In the past, did most consecrated hosts need to be consumed?

[irishcolleen45]

I thought I remember that at one time that most consecrated hosts needed to be consumed. I notice now that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Thoughts?

 

[Phrancez]

Reserving the Most Blessed Sacrament is an ancient practice. That said, in the earliest years of Christianity, the Church was under persecution and churches were not permanent. The Most Blessed Sacrament was not reserved during those times – other than for immediate transfer to someone who was not able to attend the Mass.

 

[Phrancez]

"…What is the tabernacle’s history, and what forms have they taken over the past two millennia?

During the first three centuries after Christ it was not safe for the sacraments to be reserved in churches on account of the persecutions . But it was customary in many cases for the faithful, after receiving communion at the Liturgy, to be given consecrated bread to take home for self communion during the week, or for the purpose of receiving before the time of death. St Basil the Great (c.329-379) writes: “In Alexandria too, and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion at home, and whenever he wishes partakes of it himself.”9

A deacon or other ordained person, perhaps even a church server, would take the gifts to the sick or those unable to attend. The martyrdom of St Tarsisius in the third century (recorded by Pope Damascus 366-384) occurred when he was on the road to take the holy gifts to imprisoned Christians. St Ambrose of Milan (339-397) mentions that Christian sailors and passengers in danger of death at sea “have with them the divine sacrament of the faithful.” In all such cases the sacraments were kept safely in some form of box, which was the earliest form of tabernacle or pyx.

But after persecution ceased under with the Edict of Milan (313 AD) this custom soon stopped. In its place the tradition developed of reserving the sacrament permanently in the churches, at first primarily to administer to the sick and later so that the faithful could be given communion at the Liturgy of the Presanctiifed during weekdays of Great Lent when the Holy Liturgy was not celebrated…"

Ciboria and Tabernacles: A Short History – Orthodox Arts Journal

 

[irishcolleen45]

I’m not sure who told me that but it would have to been in the 1960s.

 

[JerryZ]

Here is a story that touched Rev. Fulton Sheen, it happened in the 50’s in China. And show that the Church has used the custom to reserve the Blessed Eucharist for a long time.

Li a precious Martyr of the Eucharist – Quod scripsi, scripsi

 

[1ke]

I’m not sure who told me that but it would have to been in the 1960s.

No, they are simply mistaken.

 

[Vico]

I thought I remember that at one time that most consecrated hosts needed to be consumed. I notice now that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Thoughts?

GIRM (2003)

1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

 

[Gorgias]

I thought I remember that at one time that most consecrated hosts needed to be consumed.

Do you mean “consumed immediately”?

It’s a fact that consecrated hosts must be consumed; we don’t routinely dispose of them.

@Vico points out part of the answer: generally, folks should consume hosts that have been consecrated at the Mass in which they participate. The other part is that the norms on reserving Eucharist teach that we really only should be reserving enough hosts to be used for Communion calls and emergency use (i.e., as viaticum for those who are dying).

 

[irishcolleen45]

I meant the priest had to consume all consecrated hosts that had not been given out at Communion. Obviously some had to be left for the sick and the dying.

Based on the postings here, it looks like I was misinformed.

Thank you.

 

[ELCore]

I meant the priest had to consume all consecrated hosts that had not been given out at Communion.

If Mass had been (or is now) celebrated some place where there is no Tabernacle (for instance, a seldom-used chapel or some other place where Mass is not celebrated regularly), I think the priest may have decided to consume all the consecrated hosts rather than transport them elsewhere.

 

[InThePew]

I meant the priest had to consume all consecrated hosts that had not been given out at Communion. Obviously some had to be left for the sick and the dying.

Sort of, yes. Traditionally, other than what was needed for viaticum, consecrated hosts were not reserved for distribution at a later Mass but consumed as soon as possible. eleventh century, when the huge influx of pilgrims from the West led to saving a large Eucharistic reserve rather than keeping just a few hosts for emergencies. I’m not sure when the practice became widespread (it has its origins in 11th century Jerusalem) but it might have been after more frequent reception of the Eucharist was encouraged - previously, only a handful of people (at that) would receive communion and so priests may have been unsure about how many would need to be consecrated at any given mas, leading to the build up of a reserve “just in case”.

 

[irishcolleen45]

Thank you.