Dropped Eucahrist, what happens to it?

[JimmytheButcher]

At mass today a lady dropped the Eucharist. An altar boy came out and took it away. What does the Church do with the Eucharist in this case?

Saint Gerardo Maiella provides us with the answer. Following his venerable example, we learn that the most dignified action is to humble thyself and provide edification for your fellow believers.

Get down on all fours and depress your tongue against the dropped Eucharist, picking Him up into your mouth.

By doing this you bow to Christ as one should always do, and you avoid all of the unneccessary business of disolving the Eucharist in a holy water and tossing Him into the picina. The act will also help address any evil that you might have committed with your mouth and/or sins of the tongue, particularly if you offer it as a small sacrifice against violations of the commandment concerning blaspheming the Holy Name of Jesus or the Holy Name of Mary.

This really makes their eyes pop! Let me tell you. :yup:

Saint Gerard goes so far as to lick the floor. Holy water suffices.

 

[petrel]

Bring back communion on the tongue. Less handling reduces the risk of dropping the precious host. In the old days and still today in the EF the paten was held under the chin of the person receiving to catch any fragment which may inadvertantly drop. Such reverence is a lesson to the people of the sacredness of the host.

 

[Tridentinum]

Bring back communion on the tongue. Less handling reduces the risk of dropping the precious host. In the old days and still today in the EF the paten was held under the chin of the person receiving to catch any fragment which may inadvertantly drop. Such reverence is a lesson to the people of the sacredness of the host.

So true. We need to bring back Holy Communion on the Tongue only.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Bring back communion on the tongue. Less handling reduces the risk of dropping the precious host. In the old days and still today in the EF the paten was held under the chin of the person receiving to catch any fragment which may inadvertantly drop. Such reverence is a lesson to the people of the sacredness of the host.

So true. We need to bring back Holy Communion on the Tongue only.

I too advocate the reception of Communion on the tongue, but we must avoid getting trapped in the mentality of “traditional practices are the solution to all our current problems”. Every practice has certain problems of its own. As far as I am aware, it is easier for the Eucharist to be dropped when receiving by the tongue/mouth than by the hand, especially by the elderly who may have poor motor coordination of their tongue. But of course, conversely, this is no good reason to advocate reception by the hand either.

Yes, the paten helps, but one might see this as simply an argument for bringing back the paten, rather than reception on the tongue. In fact, the fact that the paten has not been found necessary since people started receiving by the hand could suggest something.

Receiving Communion on the tongue is by far more reverent than holding Our Lord in our profane hands, but we cannot ignore the possible limitations of this practice. That is why we have the paten at all, a humble instrument of our sacred tradition.

 

[jonbhorton]

I too advocate the reception of Communion on the tongue, but we must avoid getting trapped in the mentality of “traditional practices are the solution to all our current problems”. Every practice has certain problems of its own. As far as I am aware, it is easier for the Eucharist to be dropped when receiving by the tongue/mouth than by the hand, especially by the elderly who may have poor motor coordination of their tongue. But of course, conversely, this is no good reason to advocate reception by the hand either.

Yes, the paten helps, but one might see this as simply an argument for bringing back the paten, rather than reception on the tongue. In fact, the fact that the paten has not been found necessary since people started receiving by the hand could suggest something.

Receiving Communion on the tongue is by far more reverent than holding Our Lord in our profane hands, but we cannot ignore the possible limitations of this practice. That is why we have the paten at all, a humble instrument of our sacred tradition.

I think this video answers the issue of CITH very well, and provides clarity in the reasons leading to kneeling and on the tongue, as well as the importance of the paten.

youtube.com/watch?v=TMWSgOpEqCs

and these videos are from the perspective of laity, and a little more geared toward younger viewers, as in, not nearing AARP eligibility.

1:
youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

2:
youtube.com/watch?v=gkOZg0xty6s

 

[petrel]

I too advocate the reception of Communion on the tongue, but we must avoid getting trapped in the mentality of “traditional practices are the solution to all our current problems”. Every practice has certain problems of its own. As far as I am aware, it is easier for the Eucharist to be dropped when receiving by the tongue/mouth than by the hand, especially by the elderly who may have poor motor coordination of their tongue. But of course, conversely, this is no good reason to advocate reception by the hand either.

In fact it is a further argument for receiving on the tongue. Elderly with poor motor coordination are going to struggle to get the host into their mouth and would be greatly assisted by a priest.

Yes, the paten helps, but one might see this as simply an argument for bringing back the paten, rather than reception on the tongue. In fact, the fact that the paten has not been found necessary since people started receiving by the hand could suggest something.

It is not found necessary because people today don’t care if fragments fall to the ground. Whereas we are taught that the soul body and divinity of our Lord is as completely present in every fragment and drop of the host as in the larger pieces which are commonly received. To introduce the paten for CITH would be ludicrous. Must the paten follow below the host as it goes into the communicants hand and then follows under his hand as he puts it in his mouth. I have seen people walking some distance before putting the host in their mouth. Occasionally I see no chewing and I hope that they are letting the host sit quietly on the tongue to disolve however it is disconcerting and worrying to me that they might have pocked the host.

Receiving Communion on the tongue is by far more reverent than holding Our Lord in our profane hands, but we cannot ignore the possible limitations of this practice. That is why we have the paten at all, a humble instrument of our sacred tradition.

I’m not sure I understand what limitations you mean. I have compared the two practices and am convinced that COTT with the communicants kneeling at the altar rail is just as quick if not quicker than the rather clumsy practice of CITH standing.

Perhaps the limitation of the practice is that the extraordinary ministers have an ordinary aversion to placing the host on peoples tongues. Simple solution. Services no longer required thankyou extraordinary ministers.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think this video answers the issue of CITH very well, and provides clarity in the reasons leading to kneeling and on the tongue, as well as the importance of the paten.

youtube.com/watch?v=TMWSgOpEqCs

and these videos are from the perspective of laity, and a little more geared toward younger viewers, as in, not nearing AARP eligibility.

1:
youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

2:
youtube.com/watch?v=gkOZg0xty6s

I thank you for your reply. It may interest you to know that I have watched these videos before, and I am in agreement with them. Perhaps my reply also did not make it clear enough, but I have always advocated a return to COTT. Nonetheless, I thank you for recommending those resources which I can vouch to be fascinating and very helpful.

In fact it is a further argument for receiving on the tongue. Elderly with poor motor coordination are going to struggle to get the host into their mouth and would be greatly assisted by a priest.

Indeed they may, or they may not. Certain diseases affect only the motor control of the tongue, but I do not wish to delve into too much detail in this regard.

It is not found necessary because people today don’t care if fragments fall to the ground. Whereas we are taught that the soul body and divinity of our Lord is as completely present in every fragment and drop of the host as in the larger pieces which are commonly received. To introduce the paten for CITH would be ludicrous. Must the paten follow below the host as it goes into the communicants hand and then follows under his hand as he puts it in his mouth. I have seen people walking some distance before putting the host in their mouth. Occasionally I see no chewing and I hope that they are letting the host sit quietly on the tongue to disolve however it is disconcerting and worrying to me that they might have pocked the host.

It is an interesting hypothesis you make that Catholics today are unaware of the Real Presence, but for all I love COTT, I would not make such an allegation, and neither do I wish for this to become a thread about the state of catechesis of Catholics today.

In any case, I do agree with you COTT that is a safeguard against non-Catholics pocketing the Eucharist with the intent of profaning it, but again, that is not what we are discussing.

I’m not sure I understand what limitations you mean. I have compared the two practices and am convinced that COTT with the communicants kneeling at the altar rail is just as quick if not quicker than the rather clumsy practice of CITH standing.

I thank you for that, but it is not the speed which is the question here, however.

Perhaps the limitation of the practice is that the extraordinary ministers have an ordinary aversion to placing the host on peoples tongues. Simple solution. Services no longer required thankyou extraordinary ministers.

Now this is an issue of EMHCs. I have reservations about the use of EMHCs, but I personally have not met an EMHC who refused me from receiving COTT. In any case, we are not discussing the merits of EMHCs now (there is another thread for that), and it would be good not to derail the topic.

Just to conclude my post, I hope people are not getting the wrong idea about what I wish to say. It sounds like people are trying to convince me of the superiority of COTT, when I already advocate COTT. Please re-read my post. I do not like CITH myself. I am actually in agreement with you on the many strengths of why COTT is superior to CITH. What I wished to point out was that COTT has limitations that we must be aware of, so that we can tackle them accordingly to ensure that COTT can be properly implemented.

As an analogy, EF masses take longer than OF masses. It is a fact, but does it mean that we should stop attending EF masses? Of course not! But it does not mean that we should ignore this fact either, and let the longer duration make us late for the next item on our schedules. Instead, we must adjust our schedules to account for the longer duration, and that is the principle I am advocating here. If (or rather, when) we reintroduce COTT to the faithful, we must also take care to educate them on the many virtues of receiving COTT and to take extra caution when receiving so that they will not let the Eucharist fall onto the floor, because it is easier for it to slip out of your tongue than it is to fall out of your hand (unless you have multiple sclerosis or something, but they already receive COTT).

 

[TradionalWay]

I have been trying to wrap my brain around this since I foung out what the T word meant a couple years ago, since I always thought we were taking the Eucharist spiritually.

Now if Jesus can put himself, physical body into a host, do we not think he can take himself out of it? so the alter boy decides he can help Jeusus escape by drowning him and disolving him, and then pour him down the drain?

this sounds just so unrealistic.(for lack of a better word right now).

This is somewhat disrespectful to catholics, as we do believe of the real presence of our Lord in the host, and it should be treated with respect, and neve should fall… thats why if u see traditional mass, its received on the tongue, with a small plate below your mouth and you hold up something for incase some parts fall… SO please re direct your sarcasm some place else… thank you

 

[NeedImprovement]

It might help to clarify something here guys :

I don’t think there really needs to ever be an argument concerning whether the * communion plate* ( “paten” ) -should currently be in use or should be re-introduced.

Regardless of any indult concerning distribution of Holy Communion granted to particular dioceses who had requested it , the communion plate was always intended to be used.

How it (the communion plate/paten) fell out of use seems to be more an issue of neglect than anything else . To date, I haven’t been able to find any official Church documents encouraging discontinuation of its use in distribution of Holy Communion … On the contrary :

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT
INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

Any sign of respect or care we show for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament , including proper care for fragments of a consecrated Host has an edifying effect on others’ faith in the True Presence.

As in that great example from St. Gereardo Magella given by JimmytheButcher , we need to promote a sense of the Sacred. That initiative always has to begin with ourselves .

 

[centurionguard]

It might help to clarify something here guys :

I don’t think there really needs to ever be an argument concerning whether the * communion plate* ( “paten” ) -should currently be in use or should be re-introduced.

Regardless of any indult concerning distribution of Holy Communion granted to particular dioceses who had requested it , the communion plate was always intended to be used.

How it (the communion plate/paten) fell out of use seems to be more an issue of neglect than anything else . To date, I haven’t been able to find any official Church documents encouraging discontinuation of its use in distribution of Holy Communion … On the contrary :

Regardless of any indult concerning distribution of Holy Communion granted to particular dioceses who had requested it , the communion plate was always intended to be used.

I wish that were wholly true at least how the Indult removed in most parishes the respected symbolism on the use of the Altar boys communion paten. I mean what real excuse was there for removing its use. Was it redundancy, too archiac, superficial? I’m at a loss of words.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I wish that were wholly true at least how the Indult removed in most parishes the respected symbolism on the use of the Altar boys communion paten. I mean what real excuse was there for removing its use. Was it redundancy, too archiac, superficial? I’m at a loss of words.

Hi centurionguard.

I’m not sure precisely which part of my previous post appears to be not “wholly true” . Maybe it’s because I wrote it hastily this morning. I can tell you I was attempting to respond to a comment earlier in the thread ( about 6 posts ago ) by a poster who said :

“To introduce the paten for CITH would be ludicrous.”

What I meant to point out is that it isn’t ludicrous at all - it’s " to be observed " according to Redemptionis Sacramentum , and this, despite whatever conditions the indult permits.

I have only ever seen one parish where this was done properly (with a Communion plate/paten) for the faithful receiving both on the tongue, and in the hand.

I was also alluding to a timeline , as in : After completing a thorough investigation, I think we would find that generally the Communion plate/paten was in full use when the indult didn’t exist (except in those disobedient dioceses where Communion in the hand originated ; actually preceding even the concept of said indult).

That this (indult) would be the sole reason for so many parishes dispensing with careful use of the* Communion plate/paten* wasn’t my gist at all (but it would appear to be a critical hub , considering the way things have evolved) . Whatever reasons those in authority may have had to discontinue use of the Communion plate/paten , I think we might agree that said reasons would prove quite difficult to justify - particularly in light of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Luvtosew]

This is somewhat disrespectful to catholics, as we do believe of the real presence of our Lord in the host, and it should be treated with respect, and neve should fall… thats why if u see traditional mass, its received on the tongue, with a small plate below your mouth and you hold up something for incase some parts fall… SO please re direct your sarcasm some place else… thank you

Yes I know we took it all the time on the tongue before Vatican II. I was quite serious,
yes it is a blessed host and respect should be shown, but I do believe that the person could just pick it up and put it in their mouth, what I would of done if I had dropped one.

 

[geovet]

I would eat it. You can’t get sick from the Eucharist unless you are living in sin.

If by accident, broken glass fell into the chalice, and you received the blood of Christ, would you be injured? You can get sick, even if you are in the state of grace.

 

[Filii_Dei]

If by accident, broken glass fell into the chalice, and you received the blood of Christ, would you be injured? You can get sick, even if you are in the state of grace.

But that would be from the glass, not the Eucharist, strictly speaking. The same would go for any pathogens that happened to latch themselves onto the Eucharist, and infects you when you ingest it. Hence, when the Eucharist is dropped onto soiled ground, we are advised against consuming it, though some of the more pious amongst us would choose to ignore that. The state of grace sanctifies your soul, but it is not an impenetrable shield for the mortal body.

What Zekariya means is that there is no spiritual injury that can be incurred from consuming the Eucharist, unless we are living in a state of sin, and we know that must not receive Communion if we are in a state of sin. Even then, it is not the Eucharist that injures us per se, but the irreverence we incur to the Lord by consuming His Body and Blood without being in a state of grace.

Of course, you can theoretically obtain physical injury from consuming unsoiled Eucharist if the bread that would be consecrated as the Body and Blood of Christ was made from dough so hard it would be a razor blade against our flesh, but that’s my just my imagination spiraling out of control…

 

[geovet]

I do agree with all that you have stated.

 

[brian24]

At RCIA last week we were going over the sacrament of the eucharist and the catechist said that you just pick it up and eat it. No need to wait for the priest, no need to do anything but pick it up yourself and eat it. Simple as that.

 

[jonbhorton]

At RCIA last week we were going over the sacrament of the eucharist and the catechist said that you just pick it up and eat it. No need to wait for the priest, no need to do anything but pick it up yourself and eat it. Simple as that.

Did the RCIA instructor state what follow up actions need to take place? Did they cover the issue of “crumbs” of our Lord’s Body and Blood?

Please tell me you are stating only what they said about the needed immediate action of the recipient of the Host, and not the follow up and what all goes into respecting the issue.

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Hence, when the Eucharist is dropped onto soiled ground, we are advised against consuming it though some of the more pious amongst us would choose to ignore that., The state of grace sanctifies your soul, but it is not an impenetrable shield for the mortal body. …

I don’t recall ever reading that particular advisory (highlighted in green in your quote above). Would there possibly be a link available to an authoritative document where that is specifically stated ?

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, answered the question of dropped Hosts, this way :

From WHEN A CONSECRATED HOST FALLS;ZENIT ; EWTN :

( Link - ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur83.htm )

"…
There is no mention of leaving the host on the floor, and in fact it should be picked up immediately, both out of respect for the Lord and lest it be trampled by unwary communicants.

Nor is there any indication about dissolving the host. I would say that, if the host remains clean, then either the minister or the communicant should consume it directly.

The process of dissolving the host in water may be used in special conditions if a host had been seriously soiled. Once the host is dissolved, the water may be poured directly upon the earth or down the sacrarium — the special sacristy sink that leads to the earth, not to a drain."

 

[Filii_Dei]

I don’t recall ever reading that particular advisory (highlighted in green in your quote above). Would there possibly be a link available to an authoritative document where that is specifically stated ?

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, answered the question of dropped Hosts, this way :

I believe you may have answered your own question. The answer is in the very quote you gave.

The process of dissolving the host in water may be used in special conditions if a host had been seriously soiled. Once the host is dissolved, the water may be poured directly upon the earth or down the sacrarium — the special sacristy sink that leads to the earth, not to a drain."

I’m sure you would agree that to dissolve a host, it implies that you have not consumed the host.

Granted, people may have different thresholds for what they consider “seriously soiled”, but the principle is there, nonetheless.

 

[couponfit]

At mass today a lady dropped the Eucharist. An altar boy came out and took it away. What does the Church do with the Eucharist in this case?

Options…consume it. Priest consumes it. Bury it. Drain it directly to the ground dissolved by water first.

Remember Theres a
5 second rule.