I am of the opinion that a consecrated host and/or chalice, as they are the body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the "accidents" of bread and wine, are too Holy to pass Covid.

This is NOT to say that breathing in the face of others while taking either of these, or being in a crowded sanctuary with others, can't facilitate the passing of the disease. But I do NOT believe the body and blood of Christ could possibly contain it. Just can't.

Thoughts anyone?

I would say that one of the accidental qualities of bread and wine is its ability to pass viruses and other containments, either because they are on the surface of the host, or washed into the mouth off of a chalice as the precious blood is poured over it. So, it seems to me that since all of the accidental properties of bread and water remain, so would this property.

That said, the accidental properties of wine also include the alcohol's ability to sanitize. So, there is that as well. But, if the virus is "killed" due to this quality, it isn't because of the holiness of the sacrament, but because it is a property of wine.

(And Fr. Obi always agrees with gherkin and doom.)

FJ

F/J is correct.

St Thomas Aquinas discusses about poisoned Sacred Species. I don't remember everything he said there, but I'm sure that his answer is not "The Sacrament's too holy to kill your body, so you're miraculously safe" .

I think it applies here too.

I suspect editing.

And who is this doom of whom you speak?

The opinion expressed in the OP is superstitious nonsense. If I put a dose of arsenic in the wine before it is us consecrated, it would still, post consecration. kill anyone who drank it (assuming the dose I added was large enough to be fatal).

Well, the OP comes from a good will. The mystery of the Eucharist is difficult to ponder sometimes. So, I understand the position that was proposed.

That said, I think the problem with the poisoned wine situation is that it most probably creates invalid matter anyway, so there wouldn't be any Eucharist. Poison cannot be consecrated. But, as Aquinas suggests, if this is found out AFTER the words of consecration, then it should be set aside and treated as Eucharist and disposed up in that manner since we cannot know if or how much poison is actually present to invalidate the matter. in either case, however, no one should drink it because poison is poison, even if the Sacrament happened. So, that seems to contradict the OP.

Now, if the poison was introduced after consecration then, even there, it would have to be an amount that did not create something that no longer had the properties of wine because I believe that would end the sacramental presence. But, yes, as long as that didn't happen then you would have the sacrament being used as a vehicle for poison, since wine would have that property.

FJ

Poisoned wine is still wine, to argue that adding poison to it makes it invalid matter strikes me as extremely legalistic.

Keep in mind that in apostolic days, wine was extremely watered down, compared to today, nobody ever drank it straight. A recipe as weak as 2 measures of water for every measure of wine were not unusual. And yet I've never seen anyone argue that adding water to the wine in such quantities made it invalid matter.

Who let F/J’s dear grandmother at the keyboard again? Wasn’t she the one who convinced Zeno to ban all of Europe?

Well, I understand the charge of legalism, and I certainly don't want to be engaging in that. However, we do need to draw lines in regard to proper matter. Bread with just the addition of a bit of yeast makes it illicit in the West, even though it is still bread. Water with a little koolaid powder would make it at the least illicit for baptism and maybe even invalid. I don't think this is "legalism" but standing by the fact that this "matter" is supposed to signify something in the sacrament, and that signification cannot happen if the matter is altered to the point where it doesn't have that property. In other words, the "being a fitting sign" is part of the accidental property of the matter that must remain even in transubstantiation. Koolaid, even though it is mostly water, lacks the signification of washing that plain water has. Bread that has raisins in it, or other things like a lot of sugar or nuts, lacks the simplicity of "bread on the run or journey" that is part of the Eucharistic sign. So, the Church has drawn these lines. Not for legalism, but to hold back the tendency to innovate the sacraments to the point of losing them completely. Is a wine/poison mixture to be called wine that has been poisoned, or poison that is masked with wine? That would need to be known to know whether it is valid matter. The fact that we can ask the question demonstrates that something is reasonably amiss with its signification for the sacrament.

I admit that Aquinas says to TREAT the poisoned wine as Eucharist if the words of consecration were spoken over it, since we cannot know for sure. But, I don't think this necessarily means that the sacrament occurred. Unless the Church has spoken on whether the sacrament can actually happen under those circumstances, then I would be in the camp that it likely has not. And so, also going with Aquinas, that chalice should be cleaned and new wine should be poured in, and the words should be spoken again over the chalice to complete the sacrament in a way that allows the priest to consume it.

FJ

I agree that whenever we walk up to a line that has been drawn to make a useful distinction, that "making a useful distinction" can turn into simple legalism. So, I take your point sincerely. I just want you to know that I am not trying to engage in legalism. I am trying to honor the distinction that is made by drawing the lines that separate valid and invalid matter. If I didn't hit that correctly, then I will gladly retract.

I will also like to add that I do agree that this would be a question that is difficult to answer. So, while I would say that one should not use a poison/wine mixture for the sacrament as this potentially invalidates the sacrament AND is just plain stupid, I would also say that if it HAS happened and is found out (like Aquinas imagines) then it should be TREATED as Eucharist since doubt remains. So, I am not being legalistic by saying I know for sure how to draw the line. I am simply being cautious and trying to make a useful distinction, since that is what the identification of valid v invalid matter tries to do.

The ironic thing is that I think legalism could also be a temptation for one who is inclined to grant proper matter to poisoned wine. So, that knife cuts both ways. Before the sacrament occurs, I believe the poetic language of proper signification should guide us toward choosing proper matter for the sacrament. Wine is a celebratory drink had at the end of a long day that gladdens the mind and body. It also sanitizes and protects from corruption. That is part of its properties that inform the sacrament. Poison does not have this. So, obviously, one should not use poison as matter for the Eucharist on purpose. Here, the intention matters, and I believe would invalidate the matter. But, if it is done accidentally, (as Aquinas imagines) then we should probably have a bit of "legalism" guide us to treat it as Eucharist (since we cannot know for sure), set it aside and dispose of it as if it is, and use new wine to repeat the consecration and complete the Mass. This would be one of those cases where we pray that God will work out the details as long as everyone acted innocently in good faith.

FJ

IANAL (liturgist/canonist), but I think there's a difference between water and (a huge quantity of) arsenic.

If I dilute wine with a common man looking, and ask him, he'll say "That's wine".

If I do the same with arsenic, will he tell me the same thing?

What does it matter what he says? If he drinks wine, consecrated or not, with a lethal dose of poison, he'll die.

We're getting into snake-handler territory here.

My point was about whether such wine-thingy is valid matter for the Sacrament re:Doom.

And from what I have researched, Doom is correct about wine being much thicker in ancient times, and it was customary to serve wine with a side of water to dilute it to a more drinkable state. This practice made its way into the Liturgy, and when it was reflected on one could abstract a deeper liturgical meaning where the humanity and divinity of Christ mingled. So, a practical thing was deepened.

But, diluting thick (nearly undrinkable) wine to a thinner (more drinkable) state doesn't seem to be changing wine into something else. It is more like buying condensed soup and adding water to make it normal soup. Whereas taking wine and mixing in arsenic would, imho, change it into something that shouldn't be called wine... since a major property of wine is that it is drinkable.

FJ

Banned for agreeing with Doom.

Related to the OP:
We went to Mass every morning before class as St Joseph's grade school. Hundreds of snot nosed kids. Dipping fingers in a small container of holy water near the entrance and making the sign of the cross was standard. I understand that practice was ended for hygienic reasons. Bedouin proverb applies: Trust in God but tie up your camel.

Not only is poisoned wine valid matter but the 'poisoned chalice' is a standard example given in classes to explain what happens during Transubstantiation. The classic answer to the dilemma is that since the consecration changes only the substance but not the accidents consecrated poisoned wine is still poisoned.