Is Desecration of the eucharist a problem?

[crazzeto]

do you think there is a problem with overreacting to deliberate desecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior? Have you links to reliable reports of enraged Catholics reacting by commiting acts of violence against those guilty of such blasphemy? What is your definition of hyper-active reaction?

Violence is certainly never the answer, but to answer the OP’s quiestion (in the subject line) it most certainly is a problem particularly for the person doing it. They are desecrating the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ in a very real and physical way. You don’t get more problematic than that for ones soul.

Unfortunetly the situation as described is a difficult one. Obviously one can not (should not ever) resort to violence. Which leaves trying to reason with them, which just isn’t going to get far with these types.

 

[MarysGirls]

Desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a real problem at my church. Every week I see people going up to receive Communion while constantly chomping away on gum.

Receiving it on the tongue will definately help, but it won’t solve the problem. We have found the Host stuck to the floor, and more recently, the priest found it in the trash can stuck to a piece of gum. I have not personally witnessed this but I did see a woman holding her toddler while receiving the Host. While walking down the aisle, she allowed her toddler to take a piece of the Host from her mouth and consume it.

While I would never condone violence for such an action, it angers and saddens me at the same time very much. (Yes, SnakeMauler, I would probably feel like smacking them upside the head.)

We should pray hard for these people and if you have the chance, try to explain to them why what they did was wrong (if they don’t already know).

 

[choy]

Desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a real problem at my church. Every week I see people going up to receive Communion while constantly chomping away on gum.

Receiving it on the tongue will definately help, but it won’t solve the problem. We have found the Host stuck to the floor, and more recently, the priest found it in the trash can stuck to a piece of gum. I have not personally witnessed this but I did see a woman holding her toddler while receiving the Host. While walking down the aisle, she allowed her toddler to take a piece of the Host from her mouth and consume it.

While I would never condone violence for such an action, it angers and saddens me at the same time very much. (Yes, SnakeMauler, I would probably feel like smacking them upside the head.)

We should pray hard for these people and if you have the chance, try to explain to them why what they did was wrong (if they don’t already know).

this is why our former pastor would always have the communicant receive COTT when they are carrying a small child

me and my wife receive CITH but when we go to mass together and have our baby with us, she receives COTT

 

[choy]

Realistically, that’s all the Church really can do at this point.

i’m wondering if a priest can prescribe COTT and suspend CITH if he sees fit in his parish? i’m guessing of course that he needs the bishops approval first

 

[MarysGirls]

this is why our former pastor would always have the communicant receive COTT when they are carrying a small child

me and my wife receive CITH but when we go to mass together and have our baby with us, she receives COTT

The toddler took it out of the woman’s mouth, so I don’t think it would have made a difference.

Personally, I prefer COTT because it reminds me that it’s a gift; but that’s just me.

 

[choy]

The toddler took it out of the woman’s mouth, so I don’t think it would have made a difference.

Personally, I prefer COTT because it reminds me that it’s a gift; but that’s just me.

okay, now i don’t know how to address that
maybe the woman needs to be reminded how to discipline her child? the child of course is innocent of this being his/her age, so this falls on mommy to do the right thing

 

[mdgspencer]

You can act without resorting to violence. A year ago during mass the priest, quite upset, told this story. He saw a teen age boy after communion going to the back of the church, hiding something in his hand, his girl companion with him giggling. So the priest went to them in the back of the Church, and found the boy had a host, and told him what he thought. The priest also acted (without resorting to violence) by telling everyone at the masses the next week what had happened. I expect that this would have an effect on anyone there who might ever treat the host disrespectfully.

 

[ProVobis]

The priest also acted (without resorting to violence) by telling everyone at the masses the next week what had happened. I expect that this would have an effect on anyone there who might ever treat the host disrespectfully.

It would seem that that would have been the perfect opportunity to encourage more COTT in his parish instead of singling out CITH abusers. But then I wasn’t there.

 

[CallistusPM]

Sedes Sapientiae

The Vatican has never approved of communion in the hand. John Paul II never approved nor has Benedict. This is all another example of liberal bishops extending a so called hand to the Protestant community. Until the pope puts on the tiara again and takes control of this church, many abuses will continue under modernism and liberal ordinaries.

 

[ProVobis]

John Paul II never approved nor has Benedict.

Even Paul VI was never a strong supporter of it and attempted to keep tight restrictions on the practice when he felt CITH could quickly become out of control.

 

[MarysGirls]

Sedes Sapientiae

The Vatican has never approved of communion in the hand. John Paul II never approved nor has Benedict. This is all another example of liberal bishops extending a so called hand to the Protestant community. Until the pope puts on the tiara again and takes control of this church, many abuses will continue under modernism and liberal ordinaries.

Really? I started COTT around the time I was confirmed, but I never saw anything wrong in COTH. Is there an official Church teaching on this?

 

[choy]

Sedes Sapientiae

The Vatican has never approved of communion in the hand. John Paul II never approved nor has Benedict. This is all another example of liberal bishops extending a so called hand to the Protestant community. Until the pope puts on the tiara again and takes control of this church, many abuses will continue under modernism and liberal ordinaries.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
Chapter IV, Paragraph 92

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[ProVobis]

Really? I started COTT around the time I was confirmed, but I never saw anything wrong in COTH. Is there an official Church teaching on this?

Yes, there are conditions imposed with receiving in the hand:

(d) Conditions in the indult:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way [intimidation?] that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning [that’s Divine Law!] the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. [paten?] Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

 

[VetA]

I had not personally witnessed someone desecrate the Eucharist. I heard some stories about it. True or not, I am not sure.

Anger (rage) is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Love not anger must prevail.

I believe believers attend Church services with true reverence for the sacredness of the consecrated Bread and Wine. Making them love the Holy Mass more will make them even better Christians. They will receive communion, in whatever ways, properly and with dignity.

If it so happen that this problem occurs among believers, it may mean more effective ways of informing them are necessary.

As for those who come to Church with ulterior motives, they are to be pitied not hated, and if one were to follow the teachings of the Church, to be forgiven and prayed for so that God will hopefully change their lives.

when being angry with another christian for a petty reason. but to be angry with evil, that is not evil, ‘love the sinner hate the sin’

 

[MarysGirls]

Yes, there are conditions imposed with receiving in the hand:

Thank you. That was very helpful.

 

[choy]

when being angry with another christian for a petty reason. but to be angry with evil, that is not evil, ‘love the sinner hate the sin’

i don’t believe the Church teaches us to “hate the sin”
we are asked to “reject Satan and his lies”

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you. That was very helpful.

You’re welcome. Oh, one other thing. The practice has to be approved by 2/3rds of the bishops in the country you’re receiving. It is not a universally approved practice.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

I don’t know when it’s coming up for renewal in the US or in any other country.

 

[choy]

You’re welcome. Oh, one other thing. The practice has to be approved by 2/3rds of the bishops in the country you’re receiving. It is not a universally approved practice.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

I don’t know when it’s coming up for renewal in the US or in any other country.

coming up for renewal? i wasn’t aware it was subject for renewal or review unless the Bishops’ Conference calls for it

 

[StevenFrancis]

Catholics, I know, say that every so often, eucharistic particles are found scattered around near or in church entrances and exits. Some people may even take delight in openly mutilating them to demonstate their disrespect. Is that a problem that anyone can see?

I am uncertain myself if it is a problem that we should spend time worrying about; although some catholics are angered by it to the point of rage. It always seemed to me that an almighty god could certainly deal with such insults, and, lest believers in the “real presence” fall prey to the same insanity experienced by those practitioners of Islam who felt like they had to vindicate Allah by castigating the Danish cartoonist who had offended them, we probably would all be better off simply by leaving to god what is god’s. Who disagrees and why? There is a eastern precept which holds that “we can worship god, but, by doing so, we don’t enhance god–we can resist the way of god, but, in doing so, it is without avail. We can serve god, but, but our service is of no consequence to the infinite.” That makes sense doesn’t it?

If so, then does a hyper-active reaction to desecration accomplish anything except to make us appear impotent and, like Islamic fanatics, driven by rage.

Yes. It is a problem. It is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our creator.

 

[CallistusPM]

Really? I started COTT around the time I was confirmed, but I never saw anything wrong in COTH. Is there an official Church teaching on this?

As I stated, it is in the hands of local ordinaries.(no pun intended.)
July 8: St. Elizabeth of Portugal, W,
CallistusPM