MERGED: Is it possible for the body and blood of christ to turn back into bread and wine?

[TrentCath]

Recently I had a discussion with a friend of mine about why it was so important to be extremely diligent when giving out communion because particles of the host could fall on the floor and be trampled on etc… I also referred to the fact some people took the host away, that there had been occassions where it had been used in Satanic rituals and so on.

My friend responded by saying and I quote ‘Just as Jesus Christ enters the bread and wine so he can choose to leave it’, Now I can disprove that from logic but I was wondering whether there was any authoritative teaching on the subject?

 

[Lapey]

Recently I had a discussion with a friend of mine about why it was so important to be extremely diligent when giving out communion because particles of the host could fall on the floor and be trampled on etc… I also referred to the fact some people took the host away, that there had been occassions where it had been used in Satanic rituals and so on.

My friend responded by saying and I quote ‘Just as Jesus Christ enters the bread and wine so he can choose to leave it’, Now I can disprove that from logic but I was wondering whether there was any authoritative teaching on the subject?

No, once the hosts are consecrated validly they become the Body and Blood of Christ as long as the sacred species maintain the characteristics of bread and wine they remain the same.

By diluting the remaining PB the species of wine can be consumed then cleaned, as in vessel purification or cleaning a spill of the precious blood. In the case of the species of bread, it must be placed in water and allowed to soak and dissolve in a protected place, as in appropriate closet where the sacroriem (spelling) is, or inside the tabernacle. Once dissolved and the appearance of bread no longer exist, it can be poured down the sacroriem.

While in formation, one of our professors made a statement to the affect that, Jesus can put Himself into the bread and wine so He can take Himself out when the sacred species is not consumed or handled properly. Basically he said that the bread and wine only “stay consecrated” while the Eucharist is properly used, if abused as in satanic worship then it is no longer the body of Christ. Well needless to say, our diaconate leader and bishop didn’t agree. I do not think this guy, an ordained minister, will be part of the formation process any longer.

 

[CountrySteve]

i would say no its satys the Body and Blood but then again all thinks are possible with God

 

[smichhertz]

Yes, if the substance is substantially changes, the remaining fragments return to the original substance.

For instance, if wine were consecrated into the Blood, and then water were added to the point that it was no longer wine, but rather “water with a little wine” than the remaining drops of consecrated wine become just regular wine and no longer the Blood.

 

[TrentCath]

Yes, if the substance is substantially changes, the remaining fragments return to the original substance.

For instance, if wine were consecrated into the Blood, and then water were added to the point that it was no longer wine, but rather “water with a little wine” than the remaining drops of consecrated wine become just regular wine and no longer the Blood.

But so long as the substance doesnt change? e.g its not going to change just because someone tramples on it?

 

[Jim_Roberts]

It is very important that when a peron receives the Eucharist on the hand that he step aside and put it in his mouth this way the priest can see that he has consumed it.

This is the Body and Blood of Christ; to take it home is a sacreligious, God belongs in Church,not something to be toyed with as a toy.

It isi morally WRONG to do this and if you see it going on, then, it is your obligation to the the priest

 

[Miserissima]

Deacon Ed touched on this in another thread, and I’m going to put the paragraphs in order :

Substance is what makes a thing what it is. For example, a rose might be yellow or red or any other color, yet it is still a rose. That’s because the substance of a rose is independent of its accidents.

**Accidents **are the physical characteristics of a thing. Thus, the color red associated with a rose is an accident, it is not the rose. The same would be true for the smell, feel, size and so on.

TrentCath, is your question whether or not Christ can remove His substance from the Eucharist at any point? The answer is, “yes.” Even though the Eucharist has not changes in its accident.

To phrase it differently, are you asking: if the consecrated Eucharist is still under the appearance of bread and wine, can the consecration be removed? Again, yes, but only by God.

We cannot know when this happens, however, as it is important to remember that God is not bound by the Sacraments. For example, if God decides to un-flesh the Lanciano Eucharist, then that is His will.

If we assume to know what God knows or does in each situation, we are guilty of a gross presumption on God’s grace.

Deacon Ed continues:

What the term *transubstantiation *describes is actually two miracles: first, the substance of bread and wine is totally replaces with the *substance *of Jesus. Second, the *accidents *of bread and wine remain without their associated substance.

Thus, if one chemically analyzes the Blessed Sacrament or the Precious Blood all that will be found are the accidents, and those will be the accidents of bread and wine. Yet, we know that there is no bread and there is no wine because the *substance *of Jesus has replaced the substance of bread and wine.

Deacon Ed

Does this help a bit?

 

[TrentCath]

Deacon Ed touched on this in another thread, and I’m going to put the paragraphs in order :

TrentCath, is your question whether or not Christ can remove His substance from the Eucharist at any point? The answer is, “yes.” Even though the Eucharist has not changes in its accident.

To phrase it differently, are you asking: if the consecrated Eucharist is still under the appearance of bread and wine, can the consecration be removed? Again, yes, but only by God.

We cannot know when this happens, however, as it is important to remember that God is not bound by the Sacraments. For example, if God decides to un-flesh the Lanciano Eucharist, then that is His will.

If we assume to know what God knows or does in each situation, we are guilty of a gross presumption on God’s grace.

Deacon Ed continues:

Does this help a bit?

Yes and no, I was looking for some official document or declaration of the Magisterium stating this?

Until then I’m inclined to say that it isnt possible because a) If the eucharist was just going to change back whenever someone was going to do something ‘bad’ to it or trampled on it, why did the church use a patten to collect fragments of the host for so many years? Why do churches use a ‘cloth’ on the altar rail to collect stray fragments? And why does canon law forbid those in a state of mortal sin and non-catholics from receiving?

b)Whilst there is a ‘ritual’ of consecration there is none of un-consecration and as God has deigned to act through the priest and only through the priest for the mass, it would seem that the body and blood cannot turn back into bread and wine.

 

[TheMc]

Well needless to say, our diaconate leader and bishop didn’t agree. I do not think this guy, an ordained minister, will be part of the formation process any longer.

I certainly hope not.

 

[TheMc]

But so long as the substance doesnt change? e.g its not going to change just because someone tramples on it?

You are correct. If a host is trampled or desecrated, it is still unchanged, until the substance is changed.

 

[Seatuck]

It is very important that when a peron receives the Eucharist on the hand that he step aside and put it in his mouth this way the priest can see that he has consumed it.

This is the Body and Blood of Christ; to take it home is a sacreligious, God belongs in Church,not something to be toyed with as a toy.

It isi morally WRONG to do this and if you see it going on, then, it is your obligation to the the priest

Don’t bother stepping anywhere with the Eucharist. Put it in your mouth before you step.

 

[TrentCath]

It is very important that when a peron receives the Eucharist on the hand that he step aside and put it in his mouth this way the priest can see that he has consumed it.

This is the Body and Blood of Christ; to take it home is a sacreligious, God belongs in Church,not something to be toyed with as a toy.

It isi morally WRONG to do this and if you see it going on, then, it is your obligation to the the priest

I’m well aware of this and seeing as I receive on the tongue, kneeling, there isn’t much risk of that but thanks anyway

 

[zab]

Don’t bother stepping anywhere with the Eucharist. Put it in your mouth before you step.

This is the instruction that our pastors have given as well- those who receive in the hand should put the Host in their mouth immediately before stepping away.

 

[TrentCath]

Don’t bother stepping anywhere with the Eucharist. Put it in your mouth before you step.

Thanks, as I said above this isn’t really relevant to me and doesn’t really answer the question.

 

[zab]

**

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.207

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sounds pretty clear that the Eucharistic presence of Christ does not ever return to bread or wine. **

 

[Lapey]

**

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sounds pretty clear that the Eucharistic presence of Christ does not ever return to bread or wine. **

Exactly, untill the accidents are changed, the appearance of bread and wine are no longer present, the Eucharist is still the Eucharist. If dropped on the floor and walked on, Jesus in His Eucharistic presence is being trampled. According to Church teaching He does not “change the host” back to bread and wine, this is false. Even the crumbs if they appear to be bread, are still the body of Christ. This is why the fraction rite is done only over the altar on the corparal.

There is no changing back if the accidents of bread and wine still exist, period end of story.

 

[Lapey]

Deacon Ed touched on this in another thread, and I’m going to put the paragraphs in order :

TrentCath, is your question whether or not Christ can remove His substance from the Eucharist at any point? The answer is, “yes.” Can He? Yes, I’m sure God can.Even though the Eucharist has not changes in its accident.Totally against what the Church teaches. Does the Church have authority in these matters, or not?

To phrase it differently, are you asking: if the consecrated Eucharist is still under the appearance of bread and wine, can the consecration be removed? Again, yes, but only by God.This is incorrect. If the accidents, appearance, still exist, then there is no “un-concecration” It is still the Eucharist, Jesus in His Sacremental form.

We cannot know when this happens, however, as it is important to remember that God is not bound by the Sacraments. So are you saying God is not bound by the Churches statements and doctrine on these matters? If so, what exactly did Jesus mean by "what you bind…and loose"For example, if God decides to un-flesh the Lanciano Eucharist, then that is His will. We can agree on this statement, but thats about it.

If we assume to know what God knows or does in each situation, we are guilty of a gross presumption on God’s grace. This is not presumption, it is called binding and loosening, or Church teaching after centuries of discernment.

Deacon Ed continues:

Does this help a bit?No it does not. If you do not know what the true teaching is, please avoid commenting. It is dangerous and confusing.

You are missusing Deacon Ed’s words here. This is not Church doctrine.

 

[Miserissima]

You are missusing Deacon Ed’s words here. This is not Church doctrine.

I never meant to equate Deacon Ed’s words with doctrine. I thought that Deacon Ed’s were highly illustrative to parse “substance” and “accident.” If the species (accident) is dissolved, it is no longer the Eucharist.
If there be such change on the part of the accidents [appearances] 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. (Summa Theologiae III:77:4)

 

[Lapey]

I never meant to equate Deacon Ed’s words with doctrine. I thought that Deacon Ed’s were highly illustrative to parse “substance” and “accident.” If the species (accident) is dissolved, it is no longer the Eucharist.
If there be such change on the part of the accidents [appearances] 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. (Summa Theologiae III:77:4)

Unless I really misunderstood what you orriginally wrote, this is opposite from your orriginal message…I’m confused now!

 

[ConstantineTG]

But so long as the substance doesnt change? e.g its not going to change just because someone tramples on it?

The teaching of the Church is that if the accidents are no longer recognizable for what they are (bread and wine), then the substance (Christ) is also no longer present. Remember, Sacraments are physical signs that point to an inner, spiritual reality. If the physical sign is no longer there, then it doesn’t point towards the inner reality. Depends on how small the crumbs would be, at some point no one will be able to distinguish it as bread. Then Christ is no longer present there.