Over 200 consecrated hosts stolen, desecrated in Spain art exhibit

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
I’m not sure either but I’m almost positive it doesn’t remain the Real Presence forever. I could be wrong.

But that doesn’t answer the more philosophical question, why wouldn’t Christ withdraw His Real Presence when it’s a cause for further desacralization? Are those Hosts a benefit to the desecrator which I haven’t seen? This of course doesn’t preclude the possibility to repentance in the future. It’s still an objective grave matter.
Click to expand...
Not forever of course, full digestion of the host and dissolving it in water will probably remove the Real Presence, as has been stated.

Nonetheless, this is a very interesting question, thanks for making me think. 👍
 
Micosil said:
Not forever of course, full digestion of the host and dissolving it in water will probably remove the Real Presence, as has been stated.

Nonetheless, this is a very interesting question, thanks for making me think. 👍
Click to expand...
You’re welcome, I think. 🙂
Abba said:
May God bless the ‘private citizen’ who picked up the hosts.
Click to expand...
That’s probably another reason why I think theologists need to look into the matter. To what extent are private citizens required to pick up the hosts? What if these 200 hosts were buried in mud or garbage, for example? And what exactly is one supposed to do with dropped particles anyway, if they’re not deemed edible? I mean someone has already said that particles thrown off not visible to the naked eye are no longer the Real Presence; can’t we extend that thinking to (other) situations? Heck, we don’t even know if they were validly consecrated.
 
ProVobis said:
…] I mean someone has already said that particles thrown off not visible to the naked eye are no longer the Real Presence …]
Click to expand...
Hm, but is this actually true? I mean, to get a bit technical, if we go down to the molecular level where we still have the basic building blocks of what the hosts are made of, even if they’re invisible to the naked eye, isn’t the Real Presence still there? :confused:
 
Some of us who were paten and altar boys during the pre-Vatican II era are perhaps not so comfortable with the way the Eucharist is handled these days. It would have been unthinkable during that era.
 
Micosil said:
Hm, but is this actually true? I mean, to get a bit technical, if we go down to the molecular level where we still have the basic building blocks of what the hosts are made of, even if they’re invisible to the naked eye, isn’t the Real Presence still there? :confused:
Click to expand...
That was actually my argument in regards to particles stuck to the hands or just being released into the air but it appears I was presented with some Vatican documents to the contrary.

It may all be a huge misunderstanding, for all I know. We’re clear on validity; it seems. Not so much on its termination.
 
ProVobis said:
That was actually my argument in regards to particles stuck to the hands or just being released into the air but it appears I was presented with some Vatican documents to the contrary.

It may all be a huge misunderstanding, for all I know. We’re clear on validity; it seems. Not so much on its termination.
Click to expand...
Ahh, interesting. 😃 You learn something new every day.

Do you know which documents? Was it in this thread?
 
How is it every thread devolves into a “it’s Vatican II’s fault”?

I’m out.
 
Thomas_White said:
Some of us who were paten and altar boys during the pre-Vatican II era are perhaps not so comfortable with the way the Eucharist is handled these days. It would have been unthinkable during that era.
Click to expand...
As a current altar server, who holds the Communion-plate on a regular basis now, I am honestly freaked out by the spectrum of carelessness by communicants. I can barely keep up with our Deacon’s lightning-fast delivery, and it is a nightmare aiming the plate properly when people are doing all kinds of things with their hands and utterly mobile. When it comes to those who receive on the tongue, I can sometimes barely wedge the plate in under their chin when their hands are in front of them and/or they are rather tall.

The perpetrators who tore out altar rails from churches are squarely to blame in this, too. Distribution by a priest, behind a rail, kneeling and on the tongue was efficient, reverent and reliable. It was madness, sheer madness to change it.
 
pianistclare said:
How is it every thread devolves into a “it’s Vatican II’s fault”?

I’m out.
Click to expand...
If it was my comment, it was not meant to fault anything or anyone, and I would guess the teaching has since evolved. In those days, we had strict procedures we followed during communion and in the sacristy after Mass. There was a certain and careful way to hold the paten during communion and in the sacristy there was a special sink that drained into the garden of the Church, for instance. None of us ever–really, not ever–touched the Host or the consecrated wine and water.

These things were strictly enforced for us at a young age and no doubt resulted in a certain perspective. It was different, learned behavior, and it didn’t suddenly become unlearned. That’s all.
 
Thomas_White said:
If it was my comment, it was not meant to fault anything or anyone, and I would guess the teaching has since evolved. In those days, we had strict procedures we followed during communion and in the sacristy after Mass. There was a certain and careful way to hold the paten during communion and in the sacristy there was a special sink that drained into the garden of the Church, for instance. None of us ever–really, not ever–touched the Host or the consecrated wine and water.

These things were strictly enforced for us at a young age and no doubt resulted in a certain perspective. It was different, learned behavior, and it didn’t suddenly become unlearned. That’s all.
Click to expand...
Since I am a recent convert I do appreciate hearing stories of how it was before Vatican II. It does help me understand things better.
I can understand the frustration of others, but one cannot deny that some rules were “relaxed” - can’t think of another world, but I hope you understand what I mean.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Since I am a recent convert I do appreciate hearing stories of how it was before Vatican II. It does help me understand things better.
I can understand the frustration of others, but one cannot deny that some rules were “relaxed” - can’t think of another world, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Click to expand...
I do. Things radically changed during the mid to late 60’s, and of course it was not limited to the Church. It was true of society generally, and in many ways. I think keeping this in mind would help in understanding what the Mass was like during the earlier era. Times were more formal, and so were the customs during Mass (dress, decorum, far less talking, far more knelling and praying before Mass began, silence the norm, and so on). It was a different world all-around, but much of what Mass was like then is evident even now during the EF Mass.

During the pre-Vatican II era (and I don’t know how else to describe it), the rules concerning the Host were similarly far stricter. Touching the consecrated Host was just not done by anyone other than a priest.
 
Thomas_White said:
I do. Things radically changed during the mid to late 60’s, and of course it was not limited to the Church. It was true of society generally, and in many ways. I think keeping this in mind would help in understanding what the Mass was like during the earlier era. Times were more formal, and so were the customs during Mass (dress, decorum, far less talking, far more knelling and praying before Mass began, silence the norm, and so on). It was a different world all-around, but much of what Mass was like then is evident even now during the EF Mass.

During the pre-Vatican II era (and I don’t know how else to describe it), the rules concerning the Host were similarly far stricter. Touching the consecrated Host was just not done by anyone other than a priest.
Click to expand...
I hear you. World Youth Day pre-Vatican II era would have been unimaginable. I watched a video from WYD and the abuses against the Eucharist. In one scene the Eucharist was seen being distributed by lay people from plastic cups. Another scene showed people in the front of the crowd passing the Eucharist over their shoulders to the hands of those behind them, without even turning around, and they in turn did likewise, as if it were common food. And this was repeated until it finally got to those in the back. I couldn’t help but wonder, how many times the Sacred Body of Our Lord hit the ground and was trampled under foot during these careless exchanges. It was stunning to watch, to say the least.

***Peace, Mark ***
 
Mark121359 said:
I hear you. World Youth Day pre-Vatican II era would have been unimaginable. I watched a video from WYD and the abuses against the Eucharist. In one scene the Eucharist was seen being distributed by lay people from plastic cups. Another scene showed people in the front of the crowd passing the Eucharist over their shoulders to the hands of those behind them, without even turning around, and they in turn did likewise, as if it were common food. And this was repeated until it finally got to those in the back. I couldn’t help but wonder, how many times the Sacred Body of Our Lord hit the ground and was trampled under foot during these careless exchanges. It was stunning to watch, to say the least.

***Peace, Mark ***
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: oh my goodness! how awful! I cannot understand how they could allow that!
 
Thomas_White said:
If it was my comment, it was not meant to fault anything or anyone, and I would guess the teaching has since evolved. In those days, we had strict procedures we followed during communion and in the sacristy after Mass. There was a certain and careful way to hold the paten during communion and in the sacristy there was a special sink that drained into the garden of the Church, for instance. None of us ever–really, not ever–touched the Host or the consecrated wine and water.

These things were strictly enforced for us at a young age and no doubt resulted in a certain perspective. It was different, learned behavior, and it didn’t suddenly become unlearned. That’s all.
Click to expand...
All lovely expressions. But this emphasis on temporal strictness is not everything and that was the problem with pre-vat II. It was more about how things were done, not why.

Everything was very enclosed.

Lots of people use Pre-Vat II, - I’m not saying you meant it like this - to excuse a lack of commitment to true Gospel values after a certain time. In fact Vatican II was a gift to the Church and a great blessing, and it wasn’t Vat II that in itself brought about a so-called lack of reverence, it was two background truths that these contrived misconceptions were manufactured to mask:
  1. Those who were not open to development and those who “look back” instead of embracing the gift of Vat II instead chose to rail against it and obstruct progress.
  2. Those who wished to exercise their own progressive ideas used Vat II as an excuse for a springboard to bring into the Church the spirit of the world.
Thank goodness we have had a string of such amazing saintly Popes who understand these things and guide us accordingly so the gates of Hell do not prevail.

The thing is, is reverence is needed, and should never be lost. But in a sense, the shift is important. The times are trying because these times separate the sheep from the goats. It is important that instead of relying on temporal justification for reverence, we feel REAL reverence, and this reverence comes from the heart. And a sign of reverence is to hold a pious love and respect for the gifts that the Church brings, including its developments, and to pray instead of complain (to the Holy Mother).

The only danger I can see, is a certain Anglicanisation as protestant churches move closer to the CC, as their lack of spiritual mysticism masks the spiritual reality of the faith to some degree, and can affect Catholics, and so it is all the more important that the CC holds it own in the face of ‘lesser’ degrees of understanding, and in this way, we can see “with the mind of the Church” and live with the heart of her. And truly then, the Churches will come together, but without the CC lowering the bar of spirituality to a temporal whim.
 
friardchips said:
All lovely expressions. But this emphasis on temporal strictness is not everything and that was the problem with pre-vat II. It was more about how things were done, not why.

Everything was very enclosed.

Lots of people use Pre-Vat II, - I’m not saying you meant it like this - to excuse a lack of commitment to true Gospel values after a certain time. In fact Vatican II was a gift to the Church and a great blessing, and it wasn’t Vat II that in itself brought about a so-called lack of reverence, it was two background truths that these contrived misconceptions were manufactured to mask:
  1. Those who were not open to development and those who “look back” instead of embracing the gift of Vat II instead chose to rail against it and obstruct progress.
  2. Those who wished to exercise their own progressive ideas used Vat II as an excuse for a springboard to bring into the Church the spirit of the world.
Thank goodness we have had a string of such amazing saintly Popes who understand these things and guide us accordingly so the gates of Hell do not prevail.

The thing is, is reverence is needed, and should never be lost. But in a sense, the shift is important. The times are trying because these times separate the sheep from the goats. It is important that instead of relying on temporal justification for reverence, we feel REAL reverence, and this reverence comes from the heart. And a sign of reverence is to hold a pious love and respect for the gifts that the Church brings, including its developments, and to pray instead of complain (to the Holy Mother).

The only danger I can see, is a certain Anglicanisation as protestant churches move closer to the CC, as their lack of spiritual mysticism masks the spiritual reality of the faith to some degree, and can affect Catholics, and so it is all the more important that the CC holds it own in the face of ‘lesser’ degrees of understanding, and in this way, we can see “with the mind of the Church” and live with the heart of her. And truly then, the Churches will come together, but without the CC lowering the bar of spirituality to a temporal whim.
Click to expand...
I understand, but in reference to the OP, and as part of the discussion, I meant only to note that the distribution of communion during the Tridentine Mass of the earlier era differs from the way it is done in today’s OF Mass. It is simply a fact and had nothing whatever to do with “excusing a lack of committment to true Gospel values.” We were young kids attending Mass and later some of us became altar servers. The rule was we were never to touch the Host.
 
ProVobis said:
I mean someone has already said that particles thrown off not visible to the naked eye are no longer the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
The Baltimore Catechism states: “Christ is present whole and entire even under a tiny particle of the Host. Now that He has risen from the dead He can die no more, nor can He be divided… The whole Christ is present under each part of the sacred appearances and remains present as long as the sacred appearances remain.” (351)

Peace.

+JMJ+
 
Thomas_White said:
I understand, but in reference to the OP, and as part of the discussion, I meant only to note that the distribution of communion during the Tridentine Mass of the earlier era differs from the way it is done in today’s OF Mass. It is simply a fact and had nothing whatever to do with “excusing a lack of committment to true Gospel values.” We were young kids attending Mass and later some of us became altar servers. The rule was we were never to touch the Host.
Click to expand...
Noted, that you were stating fact.

IMO - to do with the thread - reverential love for blessed Hosts is holy.

If the story is accurate concerning people apparently handing blessed hosts over their shoulders at WYD, then this account would be detailing a form of sacrilege, surely.
 
jmj777 said:
The Baltimore Catechism states: “Christ is present whole and entire even under a tiny particle of the Host. Now that He has risen from the dead He can die no more, nor can He be divided… The whole Christ is present under each part of the sacred appearances and remains present as long as the sacred appearances remain.” (351)

Peace.

+JMJ+
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the BC. But particles are thrown off or rubbed off all the time, no matter how solid it seems. And most you can’t see. (Ever wonder why your hands smell of metal after you handle a coin? But I digress.)

But what about those others which aren’t edible any longer? “Take and eat” is hardly applicable I would think.
 
friardchips said:
Noted, that you were stating fact.

IMO - to do with the thread - reverential love for blessed Hosts is holy.

If the story is accurate concerning people apparently handing blessed hosts over their shoulders at WYD, then this account would be detailing a form of sacrilege, surely.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I never meant to raise any issue with respect to Vatican II and can see I should have referred to the Tridentine Mass rather than the “pre-Vatican II era” in my comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top