Eucharist crumbs falling on the floor

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CDNowak said:
(RS) Would seem to imply a moral obligation.
Click to expand...
But then we’d have to know for sure that it is objectively an abuse. Since there are so many options in the OF, I wouldn’t know whether some action or word or omission were an abuse or not for sure.
 
CDNowak said:
Leavened means it has an agent that causes it to rise: ie baking soda or yeast If it is only flour (some baking flours have baking soda in them), then it would be licit matter, however, the crumbliness of the bread is gravely problematic.
Click to expand...
With respect, I sincerely doubt that bread with any leavener at all would be licit matter in the Roman Rite. The canon specifically says that the bread is to be unleavened. And, that includes bread where leavener was added during the manufacture of the flour, since what is called for is “wheat flour,” not wheat flour processed to add miscellaneous other agents.
(RS) Would seem to imply a moral obligation.
Click to expand...
This was discussed ad nauseam on another thread. Suffice it to say, some people thought that it would be a sin not to pursue all the way to the halls of Rome their own little hobby-horse abuses, and refused to discuss the implication that it would be sinful not to pursue to Rome minor abuses (e.g., how the cincture of the alb is tied).

You can read the thread here, starting at about post 153 (on the page I’ve linked), if you’d like to recap; it was eventually closed due to the nature of the discussion. I’m not going to rehash it all, I’m happy to say.
 
ProVobis said:
But then we’d have to know for sure that it is objectively an abuse. Since there are so many options in the OF, I wouldn’t know whether some action or word or omission were an abuse or not for sure.
Click to expand...
Would you quit with this obnoxious sniping already?
 
MarkThompson said:
With respect, I sincerely doubt that bread with any leavener at all would be licit matter in the Roman Rite. The canon specifically says that the bread is to be unleavened. And, that includes bread where leavener was added during the manufacture of the flour, since what is called for is “wheat flour,” not wheat flour processed to add miscellaneous other agents.
Click to expand...
🤦 My mistake (I really should read what I type) I meant to say **valid ** but illicit matter, thanks for catching that.
This was discussed ad nauseam on another thread. Suffice it to say, some people thought that it would be a sin not to pursue all the way to the halls of Rome their own little hobby-horse abuses, and refused to discuss the implication that it would be sinful not to pursue to Rome minor abuses (e.g., how the cincture of the alb is tied).
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go nearly that far (to say that I mean)… I’m not a moral theologian to weigh what RS means by duty, but I don’t think the gravest of matters (gravitora delicta, perhaps even “mere” Grave Abuses) can be ignored with out the possibility of sin.
 
CDNowak said:
I wouldn’t go nearly that far (to say that I mean)… I’m not a moral theologian to weigh what RS means by duty, but I don’t think the gravest of matters (gravitora delicta, perhaps even “mere” Grave Abuses) can be ignored with out the possibility of sin.
Click to expand...
Don’t misunderstand, I think there’s a (very fuzzy) line to be drawn. I simply can’t abide the notion that, in the context of a passage obviously intended to empower people to act to correct the liturgy, the Pope actually created a massive new category of sin: failure to report a liturgical abuse and pursue such complaints to the highest level possible. And that instead of saying that plainly, he worded it obliquely, with absolutely no citation or reference to the Church Fathers, canon law, theology, or anything else.

I am inclined to agree that in some cases it would be sinful to fail to bring certain types of abuses to light – especially if one kept silence for the purpose of allowing them to continue – but I think such an argument would have to be propounded on a case-by-case basis with due regard to the circumstances, and that one cannot simply say, “It is a sin if you don’t report an abuse. See RS.” RS, after all, doesn’t say we should exercise extra diligence to stamp out graviora delicta. It says that a person must do “all that is in their power” to eradicate “any and every irreverence or distortion.” The document actually only defines the various categories of abuses in the context of laying out their canonical penalties; it gives no reason to think that “any and every irreverence” means “wink wink, just the important ones, I mean let’s be serious here.”

As far as I know, no Church or canonical authority has clarified that the document was intended to create any moral obligation on the faithful at all. Given the obvious impracticability of the plain text, I’d have a tough time figuring that we ought to be guessing ourselves at the lines to be drawn here without some clarification from Rome – particularly if we’re talking about matters of sin rather than good manners.

Needless to say, I’m not a moral theologian either, so don’t take my judgment to the bank just because I said so. 😉
 
Unleavened bread can definitely have crumbs. Just last Sunday, I had already consumed my main piece of the host, but as I was walking away, there were two little crumbs in my hands. I almost just let them fall to the floor because I just wasn’t expecting any crumbs. I thought to myself that a child would have just let them fall to the floor. I miss the uniform wafers from my last parish-- no crumbs.

Sometimes,when I’m worrying about details like this, I think of what a priest said once-- he said, “God can take care of Himself.” 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Easy to see.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0&feature=related
Click to expand...
Where’s the videos of a man using surgical instruments to root out pieces of the Eucharist caught in a person’s teeth? I’m sorry, but anyone who flippantly invests so much time in slamming a liturgical practice recommended by a bishop needs to be ignored.

Being zealous for the Lord is one thing. Being a self-appointed defender of God’s honor from the impious hands and thoughtless hearts of the Church is another.
 
Leavened bread = valid but illicit in the Roman rite, AFAIK.

Maybe our spiritual forefathers stopped using it for the very problem the O.P. pointed out: crumbs!.

Try breaking ordinary bread. It’s messy. However, small, unleavened wafers carefully made according to a recipe = minimal mess. No anguish over dropped bits. One less thing to worry about in saying Mass. Proceed towards sanctification with an untroubled mind 🙂
 
Layman said:
Leavened bread = valid but illicit in the Roman rite, AFAIK.

Maybe our spiritual forefathers stopped using it for the very problem the O.P. pointed out: crumbs!.

Try breaking ordinary bread. It’s messy. However, small, unleavened wafers carefully made according to a recipe = minimal mess. No anguish over dropped bits. One less thing to worry about in saying Mass. Proceed towards sanctification with an untroubled mind 🙂
Click to expand...
Unleavened bread is also flakey. That is why at some point in the past, the Churches who use unleavened bread opted to make it into thin wafers to minimize the crumbs.

I have yet to see how the Byzantine Rite handles the bread. I’m sure they do it well.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I have yet to see how the Byzantine Rite handles the bread. I’m sure they do it well.
Click to expand...
The loaf is cut before the consecration (maybe outside of the liturgy). Due to intinction and communion via the spoon, any crumbs are “caught” in the Precious Blood, so no worries.
 
This was discussed ad nauseam on another thread. Suffice it to say, some people thought that it would be a sin not to pursue all the way to the halls of Rome their own little hobby-horse abuses, and refused to discuss the implication that it would be sinful not to pursue to Rome minor abuses (e.g., how the cincture of the alb is tied).

You can read the thread here, starting at about post 153 (on the page I’ve linked), if you’d like to recap; it was eventually closed due to the nature of the discussion. I’m not going to rehash it all, I’m happy to say.

Exactly the thread that I was going to lead them to 🙂 Thanks, Mark!
 
MarkThompson said:
Don’t misunderstand, I think there’s a (very fuzzy) line to be drawn. I simply can’t abide the notion that, in the context of a passage obviously intended to empower people to act to correct the liturgy, the Pope actually created a massive new category of sin: failure to report a liturgical abuse and pursue such complaints to the highest level possible. And that instead of saying that plainly, he worded it obliquely, with absolutely no citation or reference to the Church Fathers, canon law, theology, or anything else.

I am inclined to agree that in some cases it would be sinful to fail to bring certain types of abuses to light – especially if one kept silence for the purpose of allowing them to continue – but I think such an argument would have to be propounded on a case-by-case basis with due regard to the circumstances, and that one cannot simply say, “It is a sin if you don’t report an abuse. See RS.” RS, after all, doesn’t say we should exercise extra diligence to stamp out graviora delicta. It says that a person must do “all that is in their power” to eradicate “any and every irreverence or distortion.” The document actually only defines the various categories of abuses in the context of laying out their canonical penalties; it gives no reason to think that “any and every irreverence” means “wink wink, just the important ones, I mean let’s be serious here.”

As far as I know, no Church or canonical authority has clarified that the document was intended to create any moral obligation on the faithful at all. Given the obvious impracticability of the plain text, I’d have a tough time figuring that we ought to be guessing ourselves at the lines to be drawn here without some clarification from Rome – particularly if we’re talking about matters of sin rather than good manners.

Needless to say, I’m not a moral theologian either, so don’t take my judgment to the bank just because I said so. 😉
Click to expand...
Great post!!!
 
Okay, so now that it has been cleared up that we are using the right type of bread, I guess the answer to my question is to simply tell the priest about this problem? And then what? What is he supposed to do about it? And what am I supposed to do about all the crumbs?
 
=ConstantineTG;6934168]People shouldn’t be discouraged. I know its hard, but the only way for abuses to end is if we actually do something. Non-stop complaining on CAF won’t change a thing. Running away from parishes also won’t change a thing. If we expect change, we should effect change, not run away from it.
Click to expand...
Addressing abuses factually, knowledgeably and with CHARITY is a Catholic OBLIGATION, not someting to allow others take care of it. We are either part of the soluataion OR WE PART OF THE PROBLEM. WWJD?
 
pcg2 said:
Okay, so now that it has been cleared up that we are using the right type of bread, I guess the answer to my question is to simply tell the priest about this problem? And then what? What is he supposed to do about it? And what am I supposed to do about all the crumbs?
Click to expand...
I can’t give a suggestion as I have yet to see something like this done.

Depends on how the bread looks like and how big it is, you’d probably need a large paten, or a golden plate to hold the bread itself. Its a big cost issue by itself which is why I don’t think this practice is widespread. Can you give me a visual on what the bread looks like? Go to images.google.com and then search unleavened bread and then give me a link so I’d have an idea what the bread looks like.
 
CDNowak said:
The loaf is cut before the consecration (maybe outside of the liturgy). Due to intinction and communion via the spoon, any crumbs are “caught” in the Precious Blood, so no worries.
Click to expand...
See? Simple practicality!

Use bread which doesn’t flake!

Errrr… doesn’t unleavened bread figure in Passover, too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top