Is a "crumb" still considered the Blessed Sacrament?

[PRmerger]

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?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Are you sure that you heard correctly? The Blessed Sacrament is present in the smallest particle.

 

[Eucharisted]

No, crumbs are not Jesus, but out of respect for the Holy Eucharist they are buried in the earth.

Eucharistic Particles and the Real Presence
Question from on 05-26-2006:
Dear Mr. Donovan,
I heard from a holy and well-trained priest that if the Particles of the Eucharist are so small that it’s not visible to the eye, then it no longer retains its sign value, and therefore the Real Presence no longer subsists. However, a seminarian friend of mine and priests from his seminary say that this is false since it would imply that the Eucharist is local; another person who adheres to this latter stance supported it by having recourse to the fact that the Tridentine Rite required the index and thumbs of the priest to be always touching after the Consecration, that the priests fingers be cleansed after distributing Holy Communion, and that some people will have worse eyesight than others making it a relativistic statement to assert that the Real Presence hinges on the visibility of the Particles. A person adhering to this latter stance also claims that one should not receive Holy Communion in the hand and has tried correcting others who do so. (I know this is not an abuse since the Holy See has granted permission for it.) So, is it true that if the Particles of the Eucharist are so small that it’s not visible to the eye, the Real Presence no longer subsists? If yes, what sources would support this (e.g., papal documents, documents of any council, quotes from the Fathers of the Church, theological tracts, etc.)?

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on 05-28-2006:
The DOCTRINE of the Real Presence is that the SUBSTANCE of bread changes into the substance of the Body of Christ. Crumbs or particles are ACCIDENTS not SUBSTANCES. Metaphysically, every particle and molecule is the Real Presence. Morally and liturgically, however, our obligation to give LATRIA (worship or adoration) is confinded to what is VISIBLY discernable. Prudence dictates that I carefully purify the chalice and ciborium and carefully fold the purificator and corporal, but I do not genuflect to questionable particles which could be the Holy Eucharist or could be dust or some other substance. Only when the ACCIDENT changes, for instance, when the consecrated host becomes contaminated with mold, then it is no longer accidentally bread and therefore the substance of the Real Presence ceases to exist as well, just as in the case of our bodies as the stomach digests Holy Communion.

 

[Cluny]

I would modify that to “The Eucharistic Presence is in the smallest RECOGNIZABLE fragment.”

Since the Substance of the Body of Christ exists under the accidents of bread, and one of these is the appearance of bread to the sense of vision, if you can’t tell if it’s bread or dust by just looking at it, then it’s not the Eucharist.

Obviously, recongizable crumbs–“pearls”, as we call them in the East–should be consumed and not allowed to fall or blow away.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you sure that you heard correctly? The Blessed Sacrament is present in the smallest particle.

I’m pretty certain that’s what he said.

I went to the CA radio website to see if I could offer a link, but the broadcast is not yet available. The show was on Wed 5/20.

I’ll check back tomorrow.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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?

If it is known to be or recognizable as, part of the Blessed Sacrament or Precious Blood then it is still Our Lord, whole and complete.

 

[japhy]

So long as the appearance of bread remains, the Real Presence remains. If the Precious Body or Blood is not recognizable to the senses (particularly the eyes) as “bread” or “wine”, it is no longer the Precious Body or Blood.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Throughout Catholic history, great attention has been paid to the particles of Holy Communion. Tiny fragments. Crumbs. Dust. They were all considered the Body of Christ.

Ever know anyone who keeps an urn of ashes from a creamated relative? They preciously guard every particle of ash. Would you not guard Our Lord with as much care?

Catholics have kept reliquaries of itsy-bitsy fragments of bone from the holy Saints of her Church. Tiny things! Sometimes small as pencil points, preciously saved with a scrap of linen in a glass case. Is that chip of bone not a relic of a person who followed Jesus? Then so much more for Our Lord!

Pay attention to those fragments. Give the crumbs great care. Profination is a great sin.

 

[WMM]

I think I heard Fr. Vincent Serpa say on the radio that a crumb is no longer the Blessed Sacrament.

Is this correct?

***The smallest particle of the Host and the smallest droplet from the Chalice contains the entirity of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord.

This is why the sacred vessels must be purified by the priest or deacon after use.***

 

[ahollars]

My father taught me at a young age to always check your hands after receiving communion in the hand. Once in a blue moon I will see something recognizable, and I will use my fingers discreetly and reverently (no licks) , but usually the good folks who make the bread have a recipe designed to not fall apart.

Same goes for every drop of blood. That’s why the chalice is washed with holy water by the priest on the altar.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

One needs to know what transubstantiation is before one can comment on this.

The whole substance of the bread is turned into the whole substance of the Body of Our Lord. This is De Fide.

After consecration the bread is no longer there but the “accidents” of bread remain.

Accidents are all of the physical qualities of bread.

What happens when the Hosts of the Blessed Sacrament breaks up?

The council of trent says
Council of Trent:

[Source: Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent]
Canon 3: If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each and every portion of either species when it is divided up; Let him be Anathema.
Canon 4: If anyone says that after the consecration the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the marvellous sacrament of the Eucharist, but are present only in the use of the sacrament while it is being received, and not before or after, and that the true body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles that are kept or are left over after Communion: Let him be anathema.

So how do we figure out when the Blessed Sacrament is gone from a particle?

As long as the accidents of bread remain so does the Blessed Sacrament. When a particle is corrupted so that the accidents of bread do not remain then we can say our Lord is no longer there.

As long as you would call the accidents bread ordinarily so does Our Lord remain.

Therefore anyone who says that crumbs are no longer Our Blessed Lord have no case.

Paul

 

[Cluny]

Same goes for every drop of blood. That’s why the chalice is washed with holy water by the priest on the altar.

Where did you get the idea that the chalice was “washed with holy water?”

The ablutions have NEVER been taken with holy water, but with ordinary water.

Period.

 

[Aramis]

While the water used for the ablutions is often from the cruet used in the mixing of the water and wine, and has been blessed by the priest or deacon before pouring, it is not holy water in the sense that the blessing is not intended for the creation of a cruet of holy water.

 

[Digitonomy]

Throughout Catholic history, great attention has been paid to the particles of Holy Communion. Tiny fragments. Crumbs. Dust. They were all considered the Body of Christ.

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

 

[Lepanto]

but usually the good folks who make the bread have a recipe designed to not fall apart.

I’ve been a sacristan at several parishes for years. Each of the parishes uses mass-manufactured bread that is marketed in the religious supply catalogs to be resistant to crumbling.

As a sacristan who sees numerous ciboria with “crumble-resistant” hosts, I can assure you that there is NO such thing as communion bread that does not produce crumbs. In fact, when I open the packages from the manufacturer to place the bread in the ciboria, the packages already have fractured wafers and are lined with crumbs! (It’s not as bad as a bag of potato chips, but that image helps to picture what I’m describing.) The ciboria contain even more crumbs after returning communion.

Remember: there is NO such thing as communion bread that does not produce crumbs. If the crumbs do not stay in the ciboria during communion, they go somewhere else…like from peoples’ hands to the floor.

 

[Cluny]

“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive communion in the hand.”
– Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in 1989 when he asked her, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”

Actually, Mother Teresa never said this, and asked the priest who spread the story to retract it.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, Mother Teresa never said this, and asked the priest who spread the story to retract it.

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?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

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

Officially they are called particles. The thing is all you have to do is to look at the things every Priest used to do to make sure that no possible crumb could be lost.

If the dust is “bread” that is you would still physically define it as bread than our Lord is present?

However lets say you are not sure? Going to take a chance? Of course not. So you better start doing what all Catholics have done for 2000 years. That is making sure that there is as little chance as possible that no crumb of the Blessed Sacrament gets lost.

And St Cyril says such things are more precious than Gold-dust.

Paul

 

[PRmerger]

Officially they are called particles. The thing is all you have to do is to look at the things every Priest used to do to make sure that no possible crumb could be lost.

If the dust is “bread” that is you would still physically define it as bread than our Lord is present?

However lets say you are not sure? Going to take a chance? Of course not. So you better start doing what all Catholics have done for 2000 years. That is making sure that there is as little chance as possible that no crumb of the Blessed Sacrament gets lost.

And St Cyril says such things are more precious than Gold-dust.

Paul

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?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

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?

The Church has not made any modern rulings to the contrary of what we are saying. The only thing that we can see is silence.

There are things that accompany the Communion in the hand problem like Priests not bothering to purify their hands and parishes not using their sacrarium. Both these things are clear in the modern rubrics and GIRM.

The other thing is the Church is going through a hard time on many issues not just this one, and with the benefit of hindsight on other historical periods it is easily seen that the current Church is going through one of those.

The other thing is that say that the Church is right to stop all those practices, it makes the Church look idiotic for carrying out all those things to prevent loss for 2000 years. Its an actual absurdity that considering the Church took care to make sure that not a single particle would be lost and now doesn’t and that the modern view would be the correct one.

Paul