Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[paperwight66]

From Father Z’s blog in 2009:

Do you believe that each particle of a Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, God and man?

Do you receive Communion in the hand?

A reader sent two photos. The first is of an unconsecrated communion host rest on the palm of a black glove.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-44Nv99l4j6I/T6AaREWxweI/AAAAAAAABpQ/2xeLV2ry5U0/s1600/09_03_15_host01.jpg

This photo shows the fragments left behind.
the hand. [/INDENT]

I think if people were more aware of what is actually happening to the consecrated host, which is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, when they receive, they just might think twice of receiving in the hand.

When these photos first appeared on this board, I did an experiment. Wearing black gloves, I put a small pile of talc on my hand, as being the most friable and easily spread-about substance I could think of. The only was to get particles distributed as in the photo was to rub my two hands together. There was absolutely no way in which the distribution would happen in normal CITH usage. That is to say, Host put in hand, Host lifted to the mouth with the other hand. Does any communicant ever rub their two hands together when they are holding a Host? And beside, is any Host as easily broken and spread about as talc?

The photographs are fake. Try it yourself.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Yes we have.

This whole thread is a rehash.

This topic comes up like clock work.

Every time it comes up we get the same responses.

Indeed. For the record (to be played back again and again) I’ll go with the Canons of Trent. The Real Presence of Jesus Christ is present in every particle of the Host. I see particles. And, I figure, better safe than sorry when it comes to something as precious as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Savior.

• PAX

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Indeed. For the record (to be played back again and again) I’ll go with the Canons of Trent. The Real Presence of Jesus Christ is present in every particle of the Host. I see particles. And, I figure, better safe than sorry when it comes to something as precious as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Savior.

• PAX

That is fine. But I do not find even these particles on my hand after I receive.

I take paperwight66’s testimony.

 

[TrueLight]

There must be a bug on CAF. Lately every thread has turned into a fighting match. My posts are no exception.

I think at some point we all have to ask ourselves honestly, how much of our posts are based on pride and would it be better to take a break for the sake of our relationship with God.

 

[Big_Feet]

There must be a bug on CAF. Lately every thread has turned into a fighting match. My posts are no exception.

I think at some point we all have to ask ourselves honestly, how much of our posts are based on pride.

and do they contain all possible charity?

 

[Brooklyn]

When these photos first appeared on this board, I did an experiment. Wearing black gloves, I put a small pile of talc on my hand, as being the most friable and easily spread-about substance I could think of. The only was to get particles distributed as in the photo was to rub my two hands together. There was absolutely no way in which the distribution would happen in normal CITH usage. That is to say, Host put in hand, Host lifted to the mouth with the other hand. Does any communicant ever rub their two hands together when they are holding a Host? And beside, is any Host as easily broken and spread about as talc?

The photographs are fake. Try it yourself.

Talc is not a host, it is powder, a totally different substance. Try it with an unconsecrated host.

 

[paperwight66]

Exactly!! Even MORE unlikely to spread around like that! Tell you what, I’ll bring an altar-bread home with me tomorrow after I’ve done my sacristan duties, and try it. You do the same, and post photographs. (Sorry, I haven’t got a good enough camera).

And perhaps someone else can join in and do the same experiment and post photos? Let’s get this settled.

 

[Brooklyn]

Exactly!! Even MORE unlikely to spread around like that! Tell you what, I’ll bring an altar-bread home with me tomorrow after I’ve done my sacristan duties, and try it. You do the same, and post photographs. (Sorry, I haven’t got a good enough camera).

And perhaps someone else can join in and do the same experiment and post photos? Let’s get this settled.

I’ve posted this video before, but here it is again showing what happen when you receive CITH.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqD…eature=related

 

[rben20]

Glove experiment is interesting.

 

[rben20]

…
The Church teaches that when the Eucharist looses the appearance of bread that the real presence is no longer there.

Looking at that glove I do not see bread, I see dust.

 

[TempleServant]

I dont quite think that this was/is the case.
And, CITH is not a world-wide accepted/approved practice, only in certian areas of the globe.

It’s one thing to say: “They don’t do COTT”. It’s quite another to say: “We’re going to drop it”.

 

[rben20]

Did you notice that was your 666th post?

To be fair to us “trolls” (maybe you think I’m one, or not, it’s no biggy) I only look at the posts on the left of the screen, not what forums they are in. I didn’t realise that there are some forums where angels should fear to tread.

It was deleted for that reason maybe I don’t think you are one for the record and while I don’t agree with the link (I receive only COTT) that you shared from the motherteresa.org site I think it does put a better light on the new practice for Roman.

 

[TimothyH]

If some of the Precious Blood were to spill on a rug and be absorbed, one could argue that it had lost the appearance of wine. If one were to pour a large quantity of water on the spot, the wine would be so dispersed in the water that it would almost definitely loose the appearance of wine. This is, in fact, what some do when the precious blood is spilled, dilute it with water to the point where it no longer has the appearance of wine. There is no rule about exactly when it looses the appearance.

The same can be argued of the appearance of bread. When does it cease to have the appearance of bread? It would probably depend on your eyesight and taste buds, which would be different for each person. One sees bread particles while the other sees dust while I can’t really see anything on that glove with my poor eyesight. When the priest fractures the Eucharist, I guarantee that molecules of bread float away into the air.

So the question is, when have I done enough to show Jesus the intent of my heart, that I live him and am grateful to him. What that is for each person is up to each person and not for anyone else to judge.

-Tim-

 

[Big_Feet]

It’s one thing to say: “They don’t do COTT”. It’s quite another to say: “We’re going to drop it”.

COTT is an acceptable, even preferred practice encouraged by the Church in areas that accept and allow CITH.
I am not sure where you are getting these quotes from, but I know no one who says prior to or upon receiving the consecrated host ITH "“We’re going to drop it.”

 

[rben20]

If some of the Precious Blood were to spill on a rug and be absorbed, one could argue that it had lost the appearance of wine. If one were to pour a large quantity of water on the spot, the wine would be so dispersed in the water that it would almost definitely loose the appearance of wine. This is, in fact, what some do when the precious blood is spilled, dilute it with water to the point where it no longer has the appearance of wine. There is no rule about exactly when it looses the appearance.

The same can be argued of the appearance of bread. When does it cease to have the appearance of bread? It would probably depend on your eyesight and taste buds, which would be different for each person. One sees bread particles while the other sees dust while I can’t really see anything on that glove with my poor eyesight. When the priest fractures the Eucharist, I guarantee that molecules of bread float away into the air.

So the question is, when have I done enough to show Jesus the intent of my heart, that I live him and am grateful to him. What that is for each person is up to each person and not for anyone else to judge.

-Tim-

I just don’t understand quite clearly how this reconciles with altar boys. I was one and we were taught by our priest to “catch” the host should it fall including drops of wine from indiction (we did this at our parish). We were told not to flip over our patens for there could be particles. We were then instructed to take our patens straight to the priest to be cleaned. If I am not mistaken, any particles are put in the chalice and is then consumed by the priest. So what I’m trying to get at here is…either CITH proponents are fighting for straws or I’ve been taught wrong since childhood the importance of these particles. For the record I am fine with people receiving CITH, I used to before I found the older practice more reverent for myself.

 

[Rich_C]

I just don’t understand quite clearly how this reconciles with altar boys. I was one and we were taught by our priest to “catch” the host should it fall including drops of wine from indiction (we did this at our parish). We were told not to flip over our patens for there could be particles. We were then instructed to take our patens straight to the priest to be cleaned. If I am not mistaken, any particles are put in the chalice and is then consumed by the priest. So what I’m trying to get at here is…either CITH proponents are fighting for straws or I’ve been taught wrong since childhood the importance of these particles. For the record I am fine with people receiving CITH, I used to before I found the older practice more reverent for myself.

For the record, I’ve also seen this kind of reverence for the empty vessels after Mass. In my parish growing up (OF only) the priest was the only one allowed to wash them and it was done in a special sink not hooked to the normal plumbing.

 

[TimothyH]

I just don’t understand quite clearly how this reconciles with altar boys. I was one and we were taught by our priest to “catch” the host should it fall including drops of wine from indiction (we did this at our parish). We were told not to flip over our patens for there could be particles. We were then instructed to take our patens straight to the priest to be cleaned. If I am not mistaken, any particles are put in the chalice and is then consumed by the priest. So what I’m trying to get at here is…either CITH proponents are fighting for straws or I’ve been taught wrong since childhood the importance of these particles. For the record I am fine with people receiving CITH, I used to before I found the older practice more reverent for myself.

You and your priest are absolutely correct. He looks at the paten and sees particles of bread. I look at my hand and see none.

No one is a proponent of recieving in the hand. Certainly I am not. Many just don’t care for being told that they are profaning the Blessed Sacrament or that they love Jesus less or will be loved by Jesus less for doing so.

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

No one is a proponent of recieving in the hand.

I’m not trying to be a partisan either way here, but I don’t see how some could choose to receive communion in the hand when they have the option to receive on the tongue and then claim not to be a proponent of receiving in the hand. That doesn’t make sense to me.

Many just don’t care for being told that they are profaning the Blessed Sacrament or that they love Jesus less or will be loved by Jesus less for doing so.

I definitely appreciate your point here, but I have to say it’s a very weird situation when exactly that was pretty much universally taught for hundreds of years right up until the time that so many people were “profaning the sacrament” illicitly that the Holy See decided to say that it suddenly wasn’t “profaning the sacrament” any more. That one is pretty hard to explain.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’m not trying to be a partisan either way here, but I don’t see how some could choose to receive communion in the hand when they have the option to receive on the tongue and then claim not to be a proponent of receiving in the hand. That doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s the same sort of logic that says that we can have preference for either the OF or the EF but we can’t believe our reasons for our preference have any greater significance than “I like chocolate more than I like vanilla.” In this case, I guess we have to say “I choose CITH or COTT just because I like it.” It seems to me, though, that reasons behind choices in religious practices should have a bit more depth. I believe that they do; I think we would be hard-pressed to find people on CAF whose only reason for choosing EF or OF or CITH or COTT is that they like it that way, end of story.

I definitely appreciate your point here, but I have to say it’s a very weird situation when exactly that was pretty much universally taught for hundreds of years right up until the time that so many people were “profaning the sacrament” illicitly that the Holy See decided to say that it suddenly wasn’t “profaning the sacrament” any more. That one is pretty hard to explain.

This is exactly what I thought when I read TimothyH’s post. The only way out of it seems to be to say that in previous years when priests, catechists, etc, taught that touching the Sacrament profaned it they were wrong. Or is profanation relative?

One difficulty caused by all the changes in Catholic practice over the past 40+ years is that it makes one wonder what else that has been taught as a truth is in actuality not. Please note that I’m not saying that the Faith has changed (it cannot and the Church of Rome can never fall into heresy), but I am saying that people can easily take it to be the case when so many obvious things have changed.

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

ByzCath is correct, it is only the Body of Christ so long as you can identify it as bread. That is what the Church teaches.

The same can be argued of the appearance of bread. When does it cease to have the appearance of bread? It would probably depend on your eyesight and taste buds, which would be different for each person. One sees bread particles while the other sees dust while I can’t really see anything on that glove with my poor eyesight. When the priest fractures the Eucharist, I guarantee that molecules of bread float away into the air.

Ooh, I could do a box model to calculate that

I just don’t understand quite clearly how this reconciles with altar boys. I was one and we were taught by our priest to “catch” the host should it fall including drops of wine from indiction (we did this at our parish). We were told not to flip over our patens for there could be particles. We were then instructed to take our patens straight to the priest to be cleaned. If I am not mistaken, any particles are put in the chalice and is then consumed by the priest. So what I’m trying to get at here is…either CITH proponents are fighting for straws or I’ve been taught wrong since childhood the importance of these particles. For the record I am fine with people receiving CITH, I used to before I found the older practice more reverent for myself.

People were a little more … cautious back then (and a little more scrupulous). There’s nothing wrong with a little caution, but some people’s understand was closer to OCD (trying to find something which wasn’t actually there). There is nothing wrong with what you describe, but it may not be required (depends if you can see bread or not).

It is absolutely correct though that if you can’t tell it’s bread, it’s not the Eucharist.