At what point is the Eucharistic particle no longer Jesus?

[Vico]

…
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.”
…

I leave it to you to argue with those that gave it approbation, when you get to heaven that is.

 

[Gorgias]

does this mean that if it is no longer recognized as bread by a group then the Eucharist isn’t there?

So, here’s the thing: if I have really bad eyesight, and therefore, can’t see the tiny particle – but if you do have great eyesight and can see it! – then what’s the situation? What if I have bad eyesight and no one is around who has good eyesight? What’s the situation then?

It’s the Eucharist. I think we shouldn’t stress over it, or beat ourselves up to do things that we aren’t able to do. Prudence, caution, discretion… but not OCD behavior.

I leave it to you to argue with those that gave it approbation

I would gently suggest that you’re misinterpreting the source you’re quoting. Although it’s named “Baltimore Catechism #4”, it’s not the catechism itself. Rather, in its front matter, we see:

An
Explanation
Of The
Baltimore Catechism
of Christian Doctrine

For The Use of
Sunday-School Teachers and Advanced Classes

(Also known as Baltimore Catechism No. 4)

by
Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead

So… it’s not the catechism, but rather, one particular individual’s interpretation of what it means. That’s a whole different ballgame.

 

[Vico]

FrostArcana:

does this mean that if it is no longer recognized as bread by a group then the Eucharist isn’t there?

So, here’s the thing: if I have really bad eyesight, and therefore, can’t see the tiny particle – but if you do have great eyesight and can see it! – then what’s the situation? What if I have bad eyesight and no one is around who has good eyesight? What’s the situation then?

It’s the Eucharist. I think we shouldn’t stress over it, or beat ourselves up to do things that we aren’t able to do. Prudence, caution, discretion… but not OCD behavior.

I leave it to you to argue with those that gave it approbation

I would gently suggest that you’re misinterpreting the source you’re quoting. Although it’s named “Baltimore Catechism #4”, it’s not the catechism itself. Rather, in its front matter, we see:

An
Explanation
Of The
Baltimore Catechism
of Christian Doctrine

For The Use of
Sunday-School Teachers and Advanced Classes

(Also known as Baltimore Catechism No. 4)

by
Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead

So… it’s not the catechism, but rather, one particular individual’s interpretation of what it means. That’s a whole different ballgame.

No. 4 received approbation, the author Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead lived from 1855-1905.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

Whether or not the people present recognize it isn’t relevant.

 

[Gorgias]

No. 4 received approbation, the author Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead lived from 1855-1905.

Sure – a nihil obstat (“you have permission to publish this”) and an imprimatur (“none of the statements within are contrary to Church doctrine”). There’s no Church doctrine on the topic of the quote you cited, so there’s no implication that it runs fair or afoul of doctrine.

But hey… if it makes you feel better to think that you don’t receive the Eucharist if you let it dissolve in your mouth, then I’m not gonna try to convince you otherwise. It’s just not Church teaching, that’s all.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

No. 4 received approbation, the author Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead lived from 1855-1905.

Sure – a nihil obstat (“you have permission to publish this”) and an imprimatur (“none of the statements within are contrary to Church doctrine”). There’s no Church doctrine on the topic of the quote you cited, so there’s no implication that it runs fair or afoul of doctrine.

But hey… if it makes you feel better to think that you don’t receive the Eucharist if you let it dissolve in your mouth, then I’m not gonna try to convince you otherwise. It’s just not Church teaching, that’s all.

No certain doctrine on dissolving in the mouth, however we do have opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas and various other teachers on it. I posted (so no shrug is needed) in response to your.

" it’s not the catechism itself"

Personally I gnaw, and that is what is used in scripture. (Jn. 6:53-54 Greek trogein)

 

[sealabeag]

Just to say this - many are saying that once a particle is no longer identifiable as a particle of bread, it is no longer the Eucharist. I thought that myself, but on further investigation it seems to me that even the smallest particle of the Eucharist is still the Eucharist, even if not clearly identifiable. It is more that our duty is to those particles we can clearly identify. A fleck of dust on the floor that could as easily be a flake of skin does not require our concern.

 

[Gorgias]

I posted (so no shrug is needed) in response to your.

" it’s not the catechism itself"

Ahh… I see you went back and modified your original post. OK – as long as you’re admitting that it’s merely commentary on the Catechism, we’re all good.

No certain doctrine on dissolving in the mouth, however we do have opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas and various other teachers on it.

Notice that Aquinas doesn’t say “if it dissolves on your tongue, then you never received it”, which is the point I’m disputing. (He does say – as @(name removed by moderator) cites – that it’s no longer the Eucharist once it dissolves. But that’s a different point than the one you’ve asserted here, with your citation.)

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I posted (so no shrug is needed) in response to your.

" it’s not the catechism itself"

Ahh… I see you went back and modified your original post. OK – as long as you’re admitting that it’s merely commentary on the Catechism, we’re all good.

No certain doctrine on dissolving in the mouth, however we do have opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas and various other teachers on it.

Notice that Aquinas doesn’t say “if it dissolves on your tongue, then you never received it”, which is the point I’m disputing. (He does say – as @(name removed by moderator) cites – that it’s no longer the Eucharist once it dissolves. But that’s a different point than the one you’ve asserted here, with your citation.)

I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism series as a child, which was a rewrite, not the original Baltimore Catechism by The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, dated 1885. The expansion by Rev. Kinkead is upon the revised text.

 

[Irishmom2]

Thank you for posting that.

 

[bob4]

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.

And that water is properly disposed of by pouring it into a sacrarium.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Metaphysically, every particle and molecule is the Real Presence.

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.

I didn’t know bread had molecules, in that you can take Molecule X and say “this is a molecule of bread”. Bread is a mix of flour and water. If there is such a thing as a “bread molecule”, what is its chemical composition?

I’m not trying to be a smart aleck, I’m serious. I have to wonder if the intent is to say “a particle of the bread that is so small as to be the same size as a molecule”.

Personally I gnaw, and that is what is used in scripture. (Jn. 6:53-54 Greek trogein )

I allow It to soften slightly, then break It in two on my tongue against the roof of my mouth. I tend towards having dry mouth, and I have to do that, as well as generate some saliva in my mouth, to be able to swallow the Host. But I do not chew. I keep a bottle of water in the car, and take a drink immediately after I get in the car after Mass.

I normally do not receive the Precious Blood, though I have no real theological reason for not doing so, just personal preference (and not wishing to drink after many people before me).

Just to say this - many are saying that once a particle is no longer identifiable as a particle of bread, it is no longer the Eucharist. I thought that myself, but on further investigation it seems to me that even the smallest particle of the Eucharist is still the Eucharist, even if not clearly identifiable.

No, once it loses the appearance of bread to the naked eye of a person with normal eyesight, I have always understood that at this point, It ceases to be the Eucharist.

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.

We use the BC in homeschool religion class, but I do not have my son to memorize it. Memorization smacks of an authoritarian approach, “don’t do any thinking about this, just absorb the information you are given, and accept that it’s true on my authority”. I have him to memorize the multiplication tables, and that’s about it.

 

[Rau]

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.

What an extraordinary statement. I’ll bet that thought is rarely if ever communicated to those preparing for FHC.

 

[Rau]

Personally I gnaw, and that is what is used in scripture. (Jn. 6:53-54 Greek trogein )

Gnawing will see a portion dissolve in the mouth I suspect. Others allow relatively more to dissolve in the mouth. But for all, final digestion in the stomach occurs…then the Eucharist is no more (for sure). To draw (manufacture) a distinction among these means of consumption does seem to miss the point.

 

[sealabeag]

No, once it loses the appearance of bread to the naked eye of a person with normal eyesight, I have always understood that at this point, It ceases to be the Eucharist.

That’s what I thought. But in looking into it for this thread I can’t actually find anything to validate that view. Like I say I could be wrong, but based on my best attempts at figuring this question out it seems possible that even the smallest fragment is still the Eucharist, but that when we cannot distinguish a flake as a piece of bread, our duty of responsibility ceases. Again - could be wrong! Maybe you or someone else has a Church document or writing of Aquinas or someone to support that view.

 

[tafan2]

We use the BC in homeschool religion class, but I do not have my son to memorize it. Memorization smacks of an authoritarian approach, “don’t do any thinking about this, just absorb the information you are given, and accept that it’s true on my authority”. I have him to memorize the multiplication tables, and that’s about it.

The origins of the myth that kids were expected to memorize the answers in the Baltimore Catechism likely had sinister motives in its origins. Now, we did have memorize the first few questions, IIRC. That was probably a good thing.

 

[Xarto]

Interesting, I did not know that.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

“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…the species of bread or wine no longer remain“

I got a chuckle out of this Aquinas quote. I’ve never seen a piece of bread even remotely similar in appearance to a host. Nor are the color, savor and other qualities of the host familiar to me as bread. Maybe it was different in Aquinis’ day.

So what is, “the nature of bread”?

 

[Anesti33]

It is worth noting that if a particle of the Eucharist is spoiled and nobody can consume it, an ablution cup is used to dissolve that particle until it can be poured down the sacrarium. The concept is that dissolving the particle makes it unrecognizable as bread and therefore it is no longer the Eucharist.

If this concept is true, then it would seem that the same rule of thumb applies for dissolving in the mouth, except the Eucharist is usually left in an ablution cup for days rather than a few minutes.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

No, once it loses the appearance of bread to the naked eye of a person with normal eyesight, I have always understood that at this point, It ceases to be the Eucharist.

That’s what I thought. But in looking into it for this thread I can’t actually find anything to validate that view. Like I say I could be wrong, but based on my best attempts at figuring this question out it seems possible that even the smallest fragment is still the Eucharist, but that when we cannot distinguish a flake as a piece of bread, our duty of responsibility ceases. Again - could be wrong! Maybe you or someone else has a Church document or writing of Aquinas or someone to support that view.

This very same question, or minor variations thereon, crops up in these forums every couple of weeks or so. I hope no one will take this the wrong way, but it’s been done to death, and there’s really nothing I can add. You might do a topic search on this matter to see past threads.

Really, this has become “such a big deal” ever since communion in the hand was instituted, and I am old enough to remember when communion was on the tongue and only on the tongue. I still continue the traditional practice and never receive CITH.

HomeschoolDad:

We use the BC in homeschool religion class, but I do not have my son to memorize it. Memorization smacks of an authoritarian approach, “don’t do any thinking about this, just absorb the information you are given, and accept that it’s true on my authority”. I have him to memorize the multiplication tables, and that’s about it.

The origins of the myth that kids were expected to memorize the answers in the Baltimore Catechism likely had sinister motives in its origins. Now, we did have memorize the first few questions, IIRC. That was probably a good thing.

My understanding is that it was memorized. To tell the truth, even though we use the BC, I dislike the catechism format, because it’s always seemed to me like it “channels” thinking into the direction the writer desires, rather than studying a subject and thinking it through. Science and history books aren’t written in question-and-answer format. Why, then, religion?

I don’t force my son to memorize the BC. We take the questions and sometimes go into extended discussions about the subject matter. My son’s ability to take propositions and then either defend them, or tear them apart, using sound logic, never ceases to amaze me. One of the things we stress in our homeschool is how to think — rhetoric, logic, debate, and argumentation. (I explained to him during the presidential debates, which we watched, that they are not really “debates” — a “debate” consists of a proposition, one debater arguing for the affirmative, and the other debater arguing for the negative. We have plenty of those!)