P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
I was not able to edit my above post so sorry for double - perhaps a mod could merge.
Post:
There is one major premise in this thread that needs to be shown clearly how wrong it is.
Premise: Particles of the Holy Eucharist that you [or a person of reasonable eyesight] cannot see are not the Eucharist and therefore you do not have to worry about them.
Contrary: There are particles which a person cannot see but which still retain the species of bread that are the Blessed Sacrament.
Secondary Premise: It is sufficient to inspect your hands for particles after reception to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
Contrary to Secondary: This is insufficient because there will be particles which retain the species of bread which you cannot see which you will then lose.
There is not a single Church document which cites VISIBILITY of the fragments as the determining factor for deciding whether or not the Blessed Sacrament is present. Any documents which use the word appearance mean appearance in the philosophical sense which is synonymous to what St Thomas calls accidents. Again this is not limited to the visibility but to the accidents being present.
What does the Church say about this?
[Source: Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent]
Canon 3: If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each and every portion of either species when it is divided up; Let him be Anathema.
[Source: The Roman Catechism]
Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . .
the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
**It is Catholic teaching that as long as the Speices/accidents of the bread remains then so does the Blessed Sacrament. **
So let us now examine the premise.
Situation
Two Persons
Then the first person leans over and says “By the way my Brother/sister you have misssed a fragment”
What does this mean?
Is the fragment that only the person of exceptional eyesight perceived a fragment of
the Blessed Eucharist?
If you say yes then you have proved my own premise that simply inspecting your hands is insufficient to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
If you answer no then the Council of Trent disagrees with you, and you are under an anathema.
At the very least you should follow Church traditions which involve purifying hands and
fingers with liquid and making sure that this is poured to earth.
On the question of practicality
These people need to read all the things that are mandated by the Church with regards to the Blessed Sacrament. I care as much about practicality in this issue as I do about the hairs on my toes. This is the Blessed Sacrament we are talking about.
When before the judgement seat of God are you really going to say “Lord I was only being practical”
Paul
Post:
There is one major premise in this thread that needs to be shown clearly how wrong it is.
Premise: Particles of the Holy Eucharist that you [or a person of reasonable eyesight] cannot see are not the Eucharist and therefore you do not have to worry about them.
Contrary: There are particles which a person cannot see but which still retain the species of bread that are the Blessed Sacrament.
Secondary Premise: It is sufficient to inspect your hands for particles after reception to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
Contrary to Secondary: This is insufficient because there will be particles which retain the species of bread which you cannot see which you will then lose.
There is not a single Church document which cites VISIBILITY of the fragments as the determining factor for deciding whether or not the Blessed Sacrament is present. Any documents which use the word appearance mean appearance in the philosophical sense which is synonymous to what St Thomas calls accidents. Again this is not limited to the visibility but to the accidents being present.
What does the Church say about this?
[Source: Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent]
Canon 3: If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each and every portion of either species when it is divided up; Let him be Anathema.
[Source: The Roman Catechism]
Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . .
the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
**It is Catholic teaching that as long as the Speices/accidents of the bread remains then so does the Blessed Sacrament. **
So let us now examine the premise.
Situation
Two Persons
- Exceptional Eyesight.
- Normal Eyesight.
Then the first person leans over and says “By the way my Brother/sister you have misssed a fragment”
What does this mean?
Is the fragment that only the person of exceptional eyesight perceived a fragment of
the Blessed Eucharist?
If you say yes then you have proved my own premise that simply inspecting your hands is insufficient to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
If you answer no then the Council of Trent disagrees with you, and you are under an anathema.
At the very least you should follow Church traditions which involve purifying hands and
fingers with liquid and making sure that this is poured to earth.
On the question of practicality
These people need to read all the things that are mandated by the Church with regards to the Blessed Sacrament. I care as much about practicality in this issue as I do about the hairs on my toes. This is the Blessed Sacrament we are talking about.
When before the judgement seat of God are you really going to say “Lord I was only being practical”
Paul