Is a "crumb" still considered the Blessed Sacrament?

[peary]

Only if it has previously been consecrated.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if it has previously been consecrated.

Then Fr. Trigilio’s answer and Fr. Vincent Serpa are wrong??

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Then Fr. Trigilio’s answer and Fr. Vincent Serpa are wrong??

If they deny that the Blessed Sacrament is present in the accidents of bread after consecration then they are wrong. They have zero evidence to support their position.

All we know for sure is that when the bread is corrupted or no longer bread then the Blessed Sacrament is not there. But nobody states the point of corruption.

As long as the particles are “physically” or “accidentally” bread then the Blessed Sacrament is present.

There has never been a single ruling about what size the particle must be to be considered corrupted and no longer be “accidentally” bread. This is why the Church has always behaved in a manner that might be considered paranoid. Go and read the penances prescribed for Loss of the Blessed Sacrament or even just spillage when it iss cleaned up properly.

The position catholics are in today is synonymous with the time when tetzel went to germany to sell indulgences. How can it be wrong, the Church is doing it?

And to stop misinformed people coming in and stating that communion in the hand is fine, that is not the problem. The problem is not doing anything to prevent particles of the Blessed Sacrament from being lost. It encompasses not using the sacrarium, not purifying the fingers and a number of other things too. The early Church had methods of receiving in the hand and making sure that no loss occurred too.

If in doubt read my post above quoting the canons of trent.

Paul

 

[PRmerger]

And to stop misinformed people coming in and stating that communion in the hand is fine, that is not the problem. The problem is not doing anything to prevent particles of the Blessed Sacrament from being lost

Ah. I understand!

 

[peary]

Then Fr. Trigilio’s answer and Fr. Vincent Serpa are wrong??

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them! All I know is that, as a child, I was taught that if a consecrated host breaks apart, it is still the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, which is why the paten was used and held under a person’s chin when an individual received Holy Communion. It made sense to me then, and it still makes sense to me now.

 

[PRmerger]

Listen here to Fr. Vincent Serpa’s comment that “a crumb is no longer the Blessed Sacrament” and continues in response to the Host’s question, "how small is too small?’
He says it at about 3:41

 

[Lepanto]

I still can’t get past the bottom line: our Church allows reception of Holy Communion in the hand.

Isn’t it prideful to say the Church is wrong on this issue?

The Church does not make a big deal about the priest and finger/thumb and dust particles, so why should we?

This is a disciplinary matter, not one of doctrine. Not all disciplines are good. Disciplines can and sometimes should be changed.

 

[I_Believe]

This is a disciplinary matter, not one of doctrine. Not all disciplines are good. Disciplines can and sometimes should be changed.

Lepanto, your signature rocks

All Roman Catholics, our Holy Father administers the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue to those kneeling.

Please follow his example, and ask your pastor to allow it in his church. Set an example for our children. Building Faith is what it’s all about.

 

[Lepanto]

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, if a crumb of a consecrated host is still recognizable in the common estimation as a bread crumb, it is still the Eucharist.

This, incidentally, is also one of the reasons why permeable chalices (those made of material which can soak up and hence get stained by the Precious Blood) are not allowed.

See here:

newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article4

“…when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.”

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;5232744]I think I heard Fr. Vincent Serpa say on the radio that a crumb is no longer the Blessed Sacrament.

Is this correct?

The reason I ask is because there are those who oppose the reception of Holy Communion in the hand because of the possibility of fragments of the Eucharist (i.e. crumbs) being treated irreverently.

If these crumbs are no long Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity, then the issue is moot, yes?

Catholic teaching from the Catechesim

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Based on this teaching, Christ is wholly present under even the smallest particle of the consecrated Host.

I suspect what Father was sharing is that Christ will allow Himself to “be our Living Bread”, and Christ will allow us to ignore him, in His Abject Poverty [owing nothing not even His Person] and still be present to us. But as soon as anyone attempts to abuse His Sacred Presence He withdraws from it.

Thus, although unknowingly, many, many are abusing the Real Christ, they are unaware of their actions, and therefore not sinning.

Nevertheless, receing on the tongue bypasses this serious fault of “taking Jesus” rather than “receiving Jesus!”

Love and prayers,

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I suspect what Father was sharing is that Christ will allow Himself to “be our Living Bread”, and Christ will allow us to ignore him, in His Abject Poverty [owing nothing not even His Person] and still be present to us. **But as soon as anyone attempts to abuse His Sacred Presence He withdraws from it. **

What is bolded out is false. I do not know if you think that or if thats what you think Father was sharing.

Paul

 

[FrCorey]

If HE was here and just left one single hair, would that hair still be part of HIM?

 

[Lepanto]

If HE was here and just left one single hair, would that hair still be part of HIM?

But the Eucharist is ALL of Him: body, blood, soul, and divinity. Not just a part.

A half of a host (or just a particle) is no less the entire Christ.

 

[japhy]

If HE was here and just left one single hair, would that hair still be part of HIM?

Your question is probably only going to confuse people. The Church teaches the following things about the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist:

• Pope Gregory VII required an oath to be taken by Archdeacon Berengarius who publicly denied that Christ was really and truly present in the Eucharist; it included the following: “I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ – which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world – and the true blood of Christ – which flowed from His side – and not just as a sign and by reason of the power of the sacrament, but in the very truth and reality of their substance and in what is proper to their nature.” (Mysterium Fidei 52, Pope Paul VI, 3 September 1965)
• Pope Clement IV reinforced the belief “that the body of Christ, after the words of consecration, is numerically identical to the body which was born of the Virgin and immolated on the cross.” (Super quibusdam, Pope Clement VI, 29 September 1351 (Denz. 1083))
• Pope Gregory XI reiterated the belief that the Real Presence continues as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain, even if the Sacrament is profaned, whether dropped, thrown out, or even eaten by animals. (Cf. Ep. Cardinalium Inquis., Pope Gregory XI, 8 August 1371 (Denz. 1101-1103))
• Pope Martin V approved a decree of the Council of Constance which stated that “it is to be very firmly believed, and by no means doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained equally under the form of bread as under the form of wine.” (Council of Constance, Session XIII, 15 June 1425 (Denz. 1199))
• Not only is Christ present, whole and entire under both forms, but he is present in even the smallest recognizable portions of them. That means that in receiving a drop of the Precious Blood (perceptible to the senses as wine) or a crumb of the Host (perceptible to the senses as bread), we are receiving Jesus completely. (Cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, 11 October 1551, ch. 3 (Denz. 1641))

cf. O Come, Let Us Adore Him, pp. 13-18​

 

[weepixie71]

the late Fr. Richard W. Gilsdorf’s said in his book Sign of the Times . While in seminary he learned the phrase “You can tell a good priest by how he cares for the fragments.”

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/

i think that we will never get the enormous responsibility that comes with taking hold of the Holy Eucharist. so to be on the safe side, i personally feel that the less it is handled the better.

“Christ is present in every Particle of the consecrated Host and of the consecrated wine, when separated from the rest.” - Council of Florence DB 698. CT 717
“If anyone denies that the Venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist that Christ is present under every part of each Species when separated, let him be anathema.” - Council of Trent DB 885 CT 730

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;5241056]I was wondering about that.

It really does not make sense that of all the atrocities she witnessed that reception of communion in the hand would top any of them. Not to mention Mother Teresa was so humble, loyal and subservient to the Church–if She (the Church) allows reception in the hand, who would she be to think she knows better?

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!

 

[japhy]

Just where and when did this retraction take place?

From Rorate Caeli (referring to a post on the Angel Queen forum):
On Feb 17 I asked by email Fr George Rutler, “are you the priest who interviewed Blessed Mother Teresa and was told that she detested communion in the hand as an even greater crime than abortion? If so is there any article available on the web that relates this interview?”

He replied, “This has been misquoted. Mother Teresa told me she thought the greatest sadness to her was how people receive communion unworthily. She made clear to me that she was not condemning communion in the hand per se and instructed me to make this very clear. I told her that I’d pray about it and write a clarification to which she responded, “We need it right away. I pray. You write.” I have published this statement many times and people willfully ignore it. This is bad faith. Mother preferred communion on the tongue, as do I, but her point was that the disposition of the heart is what matters, not whether one received on the tongue or in the ancient manner of in the hand. There are fanatics abroad who twist her words.”

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.

Vatican II said nothing about Communion in the hand (as far as the documents go), and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy does permit Communion under both kinds in specific situations.

 

[PJM]

=japhy;5247458]From Rorate Caeli (referring to a post on the Angel Queen forum):

On Feb 17 I asked by email Fr George Rutler, “are you the priest who interviewed Blessed Mother Teresa and was told that she detested communion in the hand as an even greater crime than abortion? If so is there any article available on the web that relates this interview?”
​

He replied, “This has been misquoted. Mother Teresa told me she thought the greatest sadness to her was how people receive communion unworthily.

She made clear to me that she was not condemning communion in the hand per se and instructed me to make this very clear. I told her that I’d pray about it and write a clarification to which she responded, “We need it right away. I pray. You write.” I have published this statement many times and people willfully ignore it. This is bad faith. Mother preferred communion on the tongue, as do I, but her point was that the disposition of the heart is what matters, not whether one received on the tongue or in the ancient manner of in the hand. There are fanatics abroad who twist her words.”

**

Friend I think "you’re splitting hairs here. Here sediments reflect her personal beliefs which I am in personal agreement with.** However I sincerely thank you for the information.

Vatican II said nothing about Communion in the hand (as far as the documents go), and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy does permit Communion under both kinds in specific situations.

I provided the precise Vatican II documents and the exact verbage that say’s you’re wrong on this point.

They were taken from:
***The Vatican Collection

Vatican Council II

Volume I
The Conciliar and post Conciliar Documents

New Revised Edition

By Austin Flannery, O.P.***

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Francis X. Gilmm, S.T.L. Censor Liborum July 25, 1975

Imprimatur: Walter P. Kellenberg, D.D.
Bishop of Rockford Center August 12, 1975

Third printing: 1996

The two documets I quoted were:
Eucharistrium Mysterium, Chapter III, page 120, number 31"it should belong to priest above ALL [my emphasis] to distribute communion, may be assisted by a co-celebrant or a deacon [ONLY, again my emphasis].

*** Memoriale Domini, 29 my, 1969

Page 151***

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!

Do yourself a favor and pull these up and look for yourself!

Our current Pope has returned to the age old practice of Communion Kneeling and on the tongue ONLY!

Laity are no longer permitted to clean the Sacred Vessels! Why?

Receiving Jesus in ones hands is TAKING Jesus

Receiving Jesus on ones Tongues is RECEIVING our Blessed Lord!

You will not also, on page 149, it explain the reintroduction of both species, but does NOT
articulate that the practice had been foreced in dilibert disobedience to Rome and the Magistrium, until it becam “common practive” at which point, an Indult was requested and granted. What else was Rome to do, but be disobeyed again!

NOTE on this page that is specifically say’s Men {male gender} are the exception to the rule of priest and deacons!​

 

[japhy]

Friend I think you’re splitting hairs here. Here sediments “her sentiments”?] reflect her personal beliefs which I am in personal agreement with.

I’m simply trying to provide accurate facts. If she didn’t REALLY say “receving Communion in the hand”, then it’s unfair to say she did.

Vatican II said nothing about Communion in the hand (as far as the documents go), and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy does

You quoted two documents from AFTER Vatican II. Eucharisticum Mysterium dealt with many issues, but Communion in the hand was not one of them, although it did mention Communion under both kinds. Memoriale Domini dealt strictly with the discipline of allowing Communion in the hand; it had nothing to do with allowing Communion under both kinds.

Let me give you the chronology.

December 4, 1963
The Second Vatican Council promulgates Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which says:
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (SC 55)

March 7, 1965 (during the Council)
The Sacred Congregation of Rites promulgates (but not as a “document of Vatican II”) Ecclesiae Semper, which contains the rites for concelebration and for Communion under both species. It states:
The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.
Note that at this point, the Host may only be received on the tongue.

May 25, 1967
The Sacred Congregation of Rites promulgates Eucharisticum Mysterium, an Instruction on Eucharistic worship. The document never once mentions Communion in the hand, but article 32 (the article after the one you quoted) says:
Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent, by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

This is why from now on, in accordance with the judgment of the bishops and given the necessary catechesis, Communion from the chalice is permitted in the following cases, which were either already granted by previous legislation or are granted by the present instruction: …

May 29, 1969
The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (Sacred Congregation of Rites under a new name) promulgates Memoriale Domini, an Instruction on the manner of receiving Holy Communion. In the preface of this document, the Congregation states very clearly:
Further, a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity’s participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced.
The Instruction goes on to provide three questions which were posed to Bishops, the first of which is:
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?
This question has nothing to do with receiving the Precious Blood. The “traditional manner” refers solely to the Host being received on the tongue.

 

[japhy]

You will not also, on page 149, it explain the reintroduction of both species, but does NOT articulate that the practice had been foreced in dilibert disobedience to Rome and the Magistrium, until it becam “common practive” at which point, an Indult was requested and granted. What else was Rome to do, but be disobeyed again!

I think you are confusing Communion under both kinds (which as my previous post shows was expressly permitted by Vatican II) with Communion in the hand.

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. But it was allowed via an enormous loophole (which I’m sure you know of):
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.
In other words: if it’s already happening illicitly, and the Bishop can’t prevent it, his episcopal conference might receive permission via an indult. It’s a very sad situation, I agree. It was forced on many people (who were denied reception on the tongue) and it was gained through devious tactics.

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!

As for Communion under both kinds, it has its own upsetting recent history. Vatican II said it was to be permitted under certain conditions. That list grew and grew, and yet bishops still went outside those boundaries. The US Bishops permitted the chalice at virtually every Mass, against the express wishes of the Holy See. See this post (and the ones it links to) for more details.