Dropped Eucahrist, what happens to it?

[NeedImprovement]

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

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.

So is it now safe to say you don’t have any links or quotes of your own to provide ? … other than the one I provided ?

Okay, let’s work from that one:

Perhaps it’s inadvertent, but I think you may be trying to present your own interpretation of that linked article. Maybe have another look at your wording and at its wording:

You said

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…

What Fr. McNamara said was

**WHEN A HOST FALLS ; Zenit ; EWTN **

"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."

None of that is “advising anyone against” consuming the Blessed Eucharist . What it does , by using the word “may” , is to provide a means of proceeding for those whose personal point of natural repugnance might prevent them from consuming a fallen and/or soiled Host. So rather than the suggested principle

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

I believe the true principle is centered on the fact that no one is asked or required to go beyond their own personal point of natural repugnance (as long as it is not artificially or unreasonably inflated ) when consuming a fallen or soiled consecrated Host . But concomitant to this same principle particular to consuming fallen Hosts, neither should anyone impose their own natural point of repugnance on another who may hold the desire in their heart to consume that Host out of love for our Blessed Lord, out of faith in His True and entire Presence , out of a desire to make reparation for all the sacrileges committed against our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist , out of sorrow or regret that the Host had fallen in the first place, etc.

The way your post was worded, it implies that if anyone consumes a soiled Host, such as Saint Gerardo Majella, or any others may have done, they are going against or “ignoring” what the Church advises … which simply isn’t so . The truth is that our holy Catholic Church expects a profound respect from us for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Furthermore, there is nothing preventing anyone from carefully rinsing a soiled Host before consuming it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I don’t really find myself able to agree entirely with another part of the same post :

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 …

I can agree with pathogen transmission as far as , say , the physical surface of a sacred vessel , or even the fingers of one distributing , but we should remember that the Host itself is our Blessed Lord – in person . Your wording can imply that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease . We know that isn’t true – He’s a healer of disease. Moreover your statement shifts the focus on fear of becoming ill by receiving Holy Communion , rather than remaining fixed on the emphasis of Who is really present in the sacred species… I can’t see that as being such a good thing.

 

[petrel]

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.

We should all be at a loss for words that we are placing the host into unconsecrated hands. I even balk at the additional priest at the EF who hands out the host when he has not washed his hands in that cleansing part of the mass. In my view this makes a redundant that place in the mass where the celebrant washes his hands for purification. What is the point if the whole congregation are handling the host. In the margin of my EF missal at this point it says

The priest openly avows his purpose of celebrating the spotless sacrifice of the Lamb with the utmost possible purity and devotion of heart. Clean must be the hands that are to touch, to offer, and to dispense the most holy, spotless victim.

So if the washing of the hands in the rite is to purify the hands to touch the spotless host, then why are not all the hands in the congregation washed in order to touch the spotless host?

By giving CITH it makes the use of the paten totally impractical to the point of absurdity. If this was enforced the whole world would beg for COTT to be reintroduced.

I thought those youtube videos were very effective to show that fragments of the spotless host are being spread about all over the church because of this practice of CITH. Now the common laity may not mean any sacrilege, but the people in charge, the bishops, must know, should know, the inevitable ramifications, of CITH. Why is it that the congregation is moved to tears if a host falls to the ground, and yet spare no thought for the hundreds of fragments that fall to the ground every mass because of CITH. As the videos also point out, the fragments are as much the body and blood of Christ as the larger pieces are. The (very) early church might not have fully understood this, but the church down through the ages certainly has, as our knowledge of the Eucharist has grown over the passing centuries.

I am at a loss for words that the bishops should allow this and in most cases have actually promoted this to a laity who never asked for it and who mostly never even had a problem with the old way of doing things. As usual it was a noisy troublesome minority who clamoured for it. So why do the bishops listen to the noicy clamourings of the goats in the congregation instead of focusing on the meek sheep who kneel quietly at the altar rail to receive the spotless host upon their tongue?

We love our bishops, but oh how badly they have failed us on this issue. When strength for the Lord was needed they were found wanting. I am at a loss for words.

 

[Filii_Dei]

So is it now safe to say you don’t have any links or quotes of your own to provide ? … other than the one I provided ?

Okay, let’s work from that one:

Perhaps it’s inadvertent, but I think you may be trying to present your own interpretation of that linked article. Maybe have another look at your wording and at its wording:

You said

What Fr. McNamara said was

None of that is “advising anyone against” consuming the Blessed Eucharist . What it does , by using the word “may” , is to provide a means of proceeding for those whose personal point of natural repugnance might prevent them from consuming a fallen and/or soiled Host. So rather than the suggested principle

I believe the true principle is centered on the fact that no one is asked or required to go beyond their own personal point of natural repugnance (as long as it is not artificially or unreasonably inflated ) when consuming a fallen or soiled consecrated Host . But concomitant to this same principle particular to consuming fallen Hosts, neither should anyone impose their own natural point of repugnance on another who may hold the desire in their heart to consume that Host out of love for our Blessed Lord, out of faith in His True and entire Presence , out of a desire to make reparation for all the sacrileges committed against our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist , out of sorrow or regret that the Host had fallen in the first place, etc.

The way your post was worded, it implies that if anyone consumes a soiled Host, such as Saint Gerardo Majella, or any others may have done, they are going against or “ignoring” what the Church advises … which simply isn’t so . The truth is that our holy Catholic Church expects a profound respect from us for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Thank you for your reply.

I apologise. I had initially interpreted your question to ask if it was acceptable not to consume a dropped Host. Instead, I now understand that you were inquiring on one of advice, yes?

Indeed, I cannot give you a source for that. This is because my source is Fr. McNamara’s letter as well, but I had understood his words wrongly. I thank you for pointing that out to me.

Furthermore, there is nothing preventing anyone from carefully rinsing a soiled Host before consuming it.

I am a bit puzzled that you would bring this up, but of course it is an acceptable course of action. However, rinsing a Host in water does begin the process of dissolving, no matter how careful we are. I’m sure you are aware of that. I did not rule this out as a possibility, although it should be done over a sacrarium.

Nonetheless, the other reasons notwithstanding, not everything - not even all bacteria - can be cleaned off simply by water. If there is still concern about the consequences of proceeding to consume the Host, or if rinsing does not appear to help, then I believe it is still acceptable to simply dissolve the Host.

I can agree with pathogen transmission as far as , say , the physical surface of a sacred vessel , or even the fingers of one distributing , but we should remember that the Host itself is our Blessed Lord – in person . Your wording can imply that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease . We know that isn’t true – He’s a healer of disease. Moreover your statement shifts the focus on fear of becoming ill by receiving Holy Communion , rather than remaining fixed on the emphasis of Who is really present in the sacred species… I can’t see that as being such a good thing.

I believe you may be going a bit far on this one. I have never said that Our Lord was Himself a transmitter or cause of disease, and I apologise if my statements could have been interpreted that way. However, I ask that you re-read what I written. I have stated that it was the pathogens which may have latched onto the Host could of infection. It was not my intention to even suggest that Our Lord could cause any disease.

I am sure you would agree that it is possible that a bacteria piggybacking on the Host (with no insult intended to Our Lord) could infect the individual consuming said Host. This does not in any way compromise Our Lord’s status as the Great Physician. The fear of contracting disease is a real reason why many people may have a repugnance towards consuming a soiled Host, such as one that has fallen upon the floor of a hospital chapel. It is not unacceptable to mention this.

The question asked in this thread was about the appropriate course of action in the hugely unfortunate scenario that a Host were to be dropped. Hence, I am confused that you would accuse me of having improper emphasis on the Real Presence, when I have affirmed this very fact in the posts I have made on this thread thus far. Furthermore, whether Our Lord is truly present in the Host has never been up for dispute. You and I both know it and we both experience it at least once a week. We are in full agreement that He is well and truly present in the Eucharist. It is therefore surprising that this should become an issue at all.

 

[centurionguard]

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 :

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.

Hello NeedImprovement;

What I wrote in my previous post wasn’t to go against what you wrote in Post #29
I believe what you diligently expressed in this post accurately expresses my sentiments as well. In particular what you expressed in the following.

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…

Peace
Chris

 

[NeedImprovement]

I don’t for one second , Filii Dei doubt your belief in the True Presence of our Loving Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, The Eucharist, the consecrated Host, or your love for Him in this Sacrament . The very fact that you’re active in this discussion in how to properly deal with a dropped consecrated Host bears that out – as you yourself duly note in your most recent post :
"Filii Dei:

I have affirmed this very fact in the posts I have made on this thread thus far .

I also appreciate you posts on this thread (and those of our other members) much more than you may think because they are conducive to quality in-depth reflection and rumination. However the fact remains that we are each unique in our love of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and are each at different points in our personal development/advancement of this love.

…Furthermore, there is nothing preventing anyone from carefully rinsing a soiled Host before consuming it.

… I am a bit puzzled that you would bring this up, but of course it is an acceptable course of action. However, rinsing a Host in water does begin the process of dissolving, no matter how careful we are. I’m sure you are aware of that. I did not rule this out as a possibility, although it should be done over a sacrarium…

Dissolving an “accidented” Host in water and continuing to pour the contents into the ground is an act of respect.

Consuming a dropped and or /soiled consecrated Host tends more towards an act of *reparation * to, and an act of trust in, the Eucharistic Heart of our Blessed Lord. If that weren’t true , we would have to say that those who consume a fallen, soiled Host have a desire to become sick from doing so.

I bring it up because in my apostolate, my duties are as a lay assistant to the Catholic chaplain in a large long term & palliative care institution( over 15 years now), among other things. The first of four chaplains I worked under consistently, unfailingly, consumed every Host that was dropped, coughed out or spit out by the patients . I asked him what one might do in the hypothetical case of an extremely soiled Host (I’ll spare everybody the graphics on this one because I did my best to make it sound difficult to consume) and he simply replied , “There is nothing preventing you from rinsing the Host before consuming it.” – which incidentally can just as easily be done over a cup in a sink ; the contents of the cup subsequently being poured into a sacrarium or into the earth of a plant. ( There is no sacrarium in any of the 3 the sacristies of either pavilion where I serve in my apostolate). This first chaplain was my mentor and spiritual director, and regarding remedying accidents happening to consecrated Hosts (a “hugely unfortunate scenario” which occurs with considerably more frequency in health institutions) I follow in his footsteps. He never became ill from consuming the Hosts and neither have I.

This truly ” unfortunate scenario” often becomes an occasion for supernatural merit when a person is aided by unmerited grace . In simpler terms, it doesn’t necessarily mean someone is more pious if they consume a soiled Host - it only means god has given them that grace at that particular time - not so unlike the grace given to martyrs at that critical moment of martyrdom.

However, rinsing a Host in water does begin the process of dissolving, no matter how careful we are. I’m sure you are aware of that.

Yes I am aware that a prolonged rinsing might possibly initiate a partial dissolving to particular areas of a given Host. There is also something known as the appearance of wet bread. There is also a reason why we are to continue to let a Host dissolve in water if we’re not willing or able to consume it and why we must even go a step further to ensure that after it has dissolved that what remains must be poured into the earth . Surely you know the reason precisely why we go to these extents ?

I am additionally aware that once the surface of wine contacts the air, oxidation begins to take place and that when wine tannins are oxidized, several chemical reactions take place which begin to change the chemical composition of the wine – most notably once a bottle has been opened, and each time a wine is poured.

The fear of contracting disease is a real reason why many people may have a repugnance towards consuming a soiled Host …

Yes, but while the fear itself may be real , if you know of any medically documented cases where it has been proven that someone has actually become sick from consuming a consecrated Host, please be sure to provide the link so we can all have a read.
My intended point is that fear of getting sick – not only from a soiled Host but from things such as simply receiving Holy Communion during flu season can shift a person’s focus away from Jesus being present in Holy Communion . Worry about becoming sick then becomes an inordinate preoccupation whereby those members of the faithful are prevented from receiving Holy Communion in peace. Some even become apprehensive about receiving Holy Communion at all out of fear of becoming sick as a result.

A deacon friend of mine must be one of the most pious Catholics I know, with a profound love for our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament. But he’s just a little eccentric on the point of getting sick (carries a hand sanitizer everywhere he goes and is always using it). You should see the poor guy cringe when I tell him about some of the dropped Hosts I had consumed. Initially he tried to tell me I couldn’t do that … adamantly ( but what it really meant was that I couldn’t tell him I’d done that ). I had to point out to him that he was trying to impose his own personal limitations on me.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…I believe you may be going a bit far on this one. I have never said that Our Lord was Himself a transmitter or cause of disease, and I apologise if my statements could have been interpreted that way. However, I ask that you re-read what I written. I have stated that it was the pathogens which may have latched onto the Host could of infection. It was not my intention to even suggest that Our Lord could cause any disease.

I am sure you would agree that it is possible that a bacteria piggybacking on the Host (with no insult intended to Our Lord) could infect the individual consuming said Host.

I didn’t use the word *“cause”, *Filii Dei – only “transmitter”

I’m also really sorry to have to do this sad_yes , but I have re-read your comments several times , have gotten a good night’s sleep, read them again, and if anything, it only confirms what I posted earlier :

… Your wording can imply that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease . We know that isn’t true – He’s a healer of disease.

Here is your original wording :

… The same would go for any pathogens that happened to latch themselves onto the Eucharist, and infects you when you ingest it.

Here is you explanation of that wording again :

… I have stated that it was the pathogens which may have latched onto the Host could of infection.
I am sure you would agree that it is possible that a bacteria piggybacking on the Host (with no insult intended to Our Lord) could infect the individual consuming said Host.

I never said you said our Blessed Lord causes disease … can’t quite figure out why you would think that since it was you who chose the word pathogen. The medical definition of a pathogen is an agent which causes disease. The etymology of the word *pathogen * is * : Gk, pathos, disease, genein, to produce *. So the pathogen is the cause of the disease.

The definition of transmit , on the other hand , in a medical sense, is to convey, to cause to spread, pass on. So rather than having gone a bit too far, it would appear I haven’t gone far enough.

And to your statement (with the word “cause” removed)

, I am obliged to answer that, according to the proper definitions of the words pathogen and transmit : Yes you did say that ; exactly .

There are only two interpretations to your words concerning a sacred consecrated Host, and pathogens latching or piggybacking onto it :

• The first is that Our Blessed Lord Jesus, in the Holy Eucharist is a transmitter of disease.
• The second is that Our blessed Lord is not entirely present in the consecrated Host ; precisely that He is rather, present in all parts of the Host except those surface areas of the Host where the pathogens “latch on” .

There are no other interpretations.

You’re in a very unenviable position. From my perspective, I believe you accidentally wrote yourself into a pool of quicksand by inadvertently beginning an attempt to demystify the Eucharist . It can’t be done.

However, I wouldn’t dwell on it for any length of time (especially with my username which tends to fit me like a glove most days ) . I thank God for what you have written, because without it , I seriously doubt we would have been able to ponder some of these things on such a profound level.

You still have all my respect and gratitude and I enjoy reading your posts also because of the way you express yourself and your style of writing … looking forward to many more great contributions from you Filii Dei .

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of the nastiest pathogens ever, aren’t even visible to the human eye.

But the most visibly soiled Host I’ve ever seen in my life , didn’t come from the long term and palliative care institution of my apostolate ; it came from an incident which happened during an afternoon Mass I was attending at St. Joseph’s Oratory here in Montreal, roughly ten years ago.

I’d gone up to receive Holy Communion, knelt with the others at the Communion rail. (* This all happened in the french language . What I’m providing in quotes is the english equivalent) . When my turn came to receive, Father held up the Host before my eyes, said, “The body of Christ” , to which I replied , “Amen.” As I held out my tongue, I felt something touch it momentarily then heard the sound of the Host hitting the floor surface and caught view of it for a fraction of a second until it had rolled behind Father – out of my view.

Father paused from distributing Communion while both he and I assiduously searched the floor all around for roughly one minute. When the search turned up nothing , I began to wonder if I didn’t really see the Host fall all the way to the floor and turned my T- shirt pocket inside out just to make sure …to no avail. Finally , Father had to continue distributing Communion – beginning with me. He placed a second Host on my tongue and whispered firmly in my ear : “Listen, you stay after the Mass and continue to search for that Host . If you find it, you consume it immediately !” I nodded to indicate I understood , then went to a pew at the very front, nearest to where the Host had fallen – keeping my eyes riveted to that area, even during the final blessing.

Upon returning, to search after Mass, I wasn’t having any success initially, although I was down on my hands and knees searching the floor on both sides of the communion rail . As large as the Crypt Church at St. Joseph’s Oratory was, “How far could a dropped Host roll”, I kept asking myself. I was searching within what I’d estimate to be a 20 foot radius . A lady who’d noticed what was going on – right from the moment of the dropping of the Host, had joined in the search. What a relief when I finally heard her call out , “ I found it !” But she was outside that radius down near the other end of the Communion rail near the tabernacle.

When I knelt down to view the situation , I understood immediately what had happened. The reason we couldn’t find the Host was that when Father turned to search for it, he inadvertently stepped on it and it remained stuck to the bottom of his shoe. So wherever we looked, we couldn’t find it. Then when he resumed distributing Communion, he continued to walk on it – grinding the dirt into the Host until it fell from the sole of his shoe close to the tabernacle when he went to put the ciborium back after Communion.

At this point, the Host was dark grey from all the dirt that had been ground into it. I wasn’t sure whether it was stuck to the floor, so to avoid any fragmentation , I took a piece of paper from my pocket and tried to slip a corner of it under the Host . When I did the Host came up right away onto the paper – intact but well walked on, and dark grey from all the ground in dirt.

I found it difficult to hold back tears as I consumed Him, thinking of how the Host had been trampled on and the dirt ground in – even though these events were purely accidental.

Something else that struck me , were the words of the lady who’d helped me search for Him. Once I had picked up the Host and placed Him on my tongue , she blurted out somewhat apprehensively , “Que Dieu vous protège!” , which means , “May God protect you ! ”

… “ ‘May God protect you’ ” … I thought to myself, “…from what ? From Himself ?”

…

 

[paperwight66]

Well, well. and it’s often said that receiving COTT prevents the Host dropping on the floor…

 

[Filii_Dei]

It is indeed an insightful and meaningful piece that you have written, NeedImprovement (though I would say you need none for the time being!). It certainly does appear that I have been careless in the bandying about of terms, and inadvertently trapped myself in a logical dead-end. It was never my intention to substract anything from the Divine Mystery of Christ’s Real Presence, nor to compromise the healing power of Our Lord. I apologise for my careless words which may have implied to that extent.

That is indeed a touching story which you have shared. I admire you for your courage and piety in continuing to consume the Host, and I must admit that I would not have done the same. I pray that I may have the same fortitude should the time comes for me to pay the due respect to Our Lord.

I thank you for taking the time to carefully correct the mistakes I have made in my posts. I shall take the time to reflect upon them and avoid future error.

 

[Anne1964]

This happened to me one time. The host fell on the floor and the priest was too old to stoop down to pick it up, so I picked it up. He held out his hand for it, I gave it to him and he consumed it and gave me another host.