Breaking a Eucharistic Host

[Gorgias]

I’m a Eucharistic Minister and I was never told we couldn’t break hosts

Right. This can happen – after all, it’s a prudential judgment on the part of the pastor. If he thinks that there’s the risk of spraying particles of hosts all over the place, he can decide that EMHCs shouldn’t attempt to break hosts.

Must I really cite documents to bolster the claim that no lay person has the right to desecrate a Eucharistic Host for the sake of “participation?”

If you’re going to make the claim that the Church says “no breaking hosts by EMHCs”, then yes.

The fact that reception of communion isn’t required doesn’t address your claim.

The question of “the validity of the Mass”, in the context of receiving communion, is not only irrelevant, but also an invalid question.

In addition, one does not “break apart their Eucharistic Lord.” If that were the case, then the Fraction Rite would be committing this act at each and every Mass. You’re mistaken on this count, as well.

Every single church document on the Mass says that one cannot add or subtract to the rubrics.

Moreover, if a rubric doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist. That means that you yourself cannot add to the rubrics by asserting that breaking hosts for distribution is forbidden.

This conversation has been very discouraging.

I agree.

I didn’t come on this forum to be mocked for desiring to be reverent to the Blessed Sacrament

Right. You came, apparently, in order to prove your pastor wrong. “A hundred years ago”, would sacristans be taking that sort of action?

 

[DeniseNY]

frankly based on the statistics on how many “Catholics” believe in the Real Presence, most should definitely not.

No one in the congregation should speculate about who is receiving worthily and who is not. That is above our pay grade, so to speak. Aside from that, you’ve received replies here from very knowledgeable, faithful, orthodox Catholics. If you choose not to believe what not only they are saying - but what your pastor has told you directly - that’s your choice. But it might be an opportunity for you to do some reflection on your ideas.

 

[Convert3]

I am also an EMHC and we were told specifically that we could break the hosts if we anticipated running out.

 

[whatistrue]

Really? Which canon did he violate that warrants laicization?

 

[frarmandofm]

Really? Which canon did he violate that warrants laicization?

The “Thou shalt never disagree with thine sacristan” canon…

 

[whatistrue]

A perfect demonstration of the adage that tone of voice doesn’t come through in plain text. Also an exemplar of Poe’s Law…

 

[frarmandofm]

A perfect demonstration of the adage that tone of voice doesn’t come through in plain text. Also an exemplar of Poe’s Law…

Very true. We need a sarcasm font.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

After all, as someone said, Jesus is present in even the smallest crumb. This is why we are instructed to wash our fingers in the ablution bowl after handling the Body of Christ. Even the dust of a host has the presence of Christ and should be reverently disposed of.

THANK YOU for pointing this out.

This is precisely why I do not receive CITH, and why I submit, with ultimate deference to the Keys, that the Church should revoke this permission.

As I have said elsewhere on CAF, I would settle any doubts as to whether a fragment or particle having “size X”, in favor of It retaining the appearance of bread, and thus remaining the Body of Christ. I don’t know at what point “dust” ceases to be that Body. Broken record time here again, but I have served enough Masses, both OF and EF, holding the paten, to know that visible fragments (as well as the “dust” you cite) can and do break off or slough off. Casual communicants, unschooled in the reverence due to the Holy Eucharist, just never having been taught that they should care, or just not caring in spite of having been taught, may miss these fragments. These fragments are then liable to end up in circumstances that are not consonant with the Real Presence of Our Lord — trampled under foot, clinging to one’s clothing, what have you.

 

[Phemie]

Here’s a question for you: where in the GIRM does it state that the EMHCs may approach the altar to receive a ciborium/chalice to distribute the Eucharist? Is it before the Agnus Dei, or after? If I’m not mistaken, the GIRM makes no such specification. So is having them come up to the altar liturgical abuse because the GIRM says nothing about it?

Actually, GIRM 162

 

[Fauken]

Actually, GIRM 162

Ah, I see it now, thank you! I had looked for it but missed it since it was the second paragraph in that rule.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The practice is mentioned in passing as licit in a 2015 ZENIT Daily Dispatch article, “Giving More Than One Host to a Communicant,” by Fr. Edward McNamara, LC, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum:

While it is customary to give a single host to each communicant, there can be variations according to particular necessity.

For example, if more people turn up for Mass than the number of hosts that were consecrated or reserved in the tabernacle, then the priest or minister could well decide to break the small hosts into two so that all could receive Communion. (source)

 

[edward_george1]

You’re really fixated on this one thing, which you claim is somehow wrong and even sacrilegious. I’ve been to seminary, I’ve taken Mass practicum in both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Form, and I’ve had four semesters of Canon Law. And never have I heard in any of that, nor in any of my own study of liturgical or Canon Law, run across the notion that breaking the host during the distribution of communion is a sacrilege, nor “adding to the rubrics,” nor against any kind of law. I have seen my own Bishop do so, who is no slouch when it comes to matters Eucharistic, and who possesses a doctorate in Canon Law. I have seen a good number of priests whose judgment I trust on such matters do so when hosts ran short. I have, on occasion, had to do so when hosts ran short. Are you really prepared to pit your fixation with this against me, most of the priests I know, my own Bishop, and everything that we’ve all studied? We have nothing but the utmost respect for the Eucharist in this diocese, we have an annual Eucharistic Congress that has inspired dozens of vocations, including my own, and which brings together thousands of people for the worship of the Eucharist.

Bottom line: there is no teaching, rubric, law, or anything which says what you’re trying to make it say. I suggest that you take the advice that you have been given and be obedient to your pastor, or else speak with him to explain to him why you can no longer perform these duties.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[JulianN]

but it doesn’t cite any church teaching, it’s just this priest’s opinion.

Nor have you cited a Church teaching—only your personal opinion.

You’ve asked for documentation to support something that simply isn’t true, and then profess yourself astonished that people have pointed out your error.

What, precisely, do you hope to accomplish by persisting in error? If you cannot accept your pastor’s correct instructions, it’s time to tender your resignation as sacristan.

 

[Phemie]

No one, lay or priest would have tolerated it 100 years ago. Less than 1/3 of registered Catholics today believe that the Eucharist is the full body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And I genuinely believe such a practice as lay people fracturing a Eucharistic Host before consuming/distributing it only will further aid this horrible problem we have.

So you think that 100 years ago if a priest went to a dying person’s bedside with the Blessed Sacrament and the person couldn’t swallow an entire Host, the priest would refuse to give him Viaticum rather than break off a very small piece of Host? Really??

 

[edward_george1]

It’s also not in violation of the law. There’s nothing against it. Anywhere. Period. It is sometimes necessary. If hosts run short, or, as someone just pointed out, if a communicant can’t swallow and needs a smaller piece. The rubrics in the rites for the sick don’t tell me to fraction the Host at that point, am I “adding to the rubrics?”

This isn’t how Church law, even liturgical law is interpreted. We use the principle of charity. Law is interpreted as broadly as possible, unless it imposes a penalty. Since there isn’t a law saying not to do this, it’s not really fair to say that it’s wrong somehow.

And I noticed you sidestep the issue. Do you really think that I am wrong, and every one of my priestly colleagues, and my own bishop? Please answer the question.

The reason that faithful Catholics tolerate this is because it’s not wrong. Full stop.

 

[dochawk]

Very true. We need a sarcasm font.

by long practice predating the term “internet”, an “eye roll” emoticon would do that. Here, where ascii isn’t normally used for such things, it would be

 

[edward_george1]

I venture to say that no Canon law expert prior to these last few decades and no Canon law expert in say, Africa, Asia, or the Magesterial congregations would agree that the approach towards rubrics is “broad” in the sense that you claim. It’s a very modern idea that rigidity is uncharitable.

Actually the Code of Canon Law says we are to interpret laws broadly. And that’s always been the principle for interpreting Church Law. I studied under an expert at Canon Law who used to work at the Vatican, and who now teaches in one of the top faculties in the world. I doubt he’d have steered me wrong on this.

There are abuses, this is true. There are issues of lack of faith, this is true. I’m not sure that the issue that you are obsessing over is the problem.

I know there are no rubrics that prohibit this. This is a bad argument. There are no rubrics that prohibit a priest from doing a breakdance at some point during the mass. Or as a more recent viral video shows, using a hoverboard to “roll into and out of mass”. Following the rubrics is following the apostolic tradition.

But it isn’t unreasonable to break Hosts if you run short. It is unreasonable to do the nonsense you described.

And I use the Roman Canon all the time. I can point you to two dozen priests who do as well.

And with that, I’ve become thoroughly convinced that I’ve not really made much of a contribution to this thread, and so I take my leave. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First of all, no one has been uncharitable or rude to you in this thread. You are the one who has come off as extremely uncharitable towards your own pastor.

Second of all, this is the second time you’ve brought up the “breakdance during the Mass” strawman. There is no practical reason to do a breakdance during the Mass, and it has nothing to do with breaking up Eucharist into smaller pieces for practical reasons, such as allowing additional people to receive, or allowing a sick or disabled person with swallowing problems to receive a smaller piece.

 

[thistle]

I’m a Eucharistic Minister and I was never told we couldn’t break hosts

As an aside you are not a Eucharistic Minister. At Mass the priest is the Eucharistic Minister. You are an EMHC which is not a Eucharistic Minister.

 

[babochka]

You claim that breaking a host by an EMHC is adding to the rubrics, but that it is acceptable for a priest to do so while distributing Holy Communion. Where is this in the rubrics?

every parish in America uses an army of EMHCs and considers them a necessary part of the litrugy.

This is demonstrably untrue.