At what point is the Eucharistic particle no longer Jesus?

[FrostArcana]

I assume that at the point when particles are microscopic or something, it no longer counts? I am asking because I still don’t understand the particle dropping paranoia over something that I can’t even see, especially when Jesus didn’t care. If at a certain point it didn’t even count as His body then it would be helpful

 

[Shakuhachi]

I had heard that it is when it is no longer recognizable.

 

[Stephen_says]

At what point is a particle of gold no longer gold?

 

[Vico]

I assume that at the point when particles are microscopic or something, it no longer counts? I am asking because I still don’t understand the particle dropping paranoia over something that I can’t even see, especially when Jesus didn’t care. If at a certain point it didn’t even count as His body then it would be helpful

Note that the Baltimore Catechism No. 4 written in 1891 by Thomas L. Kinkead has extensive notes for teachers for the various questions and answers. What I quote is from those notes attached to question 250. It has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur approbations.

When no longer distinguishable. See the Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (excerpt) on Q 250:

The size of the Host does not make the slightest difference, as Our Lord is present whole and entire in the smallest particle of the Host. A little piece that you could scarcely see would be the body of Our Lord. However, the particle that is given to the people is about the size of a twenty-five-cent piece, so that they can swallow it before it melts. In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all.

Nihil Obstat:
D. J. McMahon
Censor Librorum

Imprimatur:
+ Michael Augustine
Archbishop of New York
New York, September 5, 1891

Nihil Obstat:
Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum

Imprimatur:
+ Patrick J. Hayes, D.D.
Archbishop of New York
New York, June 29, 1921

 

[FrostArcana]

I didn’t know you had to eat it… Well now I know I may have never received communion in my life, or at least not as many times as I thought. Time to go to Mass or at least distribution

 

[sealabeag]

This is the best answer to this question I have found:

“The DOCTRINE of the Real Presence is that the SUBSTANCE of bread changes into the substance of the Body of Christ. Crumbs or particles are ACCIDENTS not SUBSTANCES. Metaphysically, every particle and molecule is the Real Presence. Morally and liturgically, however, our obligation to give LATRIA (worship or adoration) is confinded to what is VISIBLY discernable. Prudence dictates that I carefully purify the chalice and ciborium and carefully fold the purificator and corporal, but I do not genuflect to questionable particles which could be the Holy Eucharist or could be dust or some other substance. Only when the ACCIDENT changes, for instance, when the consecrated host becomes contaminated with mold, then it is no longer accidentally bread and therefore the substance of the Real Presence ceases to exist as well, just as in the case of our bodies as the stomach digests Holy Communion.”

• Fr. John Trigilio

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

he size of the Host does not make the slightest difference, as Our Lord is present whole and entire in the smallest particle of the Host. A little piece that you could scarcely see would be the body of Our Lord. However, the particle that is given to the people is about the size of a twenty-five-cent piece, so that they can swallow it before it melts. In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all.

This is self contradictory. If even the smallest particle remains the host, then it wouldn’t matter whether it dissolved in your mouth or not. The particles don’t simply vanish when they dissolve.

 

[tafan2]

This is the correct way to treat the situation. The correct, or what I have always thought to be so, is when it is no longer recognizable as bread with our basic look. So a particle that has broken off of the host is still the Body of Christ. If it has dissolved in water, it is not. If, say the Precious Blood is spilled on carpet (another reason to NEVER have carpet in a Church, different issue), while it is still liquid, it is still the Precious Blood. When all that remains is a stain, it is not.

 

[tafan2]

I agree, The Baltimore Catechism gets most things right, but this does not make sense.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I agree, The Baltimore Catechism gets most things right, but this does not make sense.

I’m not a huge fan, frankly. It seems as though the intent is producing rote memorization over understanding. I much prefer the current Catechism.

 

[tafan2]

The books were intended for two very different purposes, its really not worth while to compare them. Teaching children directly out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would not work at all. Also, the part about “rote memorization over understanding” is a common comment about them, but not accurate to how they were used at all. Yes, we used to have to memorize some of the questions, but in general the answers gave good explanations and became more in depth as one advances through the volumes, ie as a child got older. A question/answer format is actually a good way to organize material for children. I have taught quite a bit of CCD through the years, some of the books used these days are getting pretty good, but go back twenty years ago? Give me the Baltimore Catechism any day of the week to teach out of, and it would not be rote memorization.

Also realize: memorizing some of the basic answers is very beneficial. Where would you be with any math if you were not forced to memorize multiplication tables as a kid, and that was not done “over understanding”.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I guess I don’t mean it’s bad or anything. I understand there might be situations, such as teaching kids, where simple question and answer formats might be best. What I mean is I don’t think the Baltimore Catechism is the best tool for an adult.

 

[Wesrock]

When it no longer has the “appearances” of being bread.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

he size of the Host does not make the slightest difference, as Our Lord is present whole and entire in the smallest particle of the Host. A little piece that you could scarcely see would be the body of Our Lord. However, the particle that is given to the people is about the size of a twenty-five-cent piece, so that they can swallow it before it melts. In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all.

This is self contradictory. If even the smallest particle remains the host, then it wouldn’t matter whether it dissolved in your mouth or not. The particles don’t simply vanish when they dissolve.

Not really, since if it is entirely dissolved then there is not “A little piece that you could scarcely see” which “would be the body of Our Lord”. If it is not entirely dissolved then it is received.

See also St. Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae Part III Q 77, A 4:

But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

 

[tafan2]

And it was never intended as such.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Not really, since if it is entirely dissolved then there is not “A little piece that you could scarcely see” which “would be the body of Our Lord”. If it is not entirely dissolved then it is received.

It’s just not very well written. At first it says “the smallest particle” which would include pieces not visible to the naked eye.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Not really, since if it is entirely dissolved then there is not “A little piece that you could scarcely see” which “would be the body of Our Lord”. If it is not entirely dissolved then it is received.

It’s just not very well written. At first it says “the smallest particle” which would include pieces not visible to the naked eye.

One has to read the entire section in context to understand it, rather than nitpicking.

 

[Richca]

The substance of Christ’s body is no longer present when a single particle or molecule of the host doesn’t have the appearances or accidents of a single particle or molecule of bread. An unconsecrated host is just bread. This host of bread can be potentially divided until we can look at a single molecule of the bread under a microscope and determine its chemical composition. It’s a compound substance composed of various elements.
If this single molecule of bread was divided further, then we are not going to have bread anymore but some other substances. So, so long as a single molecule of a consecrated host retains its chemical composition which before the consecration was substantially ‘bread’, Christ’s body is substantially present.

Similarly, a single molecule of water is a compound substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen. A single molecule of water is invisible to the naked eye but it is water. If the hydrogen is separated from the oxygen in this single molecule of water, then we are no longer going to have water but are left with two substances, namely, hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[Gorgias]

Vico:

A little piece that you could scarcely see would be the body of Our Lord. However, the particle that is given to the people is about the size of a twenty-five-cent piece, so that they can swallow it before it melts. In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all.

This is self contradictory. If even the smallest particle remains the host, then it wouldn’t matter whether it dissolved in your mouth or not. The particles don’t simply vanish when they dissolve.

I don’t buy the “if you don’t swallow it, you will not receive Holy Communion at all” bit. Whether it dissolves in your mouth or in your stomach (or anywhere in between!), you’ve still “received the Eucharist.”

The salient point, RTG, is that the Eucharist remains the Eucharist while it maintains the appearance of bread (or wine). Once it no longer has that appearance, the Real Presence no longer exists there.

That’s why there’s no contradiction (and, that’s why particles so small that they cannot be seen aren’t worshipped).

The particles don’t simply vanish when they dissolve.

Certainly not. They become something else!

 

[FrostArcana]

With all this talk of appearance, does this mean that if it is no longer recognized as bread by a group then the Eucharist isn’t there? Even if the piece is whole? Say they genuinely thought it was a wheel instead.