Consecrated Host Dropped

  • Thread starter Thread starter T700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WetCatechumen said:
It’s one of the sui iuris churches. The Hippie Rite was granted autocephaly in the 1960’s as part of the recommendation of the 17th document the Second Vatican Council, Spiritus Vaticani Secondi.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I’ve never understood how the “spirit” of Vatican II could be so far off from the actual words of Vatican II.
Philomeena said:
Again, if there were no particles on the floor, what is everyone so upset about? (Yes, the shoving with the shoe was uncalled for, but once the host was retreived and consumed and if there were no particles, what is the problem?)
Click to expand...
What if it had been a baby? Say someone dropped a baby so that it wasn’t injured (onto a pillow or whatever), and then kicked it aside before picking it up again? Would you still be asking why everyone was upset? The Lord God is worthy of more respect than a baby.

Kicking it with a shoe was much worse than being “uncalled for,” and we don’t know that there were no particles–we only hope there were none.

(Sorry if that sounds harsh, but unfortunately I am one of those people who generally react poorly to “what is the big deal?” sorts of questions. It’s not you personally or anything, it’s me. 😊 )

–Jen
 
Just a suggestion.

I’ve sometimes moved things with my foot that I’ve dropped so that I can see and pick them up easier, mainly because my balance isn’t as good as it was, and I am overweight so can’t see little things immediately below me. Well, O.K. I admit it, my belly obscures my view.

I am wondering if this could have been the unthinking response of the person concerned. They knew the Host had to be picked up, and they were making this easier and so quicker for themselves. They wanted to minimise the time the Host was in a disrespectful place, not introduce more disrespect. It was a bad decision made instinctively, perhaps.

I don’t think we should be so quick to impute intentional irreverence, or to get so incensed when we don’t know the full facts of what was going on.
 
paperwight said:
Just a suggestion.

I’ve sometimes moved things with my foot that I’ve dropped so that I can see and pick them up easier, mainly because my balance isn’t as good as it was, and I am overweight so can’t see little things immediately below me. Well, O.K. I admit it, my belly obscures my view.

I am wondering if this could have been the unthinking response of the person concerned. They knew the Host had to be picked up, and they were making this easier and so quicker for themselves. They wanted to minimise the time the Host was in a disrespectful place, not introduce more disrespect. It was a bad decision made instinctively, perhaps.

I don’t think we should be so quick to impute intentional irreverence, or to get so incensed when we don’t know the full facts of what was going on.
Click to expand...
They should wait for the priest or EMHC to pick it up.
 
zab said:
They should wait for the priest or EMHC to pick it up.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s debatable.

The person had been given it and somehow dropped it. He no doubt saw it as his responsibility to put things right, and not wait for the priest or EMHC to act as his servant.

This is surely what would happen if anything else had been dropped through your own fault - you wouldn’t wait for someone else to pick it up. I think in these circumstances everyone was guided by what is normal behaviour to avoid two people ‘going for it’ and cracking heads.
 
Catholicben said:
A guitar-playing, “overstole”-wearing, with female-servers-in-albs-using, crucifix-less church.
Click to expand...
Female altar servers who don’t wear vestments, actually. Yep, stole over chasu-alb. The crucifix has been covered in the church since Ash Wednesday. They just changed dark grey cloth covering it to gold/white stuff.

That would be the parish.
 
T700 said:
While waiting to go forward to receive communion today, I saw a man attempt to receive in the hand. Not sure the exact mechanism, but the consecrated host fell to the floor. The communicant simply pushed it aside with his shoe, scooped it up, and consumed it. There was no reaction from the EMHC and people proceeded to walk right across where our Lord fell.

To say I was stunned is an understatement. Even in the Anglican church from which I came, this would have caused all movement to stop, the priest or deacon would have gathered up the fallen host and any visible particles, covered the area with a cloth, and after the mass, thoroughly and reverently cleaned the spot.

Having converted this Easter past, I am still in RCIA until Pentecost. I asked the instructors about this and they agreed that it was unfortunate, but they saw no real problem with the handling of it.

My heart still breaks for even the unintentional desecration of our Lord. It has certainly reaffirmed my decision to only receive on the tongue. I simply don’t want to increase, however slightly, the chance of something like that happening on my watch.

My question to my brothers and sisters with more experience in the faith, what should have I done; anything? Should I speak to the pastor about this? Do nothing but pray?

Paul
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

What you said would have happened in your old Anglican community is what should have happened in this case. Such a procedure is what I have seen at an extraordinary form Mass when such an accident has occurred (yes, even with patens, kneeling communicants, communion on the tongue, etc., this can happen). If you want a source, the 1962 Missal, in the section on “defects,” said this:
  1. Si hostia consecrata, vel aliqua eius particula
    dilabatur in terram, reverenter accipiatur, et
    parum aquae in locum ubi cecidit fundatur et purificatorio
    abstergatur. Si cadat super vestes, non est
    necesse ut indumentum abluatur. Si super vestes
    mulieris cadat, ipsa particulam accipiat et sumat.
Latin students/scholars can work out a full translation. All I will say is that is tells us to do what you thought should have been done. (The last two sentences do not directly apply to this situation.)

Now that this event has passed, it seems the best you can do is ask the pastor if he can teach people what they should do. Or, you can volunteer to teach others, since you know what to do!

Dan
 
paperwight said:
Well, that’s debatable.

The person had been given it and somehow dropped it. He no doubt saw it as his responsibility to put things right, and not wait for the priest or EMHC to act as his servant.

This is surely what would happen if anything else had been dropped through your own fault - you wouldn’t wait for someone else to pick it up. I think in these circumstances everyone was guided by what is normal behaviour to avoid two people ‘going for it’ and cracking heads.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is debatable of who should pick it up when you have to use your shoe to get to it. If for some reason the priest or EMHC did not see it dropped, their assistance could be asked for.
 
Catholicben said:
A guitar-playing, “overstole”-wearing, with female-servers-in-albs-using, crucifix-less church.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you’re gonna have female servers, an alb** is** the appropriate garment, as it is an echo of the baptismal robe and is the proper garb for all the baptized. What female altar servers shouldn’t wear is a cassock and surplice, which is a male liturgical garment.
 
revert_jen said:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I’ve never understood how the “spirit” of Vatican II could be so far off from the actual words of Vatican II.

What if it had been a baby? Say someone dropped a baby so that it wasn’t injured (onto a pillow or whatever), and then kicked it aside before picking it up again? Would you still be asking why everyone was upset? The Lord God is worthy of more respect than a baby.

Kicking it with a shoe was much worse than being “uncalled for,” and we don’t know that there were no particles–we only hope there were none.

(Sorry if that sounds harsh, but unfortunately I am one of those people who generally react poorly to “what is the big deal?” sorts of questions. It’s not you personally or anything, it’s me. 😊 )

–Jen
Click to expand...
If it had been a baby and after the baby was picked up, brought to the hospital, etc, would people avoid the spot where the baby fell??? I am sorry I did not make my question clear enough for all of you. If there are NO PARTICLES ON THE GROUND< WHY ARE WE AVOIDING THE GROUND?
 
Philomeena said:
If it had been a baby and after the baby was picked up, brought to the hospital, etc, would people avoid the spot where the baby fell??? I am sorry I did not make my question clear enough for all of you. If there are NO PARTICLES ON THE GROUND< WHY ARE WE AVOIDING THE GROUND?
Click to expand...
The concern is that there might be particles on the ground, and until the spot where the Eucharist was dropped is checked carefully, people should avoid walking on it.

This was a very unfortunate incident. Even though it was not handled well by the Communion recipient, he probably meant well. Maybe he was trying to move the Eucharist out of the way quickly to prevent it from being stepped on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top