Do you rinse your hand(s) after receiving the Communion in the hand?

[paperwight]

As I’ve pointed out before, worrying about particles too small to see goes against what the Church itself teaches regarding Hosts or Precious Blood that have to be disposed of - if someone vomits, for instance.

The procedures include the option of diluting the Precious Blood until It ‘no longer resembles wine’, or dissolving the Host in water until It ‘no longer resembles bread’, then pouring the residue into the ground, or burning it.

How can that agree with the ‘every particle however invisible’ theory, since obviously, the particles are still present in the water? They can’t have gone anywhere. If (as some posters seem to believe) Jesus is present in every particle, however small or invisible, that water should still be treated as Holy Communion, not poured away. But the Church doesn’t say that.

We have to use our commonsense sometimes, and not become obsessive.

 

[Lepanto]

As I’ve pointed out before, worrying about particles too small to see goes against what the Church itself teaches regarding Hosts

But what about all those particles that can be seen?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

As I’ve pointed out before, worrying about particles too small to see goes against what the Church itself teaches regarding Hosts or Precious Blood that have to be disposed of - if someone vomits, for instance.

The procedures include the option of diluting the Precious Blood until It ‘no longer resembles wine’, or dissolving the Host in water until It ‘no longer resembles bread’, then pouring the residue into the ground, or burning it.

This is incorrect. The Church has always used methods that do not rely on subjective judgements as to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament or not.

Where residue is poured into the ground it is poured where people do not go. There are situations where the sacred Body is present but it cannot be consumed - and disposing of it where it cannot be desecrated is of high importance.

Secondly your use of the word resemble is very subjective.

Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Faith. One would need actual empiricial science to tell us when the “species” of bread is broken.

If you really know what you are talking about answer these questions.

At what point does Iron cease to be Iron.

At what point does Human Tissue cease to be Human Tissue. Human tissue is much more complex than bread for example.

How can that agree with the ‘every particle however invisible’ theory, since obviously, the particles are still present in the water? They can’t have gone anywhere. If (as some posters seem to believe) Jesus is present in every particle, however small or invisible, that water should still be treated as Holy Communion, not poured away. But the Church doesn’t say that.

We have to use our commonsense sometimes, and not become obsessive.

As said above there are situations when the Sacred Body or Sacred Blood cannot be consumed. It is easy to destroy the species of wine as it is a liquid. The Sacred Body less so. But since there are situations where It cannot be consumed some rites of teh Church use burning to destroy the species of bread and some use the equilavent method of the sacrarium or an area of earth which is not frequented.

Secondly since this is the Sacred Body of Christ WE ERR ON THE SIDE OF MAKING SURE THAT NOTHING IS LOST. edit: If we cannot make sure it is consumed it must be put where it can corrupt without being desecrated or disrespected. Anything less is uncatholic.

Paul

 

[japhy]

So those who say simply inspect their hands do not understand that particles which they cannot see are still the Body of Our Lord.

If the fragments are imperceptible, that means they no longer have the appearance of bread. In such a case, ablutions, while expected of ministers of Holy Communion, are not mandatory for the recipients.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

If the fragments are imperceptible, that means they no longer have the appearance of bread. In such a case, ablutions, while expected of ministers of Holy Communion, are not mandatory for the recipients.

Document this please. It is wrong. Since when does subjectivist judgements apply in this case. Since transubstantiation is NOT a subjective Dogma but a objective one.

 

[benedictgal]

The priest purifies his hands before communion as a symbolic gesture of spiritual cleansing. After communion, when he is purifing the communion dishes, he will have the water run over his fingers, but he then drinks this water. At no time does the priest wash his habds in a reular sink for the purposes of removing any traces of the consecrated host.

We are treating the matter of what happens after the distribution of Holy Communion Bear in mind that sometimes, if the priest has a deacon with him, the deacon does the purifying. Thus, the priest would use the lavabo (the little vessel with water). Concelebrants also use the lavabo. Furthermore, in our parish, EMHCs use the lavabo as well. Shortly thereafter, the contents are deposited in the sacrarium or in the ground. I never mentioned that the priest uses a sink that is tied to the parish sewer line. Please re-read what I posted.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I don’t receive in the hand.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We are treating the matter of what happens after the distribution of Holy Communion Bear in mind that sometimes, if the priest has a deacon with him, the deacon does the purifying. Thus, the priest would use the lavabo (the little vessel with water). Concelebrants also use the lavabo. Furthermore, in our parish, EMHCs use the lavabo as well. Shortly thereafter, the contents are deposited in the sacrarium or in the ground. I never mentioned that the priest uses a sink that is tied to the parish sewer line. Please re-read what I posted.

Please don’t be so sensitive. I was agreeing with you.

 

[bpbasilphx]

But what about all those particles that can be seen?

Then, if you receive in your hand and you see them, consume them ASAP.

 

[yellowbird]

Then, if you receive in your hand and you see them, consume them ASAP.

Exactly. And those you can’t see, don’t worry about. I think we try our best to show the proper respect for the host and not worry about the things that are out of our control… like miniscule, not able to be seen with the naked eye, particles.

There are often over 800 parish members receiving communion at any given Sunday mass at my Church. Can you imagine the mayhem if everyone felt the need to wash their hands or participate in some cleansing process afterwards?

It’s His Church, if God were upset about particles all over the place, I’d think He’d have us go back to everyone receiving on the tongue? Since that hasn’t happened, I have to assume He is ok with things as they are? I’m certain that God is capable of taking care of Himself.

 

[puzzleannie]

But what about all those particles that can be seen?

as stated, discretely lick your hand, the very last thing you would do is wash your hand into the common sink and sewer line

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Originally Posted by japhy

The Eucharist remains the Eucharist only so long as it retains the appearance of bread and wine. I have read this in many authoritative sources. Unfortunately I don’t have a reference at hand.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What about the particles which you cannot see?

those who say simply inspect their hands do not understand that particles which they cannot see are still the Body of Our Lord.

Paul

That is not correct. They remain the Body and Blood of Christ as long as they retain the appearance of bread and wine. If a person with reasonable eyesight can’t see them, then they are no longer visible and no longer have an appearance of bread and wine.

 

[Lepanto]

as stated, discretely lick your hand, the very last thing you would do is wash your hand into the common sink and sewer line

All the discrete hand lickers in the world aren’t going to solve the problem of all of the particles falling underfoot.

 

[puzzleannie]

All the discrete hand lickers in the world aren’t going to solve the problem of all of the particles falling underfoot.

which is not the topic of this thread and which can happen no matter how one communicates

 

[PaulAndrew83]

That is not correct. They remain the Body and Blood of Christ as long as they retain the appearance of bread and wine. If a person with reasonable eyesight can’t see them, then they are no longer visible and no longer have an appearance of bread and wine.

Joe Kelley:

The Eucharist remains the Eucharist only so long as it retains the appearance of bread and wine. I have read this in many authoritative sources. Unfortunately I don’t have a reference at hand.

Since when does Catholic teaching state that appearance is restricted to visibility? I really suggest you leran what it is meant by the following terms.

Substance
Accidents
Transubstantiation
Species

---

These sorts of ideas [in quotes] become commonplace when one does not understand thomistic philosophy.

In thomistic philosophy [that is moderate realism] the accidental qualities of a substance are all those physical properties that it has in its “particular” existence. This is NOT just restricted to the visible appearance of the bread.

The dogma of transubstantiation states that the whole substance of the bread becomes the whole substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord and that the Body and Blood of our Lord remain as long as the “accidents” of the bread remains.

While some people who do not understand thomistic philosophy or do not understand this particular dogma of the Church have somehow confused “Accidents” with “SOLELY appearance or arbitrary visibility” this does not mean that they are correct.

Au Contraire mes ami.

We do not understand transubstantiation in the way that you guys do in your quotes. We understand it according to Thomism.

[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.

Again the official language of the Church calls the “accidents” of Bread and wine “Species”. Nowhere does it reduce the accidents of bread to just its visible appearance.

If a person with reasonable eyesight can’t see them, then they are no longer visible and no longer have an appearance of bread and wine.

So lets say a person with exceptional eyesight can see some of these particles and a person with only reasonable eyesight cannot? Are you willing to tell the person of exceptional eyesight to go wash his hands and wash the particles down the sewer?

If you are not then I suggest you guys stop with the subjective judgement of visibility and stick to Thomism and the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation.

Last but not least if you guys are truly Catholic you should err on the side of caution when dealing with the Most Sacred Thing that can exist on Earth.

God Bless

Paul

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Since when does Catholic teaching state that appearance is restricted to visibility? I really suggest you leran what it is meant by the following terms.

Substance
Accidents
Transubstantiation
Species

---

These sorts of ideas [in quotes] become commonplace when one does not understand thomistic philosophy.

In thomistic philosophy [that is moderate realism] the accidental qualities of a substance are all those physical properties that it has in its “particular” existence. This is NOT just restricted to the visible appearance of the bread.

The dogma of transubstantiation states that the whole substance of the bread becomes the whole substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord and that the Body and Blood of our Lord remain as long as the “accidents” of the bread remains.

While some people who do not understand thomistic philosophy or do not understand this particular dogma of the Church have somehow confused “Accidents” with “SOLELY appearance or arbitrary visibility” this does not mean that they are correct.

Au Contraire mes ami.

We do not understand transubstantiation in the way that you guys do in your quotes. We understand it according to Thomism.

[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.

Again the official language of the Church calls the “accidents” of Bread and wine “Species”. Nowhere does it reduce the accidents of bread to just its visible appearance.

So lets say a person with exceptional eyesight can see some of these particles and a person with only reasonable eyesight cannot? Are you willing to tell the person of exceptional eyesight to go wash his hands and wash the particles down the sewer?

If you are not then I suggest you guys stop with the subjective judgement of visibility and stick to Thomism and the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation.

Last but not least if you guys are truly Catholic you should err on the side of caution when dealing with the Most Sacred Thing that can exist on Earth.

God Bless

Paul

Catholics need to approach these things in a practical and reasonable manner, each judging for themselves. I do not (as I have seen) advocate brushing your hands together as if you had just finished a crumbly cookie while walking back to your pew, nor, wrapping your hands in cellophane and making a bee-line to the sacristy after Mass. Reasonableness requires that each person adopt something in-between that reflects clearly their belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Catholics need to approach these things in a practical and reasonable manner, each judging for themselves. I do not (as I have seen) advocate brushing your hands together as if you had just finished a crumbly cookie while walking back to your pew, nor, wrapping your hands in cellophane and making a bee-line to the sacristy after Mass. Reasonableness requires that each person adopt something in-between that reflects clearly their belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Such a reply indicates that you have nothing substantial to say regarding my post.

Does that mean you now understand transubstantiation?

Paul

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Such a reply indicates that you have nothing substantial to say regarding my post.

Does that mean you now understand transubstantiation?

Paul

Does this mean you have now come down to a more practical level?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Does this mean you have now come down to a more practical level?

Does that mean you value practicality over reverence?

Paul