From a Q&A article in the Boston Pilot by Father Kenneth Doyle

Q. I’ve been wondering about this for a long time. Why, at holy Communion, do we have to drink
from the same chalice that everyone else has used? It seems to me to be a very unsanitary practice, with all the germs and diseases that are around.

So my family and I do not partake of the precious blood of Jesus at Mass. Why can’t Catholics offer Communion in individual disposable cups, as some of the Protestant churches do? (Sherwood, Arkansas)

A. Over the years, the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has several times answered inquiries regarding the risk of disease transmission from a common cup.

As the American Journal of Infection Control has explained (October 1998), within the CDC there is a consensus that a “theoretic” risk might exist, but that “the risk is so small that it is undetectable.” And further, “no documented transmission of any infectious disease has ever been traced” to this practice.

Anne LaGrange Loving, a New Jersey microbiologist who has conducted a study on the subject, stated in a Los Angeles Times article Jan. 1, 2005, that “people who sip from the Communion cup don’t get sick more often than anyone else” and that “it isn’t any riskier than standing in line at the movies.”

Nevertheless, common caution should be observed: Ministers should clean their hands thoroughly before distributing the Eucharist, and the Communion chalice should be washed with soap and hot water after every service. Those currently suffering from an active respiratory disease should have the good sense to receive the host only, not the chalice, and a number of Catholic dioceses have actually suspended the use of the Communion cup during outbreaks of influenza.

As to the manner of reception, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans typically use a common Communion cup, while Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and evangelical congregations tend to pass out individual and disposable cups.

It seems to me that the common cup more closely carries on the tradition of the Last Supper and highlights our joint sharing in the eucharistic sacrifice. In Matthew’s Gospel (26:27), for example, Jesus “took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is the blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.’”

As one Lutheran parish in New Mexico explains it, Jesus “could have easily blessed all the wine that was already poured in the various cups that were already on the table on the night he was betrayed. But he didn’t. Instead he blessed the one cup to be given to many. The common cup fulfills this symbolism beautifully.”

While the answer is correct as far as it goes, it misses the mark by a long distance.

How about just “We don’t put the precious blood of Jesus in a plastic sip cup”. That pretty much says it all for me.

As Fr. Brendon Laroche on Twitter said:

Because every single one of those disposable cups would have to be purified and then buried or burnt up afterwards because they held the Precious Blood of Christ.

Once again concerning the lack of belief in the Eucharist among Catholics, to have a priest write several paragraphs to this question and only addresses health risk and symbolism is part of the problem. This could very well just be an oversight on the part of this priest. Some times we get deep into the weeds of a question and forget the totally obvious. Yet, don’t they even have an editor at the Catholic News Service?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifies that sacred vessels be composed of noble metals, kind of leaves off plastic. Protestants have various devices for filling trays of these disposable cups with grape juice or wine. A variety of these devices range from simple one-click cup fillers to more complex devices with various tubes. Rather nightmarish to think of these sterile devices when it comes to Communion.

Thinking about the ignorance of so many Catholics regarding the Eucharist, I wonder how many realize that just receiving the Host, that they have fully received the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. If there was ever an actual disease vector from sharing a common Communion Cup, the answer wouldn’t be disposable plastic cups, but simply restricting the Precious Blood.

The priest’s comment about how the common cup more closely carries on the tradition of the Last Supper is fairly accurate. Receiving under both forms has a higher sign value and the priest always receives under both forms. Still, at most Masses where the Precious Blood is distributed there is not really a common cup as often there are multiple EMHC’s distributing the cup.

I am still thinking about the recent poll regarding the lack of belief in the Eucharist among Catholics.

So just posting as things cross my mind. I don’t want to make the mistake of saying “Fix this one thing” and everything will be fine. So this blogging will be on aspects and not making a systematic plan for renewal. Plus I will take this GKC quote in mind.

“The Reformer is always right about what’s wrong. However, he’s often wrong about what is right.” G.K. Chesterton

One of the things I have noticed in my own diocese over the years is the increased use of a credence table.

A small table of wood, marble, or other suitable material placed within the sanctuary of a church and near the wall at the Epistle side, for the purpose of holding the cruets, acolytes’ candles, and other utensils required for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice.

Mainly the use I have noticed is that it is now being used for the purification of the vessels after Communion. As I remember before there were smaller credence tables in use and I have been seeing them increase in size to accommodate this use.

There is a reason I really don’t like this trend and I see it as part of the loss of faith in the Eucharist. For one thing, I love to watch a priest purify the vessels after Communion. Especially when done with careful attention. That this is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ and you really want to make sure there are no leftover particles or his body or precious blood. For some priests, I think I could have come to faith in the Eucharist just by seeing their Eucharistic piety. The purification of the vessels is an important part of the Mass.

Unfortunately, I see the increased use of the credence table as if this rite was now the “cleaning of the dishes.” Moving from the altar to the side where usually you can not even see the priest purify the vessels, just his back. Although it is not the priest facing away, ​the deemphasis of the purification. I can see no reason either logistically or theologically to move this from the altar to the credence table.

Plus I get rather suspicious about such trends that usually start from some infertile mind of a liturgist somewhere and take off for no good reason that it is different.

I see this as more of a symptom than a cause. Truly though we have now for some time about the loss of belief in the Eucharist and so any deemphasis just makes no real sense.

There has been a good number of commentary about the recent PEW study. None of which comes as much of a surprise to anybody paying attention.

The invitation to comment by the USCCB Twitter account is of course an invitation to trot out our hobby horses at full gallop.

I certainly have a stable of them I am tempted to trot out.

Still I got to thinking, is this a new problem or one that goes back farther. I know there have been some previous polls on this with more dubious methodology that I had heard referenced from time to time.

What I was pondering what such a poll would have recorded in the 1950’s. I would guess the numbers of people believing fully in the Church teaching of the Eucharist would be higher. Yet, somehow I don’t think it would have been significantly higher. I don’t imagine this period as some golden age of catechized Catholics. Especially considering the aftermath in regards to the sexual revolution and the general chaos that erupted in those times. The sixties saw greater acceptance of Catholics generally, but with this acceptance was a Catholic trend to go with the flow. A trend that to the present day was one where the cultural beliefs of Catholics were hardly distinguishable from the general populace.

When I first saw this tweet my initial reaction was that this failure to discern the body and the blood of Christ was generally because of a loss of Eucharistic piety. A loss of the sacred. Thinking more about this I think this has played a part, but that the question is much more complex and involves a variety of causes.

Regardless I will ride this aspect of my hobby horse a little. There is much that was done that seems like a determined undermining regarding the Eucharist. The moving of Tabernacles and elimination of patens was bad theology. The building of ugly churches with the loss of the sacred. Places of worship that could be repurposed for convention centers. Abstract stained glass and the general Iconoclasm that seemed to prevail. The banality of hymns that celebrated how awesome we are – God should be pleased to have us.

Since I go to a Latin Mass on Sunday I also have a bias towards Ad Orientem. Still, I have to question myself that if there really was a “reform of the reform” and that there was support for previous Eucharistic pieties, how much would this have an effect on Eucharistic belief. I suspect it is not as much as I would want. Since I go to both a Latin Mass on Sunday and daily Masses at two different parishes, I make comparisons. The Eucharistic piety I observe in both situations I see pretty positively. Still, these daily Masses are in Eucharistic Chapels – one with Perpetual Adoration and the other with generally available adoration. I suspect that daily Mass-goers also have a high number of attendees who fully believe in the Eucharist.

My antidotal knowledge of general Sunday Mass goer’s is much more cynical regarding this. The general level of noise before Mass starting along with apparently perfunctory genuflections. This along with the number of people who leave right after Communion certainly for me lends support for the conclusion of the PEW study. When my wife was alive, she liked to go to different parishes on Sundays. So I did have a pretty wide sampling of Mass as celebrated in my diocese. On the positive side I also witnessed a trend away from liturgical abuses over those years also. Although, the hymns have remained generally awful and stuck in the 60/70’s.

So while I think the liturgy and the practices and pieties involving the liturgy have gone a long way to undermine Eucharistic belief, general culture also plays a big factor. The miraculous and general belief in the Sacraments gets lost in an empirical culture which lives on the philosophy of scientism. Many of Jesus’ disciples balked at this teaching on the Eucharist and can we be surprised that people today when they see the Eucharist undermined in many ways, would also walk away from this “hard saying.”

We do not really need a religion that is right where we are right. What we need is a religion that is right where we are wrong. G.K. Chesterton

So many times I have heard some person being described as prophetic when they go against what the Church has always taught. That accepting what the culture was accepting was a prophetic act. Apparently forgetting that the prophets were often martyred for going against what the culture was accepting. I think about our hierarchy and how they have been ineffective regarding societal trends, mainly since they have flowed with the river like a dead thing. But then I remember that in England there was only one episcopal martyr and that things largely remain the same.

All of this makes me largely pessimistic that this latest wake-up call will be answered. Our leadership has become quite adept at the snooze alarm. Despite my skepticism of general trends in the Church, I also see those on fire for the faith in my parish and elsewhere. I also see priests and bishops who are generally upset about this loss of Eucharistic faith.

In part this issue upsets me since I see the Eucharist as such a wonderful blessing, that we don’t deserve. ​God gives himself to us despite this. I want everybody to experience this gift and have a fuller understanding regarding this sublime mystery. That people who seem on the outside to be just going through the motions at Mass come to a fuller theological understanding. I also pray that I never take this gift for granted or believe that I deserve it.

Going to the Chesterton convention this year in Kansas City, Kansas marks my second year going. Last year it was much closer to home, and now I am addicted.

I originally wanted to go to these conventions to listen to authors I admire and to hopefully meet them. I soon found I enjoyed just listening to and talking to the convention goers themselves. I believe it is a mark of sanity to be a GKC fan, and thus this is a group of sane people. I have met no one there that challenges this assumption.

Even as an introvert, I force myself that during the various meals to sit down at a table with people I don’t know. I always feel so awkward at first and then the ice is broken. So while difficult for me, it is also enriching. Plus the conversations are so wide-ranging. There might be a topic I am normally not much interested in and had not thought much about, and then being drawn into the insights offered. People are pretty awesome.

There were a couple of notable things about this specific convention. Out of 38 conventions, this was the largest with over 500 people attending. That in itself is pretty cool, but I think about all the people who would have liked to have attended.

Cardinal Thomas Collins from Toronto came to the convention of his own volition. Apparently, he had been wanting to come for years, but could not schedule it. This year he signed up. As a result, he was subsequently asked to give a talk and to say Mass. I must admit I was rather impressed with him. His speech was not from a basis of him considering himself a Chestertonian scholar, but as someone who had read him for years. This talk indeed showed that he had distilled the essence of GKC. Seeing him around I appreciated how he didn’t put on airs and pretty much acted as if he was just another convention goer.

This time around, they had daily Mass for the duration of the convention. I can be pretty hypercritical when it comes to liturgy, so it was a pleasure not to have this be an issue at all. Dale Ahlquist’s daughter Sophia chanted at two of the Masses, and this was pure pleasure for me. Homilies were also excellent, and once again Cardinal Collins impressed me with what he had to say.

The convention’s scheduled program itself is, of course, the main draw for the convention. I still remember every talk from last year, and I feel confident that I will be able to say the same about this year’s discussions for the most part.

This year Rod Dreher gave a talk about his book “The Benedict Option”. As a rehash of his arguments made in his book, of which I have read, it was not new territory for me. I did mostly like the book as an accurate assessment of the current situation. The same goes for most of his ideas as a reaction to this. Still, I think Leah Libresco’s book “Living the Benedict Option”, is the one that engaged me as far as how on a personal level we take on a Benedictine charism of hospitality to help build up each other. Rod forwards Leah’s book.

After Rod gave his talk, Dale Ahlquist came up to the stage and then referenced Rod Dreher as a “schismatic”. I about fell out of my chair, laughing. I love when the elephant in the room is pointed at. Plus it is so Chestertonian to point out where your friends are wrong and that you can do it with good humor.

Maybe my favorite talk was by Brandon Vogt on “Chesterton as Husband … and Father”. A provoking title knowing that the Chesterton’s had no children. I just loved his insights into them as a couple and how they managed to surround themselves with children. I had previously read Nancy Brown’s excellent “The Woman Who Was Chesterton” about his wife Francis, so I knew some of this. Still, he brought together a bunch of information to present this topic. I would love to see a book-length treatment of this, as I find the Chesterton’s so aspirational.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, it was meeting with the convention goers that I came to enjoy so much. At the conferences, they have what they call an Afterglow where everyone gets together and talk and drink. I think maybe by next week I will have caught up on my sleep after such purposeful sleep deprivation. The Afterglow goes on into the wee hours. Getting up for morning Mass was a chore after getting to bed so late. Worth it though, on both levels.

The last night of the conference concludes with a banquet where great fun commences. One of the staples of the banquet is the judging of the submitted Clerihew‘s.

A clerihew (/ˈklɛrɪhjuː/) is a whimsical, four-line biographical poem invented by Edmund Clerihew Bentley. The first line is the name of the poem’s subject, usually, a famous person put in an absurd light, or revealing something unknown or spurious about them. The rhyme scheme is AABB, and the rhymes are often forced. The line length and metre are irregular. Bentley invented the clerihew in school and then popularized it in books.

Last year I wanted to try my hand at this but didn’t make the deadline. This year at pretty much the last minute I managed to dash out two of them. As my first attempts, I wasn’t expecting them to make the cut, even being pleased with them.

In the category for people who lived before Chesterton, this was my entry.

Thinking about the conversion of St. Ignatius
Where a military injury was efficacious
At the present time I can see
Jesuits that could use a cannonball to the knee.

This received an honorable mention.

For the category for people who lived after Chesterton I received first place.

One of the four Marx of the Church was not Groucho
But, when it comes to common sense he was no slouch though
Not sure if he died and went to Heaven
Would not join a club when invited in

Although it was my St. Ignatius one that most people came up to me later on to applaud.

Next year the conference will be in Chicago. I am already excited about next year’s conference.

Before I finish this post, I should certainly mention that Chesterton’s cause has been curtailed for now. Dale Ahlquist went through the particulars after being informed by the Bishop of Northampton.

This news was a disappointment, yet not being surprising to those following this closely. The support by this bishop has never been whole-hearted. Still, he can be thanked for at least being open to and supporting the initial investigation. I certainly don’t believe this will be the end of the story regarding this. It will happen in God’s time. Personally, I hope it is not one of those “A year is a thousand years” example of God’s time. I think this will involve another American assist in British saint canonization. I think of Blessed John Henry Newman and how it was intercessory prayer from Americans that resulted in the two miracles that lead to his canonization.

You can read Dale Ahlquist’s statement and reply here.

The other day I was thinking about a story involving the Apostles and a Private Detective agency. In this story the Apostles would be given tons of clues and still couldn’t solve the murder. Then the murder victim had to explain everything to them.

This bit of daydreaming occurred while thinking about just how dense the Apostles were. They were given tons of clues and seemed surprised at every turn regarding what Jesus told them ahead of time. Over and over again they did not understand and jumped to the wrong conclusions. So easy to feel superior to them.

Then I started thinking about my own reactions to what Jesus tells us. I sincerely believe and accept all that the Church authoritatively teaches. I am constantly studying the faith and working to deepen my knowledge and to act on that knowledge. Yet I can think of all the times when I don’t trust God and act like everything is on myself to achieve. God has given me tons of clues and I just don’t apply them to my daily life as I ought. God working in my life is so obvious in hindsight, and yet keep loosing that thread in the present moment. So all this makes me much more sympathetic to the Apostles.

Last week I read this bit of dialog from Graham Greene’s “A Burnt-Out Case”:

‘But if the thing is here,’ she said, ‘inside me, it couldn’t suddenly disappear, could it, if I prayed?’
‘I wouldn’t think so.’ He said reluctantly, ‘Even the priests don’t ask you to believe that. They would tell you, I suppose, to pray that God’s will be done. But don’t expect me to talk to you about prayer.’
‘I’d want to know what his will was before I prayed anything like that,’ she said.

I wish I didn’t so identify with this.

Via Crux News

ROME – In what Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople described as a “brave and bold” gesture, Pope Francis gave the patriarch a famous reliquary containing bone fragments believed to belong to St. Peter.

The only time the bronze reliquary has been displayed publicly was in November 2013, when Francis had it present for public veneration as he celebrated the closing Mass for the Year of Faith, opened by Pope Benedict XVI.

The bronze case contains nine of the bone fragments discovered during excavations of the necropolis under St. Peter’s Basilica that began in the 1940s.

In the 1960s, archaeologist Margherita Guarducci published a paper asserting that she had found St. Peter’s bones near the site identified as his tomb.

…

Then, the archbishop recounted, Francis asked him to wait for him because he had a gift for his “brother” Bartholomew. The pope came back and led the archbishop to his little blue Ford Focus and they were driven to the Apostolic Palace.

They entered the chapel of the old papal apartment, where Francis chose not to live, and “the pope took the reliquary that his predecessor Paul VI had placed in the little chapel and offered it to his guest,” according to _Vatican News_.

“For us, this was an extraordinary and unexpected event that we could not have hoped for,” _Vatican News_ quoted the archbishop as saying.

I’ve seen some outrage online about this and Pope Francis giving away relics of St. Peter.

I think it is because they have not grasped the long game Pope Francis has. I see this as the Trojan Relic. The Patriach of Constantinople takes it back with him and the first Pope starts working to bring them back into full communion with Rome. Plus we get the relic back went they are once again in full communion.

Now I would have preferred that he give one of the fragments to each of the Patriarchs. Yet, maybe one at a time is best if they don’t catch on to this plot.

---

Of course, this post is firmly tongue-in-cheek, but I like my theory. I remember hearing previously that when St. John Paul II was shot that he requested they bring him a reliquary containing the bones of St. Peter. Couldn’t verify that story with a quick search.