Thursday, February 23, 2006

Meningitis Scare Halts Both Species Communion
Well, if that’s what it takes

Bishop Michael Jarrell of the Diocese of Lafayette (La.) has decided that the Precious Blood will not be given from a shared cup at Mass "upon recommendation of expert medical advice given in light of the number of cases of bacterial meningitis."

Now if he’ll do something about Communion in the hand.

7 Comments:

Blogger Fidei Defensor said...

Kind of an odd question but has anyone ever heard of people getting sick from the wine at communion? One criticsm protestants always lob at me is that it is "gross" that Catholics will all drink from the same cup.

1- I wonder though, aren't the alchol properties germ killing?

2-Can the blood of Christ actually spread germs?

I admit I am very unlearned theologically.

4:15 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

1- I wonder though, aren't the alchol properties germ killing?

With an alcohol level in wine that low, it would take forever to kill the germs.

2-Can the blood of Christ actually spread germs?

The Blood of Christ is by it's very essence, just that... The Blood of Christ. But it still has the outward (visible) properties of wine.

The whole "Mystery of Faith" thing, you know.

4:46 PM  
Blogger AndyMacOP said...

This isn't worth a battle. For sure concomitence makes it all a moot point, but the fuller sign is in participation in the Body and the Blood of Our Lord in the same fasion as the Apostles at the Last Supper.

"In the hand" presents some tough arguments with "take and eat", but none of this should be divisive.

Br. Andrew, O.P.

N.B. This is from someone who has seen theological battles that make the above ones seem small and petty, which may mean that I am jaded a bit too much!

5:37 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Br Andrew,
Of course it's worth a battle! ;-)

...but the fuller sign is in participation in the Body and the Blood of Our Lord in the same fasion as the Apostles at the Last Supper.

I have to disagree with you on a few points here.

1. "a fuller sign"? As we both know, the Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. To receive under both Species is simply redundant. Is the Host somehow... less?

2. As far as the Apostles at the Last Supper are concerned, of course they took under both Species. They were also the first priests, bishops and pope.

6:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I'd like to see is some orthodox priest show up at a "New Mass" and only distribute Communion via the Precious Blood and see what argument the modernists would come up that they weren't (in their minds) receiving the entire Body & Blood of Our Lord.

6:26 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

There is one other solution which would (1) Be traditional (it's done by other Rites) and (2) leave no choice but to receive on the tongue from a priest or deacon (who has always been authorized to handle the Most Holy).

I speak of intinction, of course.

Remember that Communion under both species was once common in the Western Church. It was discontinued due to impracticality and the infrequency of Communion by the faithful. The Eastern Churches (including those which use unleavened bread) still administer the Eucharist under both species.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

Dave,
Good point - if bishops want to permit reception under both Species, intinction is an excellent answer and, as you say, can only be on the tongue. I know the Maronite Rite does it that way.

11:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home