Is a "crumb" still considered the Blessed Sacrament?

[japhy]

*** Memoriale Domini, 29 my, 1969

Specifically details the vote both on Communion in the hand, and Communion under both species.

BOTH were SOUNDLY denined and defeated, by a margin of nearly two to one!***
I don’t see Communion under both species as a topic of any of the questions.

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
   The “new rite” being referred to is the rite of receiving in the hand, as addressed earlier in the document:
   When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite.

 

[PRmerger]

In our hands is TAKING CHRIST

On our tongue is RECEIVING CHRIST

Both ways are RECEIVING Christ. If I reach into the ciborium and grab a host, then I am TAKING Christ.

 

[Lepanto]

Communion in the hand has a sad history in the last few decades. It was done without permission, often in direct disobedience to the Church (rather than ignorance). The bishops (as polled in Memoriale Domini) seemed quite opposed to it.

At the risk of getting off-topic (has that ever stopped us before? ), does anybody know where one can read a history of the modern beginnings of communion in the hand?

I know that the 16th century “reformers” pushed for it (just as they denied transubstantiation), but I’d like to learn more of the return of this misguided and profoundly problematic practice in the Catholic Church of the mid-late 20th century.

 

[japhy]

At the risk of getting off-topic (has that ever stopped us before? ), does anybody know where one can read a history of the modern beginnings of communion in the hand?

The late Michael Davies wrote on the subject extensively. Cardinal Suenens of Belgium was one of the primary advocates who started the practice illicitly.

 

[japhy]

As for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they were already in use (and I can provide documentary evidence of that) before 1967, although their use became far more widespread after this document was published. The history of who could be an EMHC is its own story!

The watershed document on extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came three years before Memoriale Domini permitted Communion in the hand.

Fidei Custos (“guardian of the faith”) from 10 March 1966 was an Instruction from the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments on special ministers to administer communion. I don’t have access to the Latin, only the English translation as it appears in Documents on the Liturgy. FC is DOL 259, paragraphs 2043-2053. This document does not appear online, to the best of my knowledge.

The document permits “special ministers [to be] constituted in order that they may give communion to themselves and to the faithful.”

1. The following authorities, who are called “pastors” in this Instruction, may for the good of their subjects ask the Congregation for the Disciplines of the Sacraments … for the faculty to permit fit persons to administer communion to themselves and to the faithful: residential bishops; coadjutors who have been given all episcopal rights and duties; abbots with jurisdiction; prelates who are local Ordinaries; vicars capitular; apostolic administrators; vicars and prefects apostolic, even if they do not have episcopal orders. They may use this faculty:

a. whenever a minister indicated in [1913] can. 845 is not available;
b. whenever the usual minister is unable to administer communion without difficulty because of poor health, advanced age, or the demands of the pastoral ministry;
c. whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass would take too long.

…

1. A suitable person, as specified in no. 1, is to be chosen in this order of preference: subdeacons, clerics in minor orders, those who have received tonsure, men religious, women religious, male catechists (unless, in the prudent judgment of the pastor, a male catechist is preferable to a woman religious), laymen, laywomen.

…

1. The Congregation … grants the faculty in question for three years to the pastors in no. 1 who rightfully request it.
2. After the three-year period, such pastors are not to fail to create a report to the [Congregation] on the practical results and whether there has really been a contribution to the good of souls.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This discussion is NOT about communion in the hand vs. on the tongue. Please stick to the OP’s topic, everyone. Thank you.

To clarify, discussion of reception on hand vs tongue is only to be discussed as related to the Real Presence as asked by the OP.

 

[WMM]

If you can provide documentation to back your claim that dust is considered the Body of Christ, I would be interested in reading it.

Particles of consecrated hosts are not dust. Where did you get such an idea?

 

[I_Believe]

A question friend and a couple of comments.

Just where and when did this retraction take place? I recall reading the quote in a Catholic paper around the time of Mothers visit to the US Congress.

It is precisely because Mother is an informed and Practicing **ROMAN **Catholic that her understanding of this NOT PRE APPROVED BY ROME abuse became a forced and mandated teaching of Vatican II.

FACT:

Not only did Vatican II specifically vote on and reject both Communion under both species, and Communion in the hand, but the Fathers explained in specfic detail, why they had so voted.

Eucharistrum Mysterium, 25 may,1967 documents of Vatican II

Section III

31… “It should above all belong to the celebrant priest to distribure communion; nor should the Mass continue until communion of the faithful is over. Other preist or Deacon’s will help the priest if NEED BE.”​

From: Memoriale Domini, 29 May, 1969 Document of Vatican II

Three questions were asked:

"Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that over and above the TRADITIONAL manner, the rite of receiving communion in the hand should be addmitted?

yes 597
NO! 1,231
yes but with reservations: 315

Is it your wish that rhis new rite first be tried in small communities, with consent of the bishop?

Yes 751
NO! 1,215

Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after proper instruction?

Yes 835
NO! 1,185

“From the returns that the vast majority of the Bishops believe that the PRESENT disipline[on the tongue] should NOT BE CHANGED!”

So in candid truth which IPRC knew, and certainly Mother was among the number of those informed, the statement attributed to her is highly probable.

What happened in America was in direct disobedience to our Pope and the Catholic Magistrium. ONLY long after the fact that the practice had been forced into unlawful practice, did the bishops even request a “indult.” What was Rome going to do? say NO AGAIN, so they could again be ignored?

Both of these documents are available on the Vatican web site. http://www. vatican.com

Please don’t take my word for it.

Priest and deacon’s are the only ones to distribute, and as our current Holy Father and the Priest and Bothers of EWTN are demonistrating, we should kneel and receive Jesus on our tongues. We simply are NOT WORTHY to receive Christ is our hands.

In our hands is TAKING CHRIST

On our tongue is RECEIVING CHRIST

Oh so sadly there continues a majority of bishops and priest who still ignore Rome, even today!

And the SSPX are bashed daily for doing no worse.

 

[Digitonomy]

Particles of consecrated hosts are not dust. Where did you get such an idea?

If you would read my post that you quoted (#14), you’ll see that Wholly Roamin makes this claim. I would suggest instead that once such particles disintegrate to dust, they are no longer recognizable as bread, and thus no longer the Eucharist.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

If you would read my post that you quoted (#14), you’ll see that Wholly Roamin makes this claim. I would suggest instead that once such particles disintegrate to dust, they are no longer recognizable as bread, and thus no longer the Eucharist.

I thought that PaulAndrew answered the question sufficiently in #18.

But if you insist: the Church has given a fair amount of thought to what comprises substances. I believe that it would be related to this discussion. Consider the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) on the subject of atoms (newadvent.org/cathen/02051c.htm):

The invariability of composition by weight of chemical compounds is a fundamental law of chemistry. Thus water **under all circumstances **consists of 88.88% of oxygen and 11.11% of hydrogen. This establishes a relation between the weights of the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecule, which is 1:8. Oxygen and hydrogen are gaseous under ordinary conditions. If water is decomposed, and the vases collected and measured, there will always be two volumes of hydrogen to one of oxygen.

(Emphasis mine)

If water always retains its property as H2O, no matter how small of a drop (as long as the molecule is not divided), then it would logically follow that the host always retains its properties, no matter how small of particle… or fleck of dust… it is broken down into. And if Christ is always present as long as the accidents remain, then it goes to follow that the particles remain the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I guess you could make the claim that the smallest particles aren’t worth protecting, any more than a person cares about the dust that accumulates in their own bellybutton. And truthfully speaking, “dust” was a bit of hyperbole. But if the dust retains its structure as bread, then it also retains its consecrated quality as the Blessed Sacrament. And therefore deserves some protection as the Corpus Christi.

 

[GodIsGracious]

The only comment I have is that too bad Latin Rite doesn’t do it like Eastern Rite - or at least, some of the Eastern Rites. I’ve been to the local Byzantine Catholic Church and they have both forms with the bread form being in with the wine form where the priest scoops some out and pours it into your mouth.

Receiving communion in that fashion would leave little doubt as to how one should receive the Eucharist.

 

[japhy]

The only comment I have is that too bad Latin Rite doesn’t do it like Eastern Rite - or at least, some of the Eastern Rites. I’ve been to the local Byzantine Catholic Church and they have both forms with the bread form being in with the wine form where the priest scoops some out and pours it into your mouth.

Believe it or not, intinction (by which a priest or deacon takes a Host and dips it into the Precious Blood and places it on the tongue of the communicant) was the preferred means of receiving under both kinds in the Roman Church in 1970!
The method of having the communicants pass the chalice from one to another or having them go directly to the chalice to receive the precious blood does not seem advisable. Instead of this, communion should be by intinction. (Liturgicae Instaurationes 6)

 

[GodIsGracious]

Believe it or not, intinction (by which a priest or deacon takes a Host and dips it into the Precious Blood and places it on the tongue of the communicant) was the preferred means of receiving under both kinds in the Roman Church in 1970!
The method of having the communicants pass the chalice from one to another or having them go directly to the chalice to receive the precious blood does not seem advisable. Instead of this, communion should be by intinction. (Liturgicae Instaurationes 6)

I had heard about that and find this quite interesting. Too bad we don’t do this either.