Is it possible that true reverence for The Body of Christ is a thing of the past..

[Malleus_01]

<<<< what did you do after this happened? >>>>

Mal : Well I was always taught to respect Priests so what should I have done. Punched him out? You tell me what you would have done.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

<<<< what did you do after this happened? >>>>

Mal : Well I was always taught to respect Priests so what should I have done. Punched him out? You tell me what you would have done.

A priest dropped the host and then stepped on it?

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< A priest dropped the host and then stepped on it? >>>>>

Malleus: August of 1979. The second to the last time I went to that Church. Now I still went to the Novus Ordo Missae after that to three different parishes But I never fully could get over it and I will never as long as I live ever forget it. And when I heard about the Tridentine Latin Mass - I have been going to the Tridentine Latin Mass ever since the first time I returned to the Mass I grew up in. I stopped going to the Novus Ordo Missae altogether in 1981.

But you have to understand this was the parish I grew up in. I was 23 at the time. I questioned the faith of the Church after that because I was always taught to have reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by the Priests and Sisters and until 1969 I served Mass there at that same Church. I have only been to the Novus Ordo Missae 4 times since I started going to the Tridentine Latin Mass for funerals and once there at that same Church , which by the way was extensively remodeled (dont ask me when) and the building no longer even resembles the Church I went to.

I am sorry if I scandalized anyone. But things like this should never happen ever for any reason.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Malleus 01:

I am sorry if I scandalized anyone.

You are arousing my suspicions. You haven’t actually answered my question, but instead replied with strange reminiscences. Do you think you could describe the circumstance without digression?

Did the Priest drop the host, then step on it? If so, did you see the follow up to this action? Nevertheless, you are right, there is no reason ever to step on the host-- unless that is, he was trying to prevent others from accidentally stepping on the host, who weren’t aware of what happened, and who may have had wet shoes, and there was no time to do anything other than step on the host for the time being, to prevent it from being kicked around or whatever else. IOW I can imagine a scenario, horrible as it is, that would not be sacrilegious or irreverent, where the priest may have done the only thing possible at that moment.

 

[paperwight]

You are arousing my suspicions. You haven’t actually answered my question, but instead replied with strange reminiscences. Do you think you could describe the circumstance without digression?

Did the Priest drop the host, then step on it? If so, did you see the follow up to this action? Nevertheless, you are right, there is no reason ever to step on the host-- unless that is, he was trying to prevent others from accidentally stepping on the host, who weren’t aware of what happened, and who may have had wet shoes, and there was no time to do anything other than step on the host for the time being, to prevent it from being kicked around or whatever else. IOW I can imagine a scenario, horrible as it is, that would not be sacrilegious or irreverent, where the priest may have done the only thing possible at that moment.

There are two possibilities, if this really did happen.
One, that perhaps, rather than the priest deliberately steppng on the Host, he temporarily lost his balance and staggered.
Or, To preserve the Host being stepped on by somebody eho didn’t realise the seriousness or perhaps hadn’t even seen the Host, the priest put his heel down near the Host but kept the rest of his foot raised over it like an umbrella to protect it, and it just looked like he was stepping on it.

But I, too, am suspicious now.

 

[otjm]

I guess I have to ask a question: assuming that what Mal related happened, what does it have to do with the current question? The current question is whether or not it is now true that reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is a thing of the past.

Not whether there was an incident 20 years ago, give or take a few, in which there was an irreverant act.

I am not questioning Mal’s veracity nor memory. I assume it happened just as related; but that does not have anything to do with the question at hand; nor do any other anecdotes of times past have anything to do with the current question.

We can all agree with the premise that since Vatican 2, in parishes there has been a drop-off of reverence. But the query really asks a different question: are things changing for the better or the worse now, not were they bad in the 1980’s.

 

[ProVobis]

Did the Priest drop the host, then step on it? If so, did you see the follow up to this action? Nevertheless, you are right, there is no reason ever to step on the host-- unless that is, he was trying to prevent others from accidentally stepping on the host, who weren’t aware of what happened, and who may have had wet shoes, and there was no time to do anything other than step on the host for the time being, to prevent it from being kicked around or whatever else. IOW I can imagine a scenario, horrible as it is, that would not be sacrilegious or irreverent, where the priest may have done the only thing possible at that moment.

I think you’re missing the point. It didn’t reach to the floor by itself. It got there either by intentionally dropping it or by negligence, an act that still makes you responsible for the end result. There were ways to prevent it and prevention wasn’t taken. Irreverence enough. Stepping on it is another transgression.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think you’re missing the point. It didn’t reach to the floor by itself. It got there either by intentionally dropping it or by negligence, an act that still makes you responsible for the end result. There were ways to prevent it and prevention wasn’t taken. Irreverence enough. Stepping on it is another transgression.

I don’t believe it was intentional or negligence if it was done by a priest. Not that priests are perfect, but that it is simply too wicked and evil a thing to just assume! Secondly, I can imagine several scenarios which may have caused the host to fall to the floor, one of them being a person receiving on the tongue! Further, it is possible (if not probable) that it was the communicant’s fault that the host dropped, and not the priest’s.

Finally, other than a very brief and breezy account, we have never really gotten a good description of the whole event, thereby making accusations all the more egregious.

 

[phrederik]

Mal : Well I was always taught to respect Priests so what should I have done. Punched him out? You tell me what you would have done.

i would have retreived the Host, what did you do?

 

[ProVobis]

By the way, do you have something on Spiritual Communion that you think might be interesting/appropriate for this thread?
VC

Here’s what I found from the Catechism of Trent, in line with the OP.

Threefold Manner Of Communicating

That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist** those most abundant fruits** which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was thinking about something today…it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated.

This question has been on my mind a lot.

Let me ask you something Michael, when does the Bread stop being the Eucharist?

My understanding is that the Church Teaches us that it stops when it loses the appearance of bread.

So are microscopic or dust like flakes of bread really bread? Are crumbs bread? After all we call them crumbs not bread.

So this is where my dilemma is. What is the Church Teaching us when it says that the bread is no longer the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ when it no longer has the appearance of bread.

Please all you others refrain from attacks as this is a true question in my mind and wish to have it answered.

 

[Malleus_01]

You are arousing my suspicions. You haven’t actually answered my question, but instead replied with strange reminiscences. Do you think you could describe the circumstance without digression?

Malleus: I was in line for Communion. I was maybe 5 people back. The priest was giving Holy Communion and dropped a host - it looked like he accidentally had two and didnt know it (Thats speculation on my part.) He stepped on it but didnt move in a way so as to call attention to the act. It seemed like he was tring to hide the fact that it fell. Once again pure speculation.

Did the Priest drop the host, then step on it? If so, did you see the follow up to this action?

Malleus. Yes . No I didnt. I went back to the pew after recieving. He never moved his foot.

Nevertheless, you are right, there is no reason ever to step on the host-- unless that is, he was trying to prevent others from accidentally stepping on the host, who weren’t aware of what happened, and who may have had wet shoes, and there was no time to do anything other than step on the host for the time being to prevent it from being kicked around or whatever else. IOW I can imagine a scenario, horrible as it is, that would not be sacrilegious or irreverent, where the priest may have done the only thing possible at that moment.

Malleus: Lets hope so. Lets hope there is a good reason that I am unaware of. I have only seen that happen that one time. My father in law saw it happen the same time I did - he was in front of my wife and I was behind her. He saw it happen and i saw it happen. I didnt say anything until he brought it up. Neither my wife or mother in law believed him either when he brought it up. And I wouldnt have said I saw it and backed him up if I didnt see it too. Look - to be honest - the only thing i wish is that I wasnt there and that I didnt see what i saw. I would love to say I was wrong and didnt see it.

 

[Malleus_01]

I guess I have to ask a question: assuming that what Mal related happened, what does it have to do with the current question? The current question is whether or not it is now true that reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is a thing of the past.

Not whether there was an incident 20 years ago, give or take a few, in which there was an irreverant act.

I am not questioning Mal’s veracity nor memory. I assume it happened just as related; but that does not have anything to do with the question at hand; nor do any other anecdotes of times past have anything to do with the current question.

We can all agree with the premise that since Vatican 2, in parishes there has been a drop-off of reverence. But the query really asks a different question: are things changing for the better or the worse now, not were they bad in the 1980’s.

Malleus: Well the point being that when that happened - they had already taken out the Communion rails and the Priest and Deacon administered without a server. and without a paten. That would be why. The form. It leads to particles dropping. One other thing I have noticed - is that they say “The Body of Christ.”

At Latin Mass - the Priest says “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” Which means “May The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”

Which shows more reverence. Its up to the Clergy to foster reverence for the Blessed Sacrament in their sermons and in the practise of religion and by example. I dont blame the Laity for having a lack of reverence. I blame the Clergy for not teaching it and expecting it in more Churches. Things have not gotten better , they have gotten worse.

 

[Lormar]

If you were not around to experience the pre-VII Church, you would have no idea of how we were taught by the good Sisters to reverence and respect the Blessed Sacrament. Some of us took it very much to heart. I would never, in a million years, ever chew the Host. Why? Because when I was being prepared to receive my First Holy Communion, that was so much impressed upon me, to never, under any circumstances, chew the Host, that when I witness it today, almost fifty years after my First Holy Communion, I cringe.

We were instilled with such reverence for It, that to a lot of us the very thought of touching the Blessed Sacrament with our own hands is abhorent. So, if the Host falls to the ground, our first inclicnation is not to bend over and pick It up.

In my parish, I would say that true reverence for Our Lord is gone down the drain. I have witnessed things there that, to me, are so overwhelmingly incomprehensible that they defy logic. I can understand the under fifty crowd, but the others? And our pastor is no help, as his theology is more lutheran than Catholic. He and the deacon walk past the Tabernacle without so much as a nod and proceed to bow to the “table.”

 

[otjm]

Well the point being that when that happened - they had already taken out the Communion rails and the Priest and Deacon administered without a server. and without a paten. That would be why. The form. It leads to particles dropping.

I was an altar boy starting in 1957. I have seen far, far more Hosts dropped, primarily because of someone bumping it off when they pulled their tongue back in, than I have seen in all the years of receiving it in the hand. I am not, by that, suggesting that one form is better than the other; simply that it is far easier to lose a Host because of how someone receives on the tongue if they don’t have their mouth wide open. People simply don’t go around dropping something that has been carefully placed in their hand. Perhaps you have different experiences, and I do not care for an argument that goes nowhere. Far more than once I had my pastor tell people to stick their tongue out farther; and they were the ones at greatest risk for losing the Host.

One other thing I have noticed - is that they say “The Body of Christ.”

At Latin Mass - the Priest says “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” Which means “May The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”

Which shows more reverence. Its up to the Clergy to foster reverence for the Blessed Sacrament in their sermons and in the practise of religion and by example. I dont blame the Laity for having a lack of reverence. I blame the Clergy for not teaching it and expecting it in more Churches. Things have not gotten better , they have gotten worse.

That is mere speculation, and the addition of the words do not foster any greater reverence. Why? I have no Latin Mass in my parish, the vast majority of people receive in the hand, and we have had 24 Hour Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years. We have reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, and the priest is not saying the longer prayer. Therefore it is hard to prove your point.

 

[ProVobis]

If you were not around to experience the pre-VII Church, you would have no idea of how we were taught by the good Sisters to reverence and respect the Blessed Sacrament. Some of us took it very much to heart. I would never, in a million years, ever chew the Host. Why? Because when I was being prepared to receive my First Holy Communion, that was so much impressed upon me, to never, under any circumstances, chew the Host, that when I witness it today, almost fifty years after my First Holy Communion, I cringe.

I hear you. The nuns trained us well on how to receive. And the hosts were made to fit right on the tongue, in case you never noticed. Today they make them a lot larger and thicker; it’s hard to put a large host in someone else’s mouth, much less on someone’s tongue.

The communicants also walked up to the rail with the hands together. The only problem I ever had as a server were to move someone’s hands in order to get the paten under their chin. Didn’t happen too often though. Was not really a bad problem.

 

[phrederik]

I went back to the pew after recieving.

you did nothing…please don’t acuse others of irreverence based solely on your observation of their behavior. your behavior in this instance could lead others to think you lack reverence, which is an acusation i’m sure you would rightfully deny

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lormar:

And our pastor is no help, as his theology is more lutheran than Catholic. He and the deacon walk past the Tabernacle without so much as a nod and proceed to bow to the “table.”

Part of the problem is that there are many conflicting directives as well as arrangements in the Sanctuary. Our parish has been instructed to genuflect to the tabernacle upon entering the pew, but from then on the bow to the Altar, if crossing the Sanctuary for some reason. EMHC’s are usually confused on what to do, and sometimes bow to the Tabernacle, and other times to the Altar.

It seems emblematic of our American Church that there is so much confusion followed by misunderstandings and false accusations.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< I was an altar boy starting in 1957. I have seen far, far more Hosts dropped, primarily because of someone bumping it off when they pulled their tongue back in, than I have seen in all the years of receiving it in the hand. I am not, by that, suggesting that one form is better than the other; simply that it is far easier to lose a Host because of how someone receives on the tongue if they don’t have their mouth wide open. People simply don’t go around dropping something that has been carefully placed in their hand. >>>>

Malleus: But the difference being - if you were an Altar boy in 1957 - then you used the paten. The Hands of the Priest are consecrated when he is ordained , yours arent. And if administerd by a deacon- he too is allowed to distribute through the Sacrament of the Minor Orders. If a host fell - the paten is there and if you served properly then you know to keep the paten under both the chin of the communicant and hands of the Priest. The only way a Host could come out even if it fell on the paten would be if the communicant spat it out. Communion in the hand is a protestant innovation it isnt a Catholic practise no matter how many people try to use that false Cyril quote that eminated from Arians… Like it or not - Vatican II was greatly influenced by protestantism. But the belief in the Real Presence is what has suffered. In the haste to make changes , considered by some to be minor to embrace our “Separated Bretheren” these innovations have led to Catholics losing important aspects of their faith. The proof is in the loss of belief in the Real Presence by what some say is a majority of Catholics. Protestants dont believe in the Real Presence. And I am not suggesting that everyone who recieves in the hand doesnt believe in the Real Presence. I am saying that its a bad example to the very young who see the Host treated in a less reverent fashion. Communion in the Hand is less reverent IMO. As for the what the Priest says when he administers Holy Communion - people can read and draw their own conclusions as to which shows more reverence to the Body of Our Lord and which expresses to the Communicant the purpose for Holy Communion. If the Body of the Lord is merely symbolic as Luther suggested then saying the “Body of Christ” is likewise symbolic and not offensive to Protestants - but under the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence - the Priest administers the Bread of Life with salvation as its purpose as stated in John’s Gospel Chapter 6. I am not judging what people do or dont do. I am merely expressing what i believe to be the reason that true reverence is a thing of the past in many Churches. We can all do a better job as Catholics in assisting Catholics and we can change our Church back one Catholic at a time only if we choose to. Some may not want to. But the Real Presence is Dogma. To allow our Children to lose that belief would be partially our fault and not merely the innovators themselves or the liberal Influences within the Church.

 

[Malleus_01]

you did nothing…please don’t acuse others of irreverence based solely on your observation of their behavior. your behavior in this instance could lead others to think you lack reverence, which is an acusation i’m sure you would rightfully deny

Malleus: First of all - I was going to the Modernist Church at the time. Was I immune to the bad example given by the Priests in that time period or fellow parishioners?. Obviously not. I was just another lemming probably giving bad example myself. I dont excuse my behavior. And i am certainly not confessing my sins in a public forum to you who cannot give me absolution even if I did. And I certainly am not a priest either and thus cannot bind or loose sins of my fellow Catholics here as you appear to be able to do in regards to me. But I was asked a direct questiion. I didnt come here to relay this story. I was asked if I ever personally witnessed a desecration or maltreatment of the Host. I answered the question honestly. If I were to lie GOD knows . So I really dont care what you think about it. I answer to HIM not you.