scrupulous the priest must be to protect even the tiniest particles of the Host I ask: how much of the Host must one recieve to have validly received Holy Communion? Could a highly gluton intolerant person have a Host drawn accross her tongue or even just kiss the Host to have validly received? Could this be a general solution for such cases?
First: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” (CCC 1377; cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon III)
NOTE: "...as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." (Bread and Wine)
"Still, we must emphasize that some persons fall into serious confusion on this point. Because every particle of the consecrated Host is surely Jesus, they think that even every microscopic particle which falls from the Host is also Jesus – but in this, they err.
A piece of the Host which is visible to the human eye (under usual conditions and without assistance) as what appears to be a piece of bread, is surely Jesus. However, those particles which are so small as to be invisible to the human eye, or to be indistinguishable from a particle of dust – these cannot any longer be the Eucharist.
The Church teaches that the Eucharistic Presence remains “as long as the Eucharist species subsist”. This means that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, so long as the Eucharist retains the accidental properties of bread and wine. Hence, if a Host is dissolved in water (as is done when the Host has become putrefied, as through vomiting after the reception of Communion), upon being dissolved it is not longer the Eucharist. Likewise, the Precious Blood, when the Chalice is purified with water (and wine), is no longer the Eucharist.
The same must hold true for those particles which are so small as to be unrecognizable as “bread”. If the fragment is so small as to appear to be dust or a speck of some other substance, rather than a “crumb” of bread, it can no longer be the Eucharist. Likewise, those microscopic particles which fall from the Host are not the Eucharist, since they clearly do not retain the appearance of bread."
Is NCR being "anti-science" because they do not agree with Kavanaugh's view that you should be able to sip from the cup during flu season?
At least a decade ago a spokesman for the E&W bishops explained why their lordships were opposed to intinction; it would make redundant the vast army of mostly female EMHC. At a weekday Mass in Westminster Cathedral (not sung) I noticed the following personnel - a priest celebrant, a male server in cassock and cotta, a male lay reader in street clothes, and no fewer than two female EMs.
Ironically the Chalice was not offered, but they stood on either side of the priest and distributed the Host. There were not many communicants, and most chose to receive from the priest, so they were not needed.
It's a flagrant abuse (see Redemptionis Sacramentum) and the fact that it is widespread does not mitigate it.
John Nolan,
I suspect the female EMs would no longer attend Mass if they could not be front and center because, after all, it is all about them.
Post a Comment