The Holy Father uses the intinction method to distribute Holy Communion to first communicants as I do in my parish.
John Allen is certainly "centrist" perhaps a bit left leaning but not a raging heterodox. I like how he writes and is very clear without being overly polarizing. I like that he insists that we must "defend" not just "explain" religious freedom.
It seems to me that what John is advocating is a strong defense without appeasement. Appeasing the Communist Chinese Government seems to be the new wrong-headed policy of the Vatican which has thrown faithful, underground Catholic laity and clergy under the bus. Explaining the Church to Chinese Communists in the government has ramped up the anti-religious freedom of this clique and the Vatican is aiding a abetting it, unfortunately.
ON A LITURGICAL NOTE, PLEASE WATCH HOW HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN ONE OF THE SCENES IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALTHOUGH THE COMMUNICANTS ARE STANDING, HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY WAY OF INTINCTION AND IN THE VERY MANNER I REMEMBER IT BEING DONE AT MY HOME PARISH WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER WHEN HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS WAS FIRST ALLOWED. WE ALL LOVED IT!
I EXPERIMENTED WITH THIS SAME METHOD USING THE VESSELS THE PRIEST IN THE SCENE USES, AT ST. JOSEPH IN MACON. THE LAITY LOVED IT AND MORE LAITY RECEIVED UNDER BOTH KINDS WITH THIS METHOD THAN DRINKING AFTER OTHERS FROM THE EXTREMELY UNSANITARY AND UNHEALTHY AND FOR SOME, PERHAPS DEADLY, COMMON CHALICE.
John Allen is certainly "centrist" perhaps a bit left leaning but not a raging heterodox. I like how he writes and is very clear without being overly polarizing. I like that he insists that we must "defend" not just "explain" religious freedom.
It seems to me that what John is advocating is a strong defense without appeasement. Appeasing the Communist Chinese Government seems to be the new wrong-headed policy of the Vatican which has thrown faithful, underground Catholic laity and clergy under the bus. Explaining the Church to Chinese Communists in the government has ramped up the anti-religious freedom of this clique and the Vatican is aiding a abetting it, unfortunately.
ON A LITURGICAL NOTE, PLEASE WATCH HOW HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN ONE OF THE SCENES IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALTHOUGH THE COMMUNICANTS ARE STANDING, HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY WAY OF INTINCTION AND IN THE VERY MANNER I REMEMBER IT BEING DONE AT MY HOME PARISH WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER WHEN HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS WAS FIRST ALLOWED. WE ALL LOVED IT!
I EXPERIMENTED WITH THIS SAME METHOD USING THE VESSELS THE PRIEST IN THE SCENE USES, AT ST. JOSEPH IN MACON. THE LAITY LOVED IT AND MORE LAITY RECEIVED UNDER BOTH KINDS WITH THIS METHOD THAN DRINKING AFTER OTHERS FROM THE EXTREMELY UNSANITARY AND UNHEALTHY AND FOR SOME, PERHAPS DEADLY, COMMON CHALICE.
32 comments:
I've looked at the way popes distribute Communion and I just noticed that Francis uses the more post Vatican-II "finger over thumb" method, whereas Benedict used the more traditional underhand method. Of course, this COULD be because of intinction. My question for you Father is, when you intinct the Host, do you hold it the same way Francis does? The only reason I ask is because when Hosts are NOT intincted, it seems that most EMHC's distribute Communion the more modern way--a way that seems designed specifically for Communion in the hand (most seem very uncomfortable giving Communion on the tongue).
"THE LAITY LOVED IT AND MORE LAITY RECEIVED UNDER BOTH KINDS WITH THIS METHOD THAN DRINKING AFTER OTHERS FROM THE EXTREMELY UNSANITARY AND UNHEALTHY AND FOR SOME, PERHAPS DEADLY, COMMON CHALICE."
The use of the common cup for communion is not "extremely unsanitary."
It is no more so - and shown to be LESS so - than the use of doorknobs, paper money, and public transit, among other things.
Driving the nine or so miles from your luxury, semi-palatial residence to your church and office is, perhaps deadly. Are you planning to telecommute or to celebrate mass via Skype since making the trip in a car presents such mortal danger?
Mike, how many people put their mouths on those things. Such people who do so would be deemed crazy!!! And I like the idea of telecommuting and skyping from St. Anne's palatial rectory or better yet from Hilton Head and its beach!
Robert I think with intinction the Pope Francis way may feel more natural and with standing communicants less of a danger that his fingers might touch the communicant's tongue.
OK...I'm not disputing that. It just seems, from my experience, that using the "underhand" method makes a priest far less likely to touch the tongue of a communicant. Almost every time I've felt a finger on my tongue, it's been from somebody using the pictured method.
But that's just my experience. I'm just one guy.
I've been preaching that again and again: Intinction is the way to go. People receive under both Species in a more dignified and sanitary way (Sorry, Fr. Kavanaugh) and it lessens the need for an army of EMHC (although in most places I'm sure they're really not needed but it's a way "to empower the laity"). I've seen too many people pop the Host in their mouth like they're eating a Necco wafer and the gyrations people do to receive Communion in the hand while holding a baby looks ridiculous. And speaking of Communion, clergy and EMHC should please stop touching the dirty hair and clothes of people going up to receive their "participation trophy blessing" at Communion time (despite the fact that in five minutes, we ALL get the final blessing). Who started that stupid thing? The same people who started the "throwing the invisible beach ball to Father when they say, "And with your spirit" and hand-holding during the Lord's Prayer?
"Mike, how many people put their mouths on those things."
Allan, you don't have to in order to be infected. Hand to mouth (or eyes or nose) is how it works.
Doorknobs, paper money, public transit, remote controls, etc - these are more "unsanitary" than common cups, yet you don't get your knickers in a knot over them.
And now we have to contend with a "traditional" method of holding the host versus a "modern" method.
Wonders will never cease.....
Mike, if you intentionally place your fingers on a dirty doorknob and then lick your fingers you are sick. And intentionally placing your mouth on the rim of a chalice alter numerous others have done so is just as sick!
Dear Father Kavanaugh,
I did not mean to offend or annoy you by suggesting that there is a "modern" or "traditional" method of holding the host. I've just noticed over the years that older priests tended to do it one way. Actually, the "modern" way, if you want to call it that, has usually come at the hands of female EMHC who had long fingernails.
I probably should have just asked if there was some training about how to do this and if it has changed. Again, I apologize for giving offense.
Bee here:
I am very sick right now with some kind of cold. I have been mostly in bed for the last three days. It is progressing to my lungs, with lots of congestion and coughing. I caught it from my brother, who thinks he caught it from a kid about 5 or 6 years old who was sitting in the pew in front of him in church and was coughing up a storm and sneezing, and no one was guiding the kid to cover his mouth or nose.
We don't have the opportunity to receive the Precious Blood at my parish, but if my brother and I can get this sick (and I mean, I am SICK) from someone sitting just a few feet away, I can imagine what I could get from sipping from a common cup.
Just sayin'.
“And now we have to contend with a "traditional" method of holding the host versus a "modern" method.”
Mike, you don’t have to deal with anything as you have put yourself above (below?) the fray...
EMHC should not be blessing people during Mass. The same applies to deacons.
Pre-1960 (and occasionally in the EF nowadays) the priest blessed the communicants as he said the Indulgentiam. 'Going up for a blessing' is a pointless innovation. At least over here we are spared the beachball and the hand-holding.
Holographic priests are the way to go. The bread and wine on an altar. The hologram saying the words of the consecration. EMHC distributing communion. This would solve the faux Amazon problem too.
Yes, but, you know that's not the issue.
Your assertion that sharing a common cup is unsanitary and leads to mass infection is false, and has been shown to be false.
Most of us don't "intentionally" seek out infection. You touch the door handle at your church, then you wipe your eye or you place your hand on your mouth when you cough, and the deed is done - unintentionally.
I most cases, though you have inoculated yourself with some virus or bacteria or, in rare instances, a fungus, nothing happens. Your body's self-defense system works and the potential infection agent is eliminated.
If you REALLY thought there was such danger, you'd be wearing latex gloves around your house when you cook. You'd be refusing to shake hands with everyone before or after mass. If you were REALLY concerned about the health of your congregation, you'd be requiring your ushers to sanitize the door handles, toilet handles, and hymnals each time they are touched by the "unwashed masses."
But you don't do these things because your concern isn't with health.
Robert, I am not offended by your comment - in the least. I do not take offense at such.
The change in grip is a result of standing for communion. It has nothing to do with being traditional. It also has nothing to with longer fingernails. When I have distributed communion to those kneeling I employ the style that make it easier to use.
To suggest that is does would be like saying, "It was 'traditional' to tie up your horse when you arrived at the saloon. Now we have this 'modern' practice of parking a car when you arrive at the saloon."
Bee - "...who thinks he caught it from a kid about 5 or 6 years old who was sitting in the pew in front of him in church and was coughing up a storm and sneezing." Maybe he did, maybe he didn't catch it there.
You can "imagine" all you want, but that doesn't mean the common cup is a dangerous vector of disease. The evidence, not some imaginary conjecture, suggests strongly that it is not.
Mike, let me reiterate this, the intentional licking of door nobs or placing one's hand on one and then licking it is just down right sick. I am not referring to accidental normal things that might in fact enhance one's immune system. I do not inhale all the more when someone near me is sneezing. In fact I try to hold my breath or turn away.
I do not drink after anyone, unless it is someone I know and a one time sort of thing, but certainly not after all kinds of people I don't know have done it, like a common chalice.
We, as a Church and as clergy, have sold the laity a bill of goods concerning the common chalice and for liberal ideologies as well as literalist/fundamentalist ideologies concerning the use of it by the laity.
The point is that it is just against commonsense to have multiple people drinking from a common chalice, not only because of the germs that are on its rim from it, but saliva that is unintentionally spit into the chalice or even Precious Blood that is returned from the mouth to the chalice.
When I was in Rome, concelebrants at papal Masses never drink after each other either at the papal altar or if Holy Communion is brought to the priest celebrants. the bishop or priest take the Host and intincts it into the chalice. This is the custom in Rome itself at the Vatican. Why? Because it is disgusting for multiple people to drink one after the other from the same chalice.
"Mike, let me reiterate this, the intentional licking of door nobs or placing one's hand on one and then licking it is just down right sick."
Allan, I don't know where you get the idea that I am suggesting anyone is intentionally licking their hands after touching doorknobs. I'm not. Transmission of germs doesn't generally happen like that, a fact you are overlooking.
"We, as a Church and as clergy, have sold the laity a bill of goods concerning the common chalice and for liberal ideologies as well as literalist/fundamentalist ideologies concerning the use of it by the laity."
We have done no such thing. The use of the common cup for communion is a powerful sign, one that is worthy of maintaining.
"The point is that it is just against commonsense to have multiple people drinking from a common chalice,..."
I am unconcerned about "common sense" in many cases, but especially in cases where "common sense" is simply wrong. It was "common sense" that AIDS could be caught by visiting a person with AIDS in a hospital room. It was "common sense" that women could not be physicians, judges, or be trusted with the vote. It is "common sense" that being out in cold weather will give you a cold.
All of these "common sense" ideas are simply wrong.
I'm also unconcerned with that is done by concelebrants in Rome.
And while you may be disgusted with the common cup, I would say that that stems from your own admitted fear of germs, not from any real possibility of contagion.
Bee here:
Fr. Kavanaugh- You're right...maybe my brother caught it from the kid or maybe not. Maybe he caught it from a doorknob, which I'm sure he did not lick. :-)
Regardless, thinking about how sick I am (still today...4 days in) I would pass by the common cup. One thing's for certain, if I don't take from the cup I am 100% guaranteed of not catching anything from it.
God bless.
Bee
Mike, you are mixing apples and oranges. In terms of Aides, that was the recommendation of Medical Science at the time. I visited many dying aides at that time and I certainly followed directions of the nurses about proper precautions. I suspect if I drank from the common chalice at got saliva on my lips which might have an open cold sore, that yes I have a potential to contract HIV. Possibly Hep A and B too.
I was told by a doctor that that a person could get hep A and b by touching saliva of a person infected and then touching one’s eyes.
Contagious diseases is easily caught. There is no need to tempt fate by licking door mobs or common chalices.
Excuse typos, but I am in favor of intinction not the common chalice and tempting fate by licking chalices licked by many others. Are you opposed to the method the Vatican and popes us to offer the Precious Blood to laity—intinction.
"Mike, you are mixing apples and oranges. In terms of Aides, that was the recommendation of Medical Science at the time."
No, "common sense" told us it was easily transmitted, although there was no evidence to support that claim. Medical Science was uncertain and Common Sense was wrong.
Allan, why, when there was concern for catching AIDS from a hospital visit, would you rely on the evidence presented by the professionals in medicine, but now, with the common cup, you reject it?
"Contagious diseases is (sic) easily caught."
Wrong. That is your germ phobia talking nonsense to your head. If it were easy to catch contagious diseases, you and I and everyone else would be dead by now. Unless one is working in a sterile laboratory, one encounters disease causing bacteria, viruses, and a few fungi every day.
From The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. "Infection occurs when a pathogen invades body cells and reproduces. Infection will usually lead to an immune response. If the response is quick and effective, the infection will be eliminated or contained so quickly that the disease will not occur."
Mike, I didn't realize how dense you are. Because when it came to chalices, I like an obedient little boy and others like me, when the chalice to the laity was first offered, we were told by liturgists who quoted medical science that the alcohol content of the wine, the wiping of the rim and rotating the chalice would pose to health risk whatsoever. I taught people that and not just me but everyone who had the responsibility of selling a bill of goods to communion ministers and those we wanted to force to receive from the common chalice.
However, about 10 years ago or so, all that changed when Bishop Boland asked that the common chalice be discontinued because of the H1N2 flu virus. Why? Because you could get that flu and other contagious diseases from placing you mouth on the rim of a chalice contaminated by one or more sick people who placed their mouth on these chalices.
Medical science as quoted by liturgists was not only wrong, but dead wrong.
And yes, medical science was wrong about HIV back in the mid 80's in terms of how easily it could be transmitted. Although you can still get it by exchanging bodily fluids, even accidentally, especially if an open sore is present on the healthy person or one with HIV spits in your eyes.
Mike, my recommendation to you is not to lick door nobs, or your hands after you touch door nobs and not to lick the rim of chalices multiple others have already licked. It goes against common sense and yes, medical science. You as a scientist should know that.
Fr. McDonald, sorry to knit-pick but in the last sentence of your 2:55 post you misspelled ‘dour’. Almost missed it while watching the impeachment on CNN.
Why in the name of the 'god of surprises' is Fr. Kavanaugh so concerned with Fr. McDonald's germophobia? Plus the digs about his 'luxury' living?
I don't get it. Is there some personal issues? Or maybe Fr. Kavanaugh forgot to post as 'Anonymous.'
Allan, I doubt anyone ever told you that there was no health risk "whatsoever." If that came from a liturgist, the liturgist was uninformed.
We know that the risk of contagion from the common cup is highly unlikely. It is less likely than the use of common doorknobs, common paper money, common elevator buttons, and common anything else.
"And yes, medical science was wrong about HIV back in the mid 80's in terms of how easily it could be transmitted."
I don't think that was. Medical science didn't know how HIV was transmitted and, out of an abundance of caution, we wore all sorts of protective gear.
We do know that the risk of contracting an illness from the use of the common cup is very low. We know this because it has been studied, because the data, not the "imaginings" of some people of the phobias of others support the conclusion.
"It goes against common sense and yes, medical science."
No. Common Sense is wrong, as it was about AIDS, women judges, and catching a cold. And as the studies I have cited indicate, medical science is on my side.
Bee here:
"Why in the name of the 'god of surprises' is Fr. Kavanaugh so concerned with Fr. McDonald's germophobia?"
Because Fr. Kavanaugh is one of those "rigid" progressives who is tolerant and accepting of all others and their beliefs, except people of his own Faith. With them, he will become very angry and demand(!) acquiescence to his ideas, and if he has the power, he will remove them from ministry, if possible. No dissidence is allowed from the ranks of the progressive dictates.
He cites the science that supports his claims. He ignores the science or even common sense that says otherwise, because he has an agenda, and he, and his kind, are right. Always. They have spoken. No discussion. Others are stupid. And so on...
Like for instance, he says, " If it were easy to catch contagious diseases, you and I and everyone else would be dead by now." Tell that to those who have Ebola. Or the Native Americans who came in contact with Europeans.
His arguments probably have something to do with the agenda of ecumenism, and how is he going to get these backward Catholics to do this ritual with the cup so that they can have communion services in common with Protestants.
Please, Fr. Kavanaugh. Save your outrage and defense of your claims for Fr. McD. I stopped listening to your point of view long ago.
God bless.
Bee
Bee - There's nothing rigid about saying that evidence and data trump phobias and "imaginings."
I have not ignored the "science...that says otherwise." Although I have asked for that to be cited here, no one has ever done so.
Ebola is transmitted in much the same way as HIV, to wit, through "close and direct physical contact with infected bodily fluids." It can be transmitted through direct contact with previously contaminated surfaces and objects.' (World Health Organization) "Ebola poses little risk to travelers or the general public who have not cared for or been in close contact (within 3 feet or 1 meter) with someone sick with Ebola." (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
My comments have nothing to do with ecumenism.
I'll keep presenting the evidence - I am not outraged - as long as others suggest that their "imaginings" and phobias should determine how we distribute communion.
Speaking of pandemics causing pandemonium , the Corona virus will change liturgy cups forever.
Coronaviruses have been around since the 1960's. Why haven't liturgy cups been changed in the last 50 years?
GOOD POINT! World health if it opposes liturgical novelties takes a back seat to ant liturgist’s progressive plans!
Any!
"ON A LITURGICAL NOTE, PLEASE WATCH HOW HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN ONE OF THE SCENES IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALTHOUGH THE COMMUNICANTS ARE STANDING, HOLY COMMUNION IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY WAY OF INTINCTION AND IN THE VERY MANNER I REMEMBER IT BEING DONE AT MY HOME PARISH WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER WHEN HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS WAS FIRST ALLOWED. WE ALL LOVED IT!"
The video depicts a Maronite Liturgy. The Maronites use "hosts" and receive Holy Communion via intinction. Been there many, many times.
Post a Comment