Preventable loss of the Blessed Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Father_Fred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ok here is a puzzle on this discussion.

a local congregant with a cold, while the host is partially desolved, has a sneeze attack, and blows
GOD all over his pew area in a uncontrolled fit.

describe the proper actions and procedures you must
do at once.

we had this question in one of my seminary classes.
 
This is not a debate that is winnable.

The ultimate premise is that the priest and only the priest has a complete sense of the Eucharist and must exert total control over its distribution and handling. The only safe way to handle the communion question is for a consecrated minister to ram it into our mouths and watch us swallow. The whole argument is based on the statements of mystics whom the church does not command us to believe in the first place but also cannot be successfully argued with. If Fr. Fred thinks that the only way to distribute communion is with a paten under the chin and a delivery of the Eucharist onto a waiting tongue that is reality to him and nothing you say or do is going to change that.

The arguments just tend to cloud the real interaction between Jesus the giver of the Food and the follower, the recipient of the Food. It is that intimate interaction between God and man that is where the real focus should be on and the mystery reside.
 
ok here is a puzzle on this discussion.

a local congregant with a cold, while the host is partially dissolved, has a sneeze attack, and blows
GOD all over his pew area in a uncontrolled fit.

describe the proper actions and procedures you must
do at once.

we had this question in one of my seminary classes.
A. You wash down the entire pew area with water and pour the whole 300 gallons down the earth drain in the sacristy?
While doing this allow the priest to interrogate the congregant on what was their motive for sneezing and what could have been done to prevent it.
B. You allow that God has this contingency covered and stays behind in the congregant. Reassure the congregant that “these things happen and God does not take it personally”, while making a reasonable attempt at picking up any recognizable pieces for prudent disposal in the earth sink.
C. Always have a server with a platen ready to block any possible sneeze so that the host lands on gold and not the carpet.
👍
 
True. And loss from Communion in the hand today is accidental for most Eucharistic ministers and recipients.

But it is still loss of the Living Lord Jesus Christ, and it is still preventable. See post #20 and the close of post #42, “Where do you find . . . Bishops?”

That’s why it must stop at all costs.
The point I was making, though, is that I don’t believe this type of thing happens any more frequently with Communion in the hand than with any of the other approved methods of reception.

We must certainly stop the loss of the Body and Blood of Christ whenever possible. But from time to time, because we are human, it will happen.
 
I agree with you…
I.e., with Eilish Maura
Further, I would suggest that molecules of the Host may likely break away at times from the finger of the priest or minister and fall–whether taken by hand or tongue.
Because a molecule is invisible to the unaided eye it does not fit the definition of a sacrament, which is a visible sign. See Catechism 774, second sentence. So a molecule off the Blessed Sacrament is not the Blessed Sacrament, even though under a microscope it appears as the wheat of the sacrament. Jesus did not intend His sacraments for lab use.
I’d suggest we’re being a tad too legalistic here.
If we insist on a molecular Jesus, yes.
We’re doing the best we are able as human beings.
Yes, but only if we use the ordinary means to preserve the Blessed Sacrament. This means looking for any remaining Fragment after we have put the manufactured Host into our mouths.
If we see a fragment, it will be taken care of.
I.e., consumed, and not brushed off as one threader reports.
If we don’t see it (because of its tiny size), we’re still doing the best that can be expected or hoped for.
Yes, and that’s why this thread is about only clearly recognizable Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. See Fact 1, post #1.
 
This is not a debate that is winnable.
I’m not clear what debated question Chuck H has in mind.
The ultimate premise is that the priest and only the priest has a complete sense of the Eucharist and must exert total control over its distribution and handling.
If “the priest” is The Priest, Jesus Christ, then yes, Jesus and only Jesus has a complete sense of the Eucharist, and that is the ultimate premise of this thread.

But even Jesus Christ does not exert total control over the Eucharist, since He has given some control over its distribution and handling to his followers, more to His priests than to others. The whole purpose of this tread is, with His help, to improve our part of His arrangement.
The only safe way to handle the communion question is for a consecrated minister to ram it into our mouths and watch us swallow.
Hmmm. There’s gotta be a better way.
The whole argument is based on the statements of mystics whom the church does not command us to believe in the first place but also cannot be successfully argued with.
In this thread the main rational argument is based on the ten Basic Facts in post #1, except Fact 2, which is an affirmation of faith grounding and powering my entire argument. The reason why I numbered the facts is so that commenters could cite them by number and so conduct an orderly discussion of this supremely important topic.
If Fr. Fred thinks that the only way to distribute communion is with a paten under the chin and a delivery of the Eucharist onto a waiting tongue that is reality to him and nothing you say or do is going to change that.
I state my opinion on distributing Communion in post #43, and would welcome a response taking this post into account.
The arguments just tend to cloud the real interaction between Jesus the giver of the Food and the follower, the recipient of the Food.
I agree, if they are an exercise in one-upmanship and not a cooperative effort to distinguish what is true from what is false or incomplete in the two theses I am defending: the concluding propositions of post #1.
It is that intimate interaction between God and man that is where the real focus should be on and the mystery reside.
I could not agree more with Chuck H on this, and it is precisely that intimate interaction which God is promoting in this thread by helping us all to clear away the obstacles to it.
 
I will say that I’ve not seen any deliberately careless treatment of the Holy Mysteries.

This is not to say it hasn’t happened somewhere, but this is the exception, don’t you think?
 
I’m not clear what debated question Chuck H has in mind.

If “the priest” is The Priest, Jesus Christ, then yes, Jesus and only Jesus has a complete sense of the Eucharist, and that is the ultimate premise of this thread.

But even Jesus Christ does not exert total control over the Eucharist, since He has given some control over its distribution and handling to his followers, more to His priests than to others. The whole purpose of this tread is, with His help, to improve our part of His arrangement.

Hmmm. There’s gotta be a better way.

In this thread the main rational argument is based on the ten Basic Facts in post #1, except Fact 2, which is an affirmation of faith grounding and powering my entire argument. The reason why I numbered the facts is so that commenters could cite them by number and so conduct an orderly discussion of this supremely important topic.

I state my opinion on distributing Communion in post #43, and would welcome a response taking this post into account.

I agree, if they are an exercise in one-upmanship and not a cooperative effort to distinguish what is true from what is false or incomplete in the two theses I am defending: the concluding propositions of post #1.

I could not agree more with Chuck H on this, and it is precisely that intimate interaction which God is promoting in this thread by helping us all to clear away the obstacles to it.
Bless me Father for I can never find numbered threads.😊

My argument all comes down to this.
The Father sent His only son down and placed Him in the hands of Man. The essential being of Jesus could never be destroyed by anyone. The prophets described Him so people would recognize Him and yet some in Israel plotted for His abuse and death. If this were the total outcome of His incarnation and life it would have been a wasted trip. But there were those, also in Israel, who followed Him and learned from Him and went on to spread His message around the world. (I am sure you know catechism, but I am building a framework here).

As I described the last supper in previous posts, He entrusted his body and blood to some pretty rough and simple guys and He offered Himself to them simply in an act of love and trust. Jesus knew they had free will and there was nothing to stop them from running all the way to Egypt after His arrest but He trusted and His trust was repaid by everyone of the men who stayed at the table with Him.

I think Mother Church’s responsibility is to teach and then trust. From my standpoint the Church has done that very well and I go up to receive with a deep appreciation of what I am receiving.

Trust the people you give the Eucharist to. In the same way Jesus trusted the disciples. And never forget you represent the biggest, most powerful Entity that was and is and will be. If He is willing to trust and knows all, I have little doubt he can handle the small stuff. God simply cannot fall anywhere that isn’t Him and knows each person’s heart so He knows when reverence is and isn’t.
 
I will say that I’ve not seen any deliberately careless treatment of the Holy Mysteries.
Bishop Basil is Orthodox. Probably 95% of the preventable loss discussed in this thread occurs in the Latin rite. Of that 95% probably 98% occurs in Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue. If I am not mistaken, Communion in the hand is exceptional in the Orthodox tradition.
This is not to say it hasn’t happened somewhere, but this is the exception, don’t you think?
From post #1, Facts 6, 7, and 8:
  1. No document from Rome or from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops instructs CHs to check their “paten hand” for Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament and to consume any found.
  1. Neither does any US bishop I know of so instruct and enforce his instructions. Please name one or more who does.
  1. Where these enforced instructions are not in place, not one CH in ten checks his “paten hand” for Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament and consumes any found.
Because Fact 8 is a matter of simple observation available to all, we must conclude that any resulting loss is the rule rather than the exception.

And that loss is preventable precisely because of Facts 6 and 7.
 
Bishop Basil is Orthodox. Probably 95% of the preventable loss discussed in this thread occurs in the Latin rite. Of that 95% probably 98% occurs in Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue. If I am not mistaken, Communion in the hand is exceptional in the Orthodox tradition.

From post #1, Facts 6, 7, and 8:

Because Fact 8 is a matter of simple observation available to all, we must conclude that any resulting loss is the rule rather than the exception.

And that loss is preventable precisely because of Facts 6 and 7.
Since most of those attending OF masses are NOT tripping over recognizable fragments that have been ‘lost’ it seems what has been done to date has been sufficient and effective.
 
Father Fred, both points need to be considered in light of common sense if nothing else…

6. No document from Rome or from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops instructs CHs to check their “paten hand” for Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament and to consume any found.

7. Neither does any US bishop I know of so instruct and enforce his instructions. Please name one or more who does.


Unfortunately, too many who attend the NO and receive on their patens of flesh receive little or NO instruction (pun intended) to safeguard the greatest gift we could imagine.

Is it a wonder that so many (*perhaps the same percentages by coincidence:rolleyes: *) have a new and lessener belief in the Real Presence. The more casual or personal the attitude, the more casual or personal the actual belief. Sad.

Much could be prevented by stronger instruction, stronger reverence, and stronger leadership.

And a good dose of common sense.

Thanks for your efforts.

.
 
BASIC FACTS:
  1. No document from Rome or from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops instructs CHs to check their “paten hand” for Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament and to consume any found.
I beg to differ Father. Please read Instruction on the Eucharist (Redemptionis sacramentum)
Author: Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline Of The Sacraments
ISBN: 1-57455-619-3
Binding Information: Perfect Bound Paperback
Pages: 84
Size: 6.0"" X 9.0"" Inches

All the instructions that you are asking for are explained in this book.
  1. Neither does any US bishop I know of so instruct and enforce his instructions. Please name one or more who does.
    .
Bp. Arthur J. O’Neill of Rockford, Illinois, and his successor Bp Thomas Doran–Bp. Joseph Greene of blessed memory–Cardinal George of Chicago to name just a few.
 
I beg to differ Father. Please read Instruction on the Eucharist (Redemptionis sacramentum)
Author: Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline Of The Sacraments
ISBN: 1-57455-619-3
Binding Information: Perfect Bound Paperback
Pages: 84
Size: 6.0"" X 9.0"" Inches

All the instructions that you are asking for are explained in this book.
A wecome reference from Frbrenden. In relevant part it reads
[92.] . . . *f any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, . . . 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. *
Noteworthy here is the absence of reference to any Fragments of the Host remaining in the “paten hand” and of instruction to look for and consume them. The same is true of the current USCCB instruction. Nonetheless, some communicants do check their "paten hands, thank God; as expected, the vast majority do not.
Redemptionis sacramentum continues:
If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful
.
From the presumed fact of loss following on Fact 8, post #1, the risk of preventable loss, therefore of profanation, is solidly established. Under this cited language an immediate moratorium on Communion in the hand should be imposed by competent authority, which is any canonical pastor, whether bishop or ordinary priest. See post #20 toward the end.
  1. Neither does any US bishop I know of so instruct and enforce his instructions. Please name one or more who does.
Bp. Arthur J. O’Neill of Rockford, Illinois, and his successor Bp Thomas Doran–Bp. Joseph Greene of blessed memory–Cardinal George of Chicago to name just a few.
I think it unlikely that Chicago or Rockford have added anything to the USCCB instruction, so Frbrenden will be doing this thread a major service if he cites any current diocesan language instructing CHs to check their paten hands and consume any Fragments found.

Mere instruction does not suffice, of course, when it comes to avoiding profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. Enforcement is required. What enforcement is in place at Chicago and Rockford, if the specified instruction has been promulgated there?
 
Excuse me, Father, but you asked this:
  1. Neither does any US bishop I know of so instruct and enforce his instructions. Please name one or more who does.
.
I did so with the listing of bishops in Rockford, Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, and Charlotte, NC. I have personally received instruction from one of the bishops in Rockford, and I have personal knowledge of the others. For you to ask me to:
I think it unlikely that Chicago or Rockford have added anything to the USCCB instruction, so Frbrenden will be doing this thread a major service if he cites any current diocesan language instructing CHs to check their paten hands and consume any Fragments found.

Mere instruction does not suffice, of course, when it comes to avoiding profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. Enforcement is required. What enforcement is in place at Chicago and Rockford, if the specified instruction has been promulgated there?
is changing the request to something that is difficult to document, as it came by means of talking to various bishops on a personal basis.

At this point, Father, I believe that you have crossed the line into scrupulosity. In other words, you are beating a dead horse. No one on this list is going to be able to give you a 100% guarantee that every Fragment is being dealt with according to Canon law, and when you are assured that there are some people out there that are doing all they can to make sure that Fragments are not lost willy-nilly, you throw up a brick wall by asking for documentation. Give it a rest.

I am no longer going to post on this subject, nor communicate about this subject with you via any means.

By the way, the following is Wikipedia’s listing on Scrupulosity. I think you should study it:

***From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scrupulosity is obsessive concern with one’s personal sins, including “sinful” acts or thoughts usually considered minor or trivial within their religious tradition. The term is derived from the Latin scrupulus, a sharp stone, implying a stabbing pain on the conscience.
In modern times, scrupulosity is often considered to be a religious expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or the unrelated obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. The scrupulous person lacks a balanced religious outlook, veering to the extreme. Often the person has a morbid feeling that they are rejected by God and doomed to damnation despite rigid adherence to rituals or rules of conduct. The over-scrupulous person may refuse to acknowledge the verdict of otherwise accepted religious authorities that he or she is being excessively concerned with moot religious points.[citation needed]
In Catholicism, scrupulosity in itself is not considered to be sinful; some well-known saints, including Ignatius Loyola, and Alphonsus Liguori struggled with scrupulosity. Some Catholic scholars have speculated that Martin Luther, whose ideas and writings helped give rise to the Protestant Reformation, suffered from scrupulosity and broke with the Catholic Church because he could not accept Catholic assurances of grace in the face of his feelings of sinfulness.[citation needed]
Protestants are likely to disagree that scrupulosity was the basis for Luther’s actions, but some agree that he suffered from scrupulosity. Some Protestants also find traces of scrupulosity in the writings of the 17th century Puritan pastor and author John Bunyan.
In overcoming scrupulosity, medical treatment for OCD may be used alongside religious counseling, wherein a member of the clergy will counsel the subject to focus on positive, objective messages of religious faith rather than subjective feelings of sinfulness and objection; he or she may also advise the person to avoid typical scrupulous behaviors, which can include repeating past confessions or constant bathing.[citation needed]
[edit]***
 
Since most of those attending OF masses are NOT tripping over recognizable fragments that have been ‘lost’ it seems what has been done to date has been sufficient and effective.
If “OF masses” means “Old Fashioned Masses” in which Holy Communion is distributed only on the tongue with a communion paten properly used, then I agree that for those Masses
. . . it seems what has been done to date has been sufficient and effective.
If “OF masses” means something else, I have to know what that is in order to respond appropriately.
 
If “OF masses” means “Old Fashioned Masses” in which Holy Communion is distributed only on the tongue with a communion paten properly used, then I agree that for those Masses

If “OF masses” means something else, I have to know what that is in order to respond appropriately.
Just yesterday at a OF Liturgy, a host went flying, literally, about 3 feet from the hands of the communicant. Yes there was an altar boy with patent assisting the EMHC.

Even in this very consciencious parish, the EMHC, the altar boy, and the communicant just stood there, as did the line in front of the celebrant.

Fr stopped both lines, went to host and knelt on the floor. He picked up the host and then proceeded to search the floor for any particle. He found more than one…they would have been simply stepped on my other communicants.

Months ago he had the carpet removed and the hardwood floors redone to prepare for just such an incident should it happen.

That probably is what distinguishes some from others. …
Preventative care, vs I don’t care.

.
 
If “OF masses” means “Old Fashioned Masses” in which Holy Communion is distributed only on the tongue with a communion paten properly used, then I agree that for those Masses

If “OF masses” means something else, I have to know what that is in order to respond appropriately.
It is an abbreviation for a term used in the Pope’s MP last year.

:whistle: :yawn: :ouch: :doh2:
 
It is an abbreviation for a term used in the Pope’s MP last year.

:whistle: :yawn: :ouch: :doh2:
My thanks to threader Eilish Maura. The abbreviation, then, is for Ordinary Form Masses; i.e., for Novus Ordo Masses, which are far more common in the Latin rite than Extraordinay Form (EF) Masses, i.e., Masses using the 1962 Roman Missal.

This thread is not about EF Masses, in which Communion is distributed only on the tongue and communion patens are properly used. Here, malice apart, any loss of the Blessed Sacrament is purely accidental, not preventable, because the ordinary means for preventing that loss are carefully used.

This thread is about OF Masses, where loss occurs precisely because the ordinary means for preventing it are not used. That is, most bishops and pastors are not instructing the people to check their paten hands for Fragments of the Host and are not enforcing any instructions they do give.

By instructions, of course, I mean published rules which can be cited. I do not mean the private conversations with clergy, however correct and praiseworthy, to which Frbrenden refers.

I am still waiting for someone to cite any such instruction from a diocesan newspaper or a parish bulletin. The instruction should provide for the necessary enforcement.

It does not take much thinking to see how difficult enforcement of paten-hand-checking would be. For this reason an immediate moratorium on Communion in the hand should be imposed by bishops and pastors until an effective enforcement plan can be worked out. That is, if all concerned think Communion in the hand is worth the trouble.

After all, who or what is more important: hand, tongue, or Jesus Christ, who is everywhere in OF Masses being needlessly stepped on?
 
If “OF masses” means something else, I have to know what that is in order to respond appropriately.

OF means “ordinary form,” as His Holiness called the 1970 missal in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificem.

EF means “extraordinary form” or the missal of 1962, aka Tridentine mass.
 
absolutely

It only takes a few minutes to watch a couple dozen people receive in the hand to agree with you.

Most take and consume the Host, and their eyes never go to the other hand. They are watching where they walk, or looking at the sanctuary, or guiding their small ones.

I cannot remember seeing anyone receive and then pause or even walk away slowly while they inspect their hands.
In all of the years I have received in the hand, I have had two or three times where there has been a recognizable fragment left in my hand - and each time I consumed it.

I think the basic presumption - that there are recognizable fragments in our hands a lot - is simply not sustained.

Having said that, I would agree with the posters that catechesis could be much better. However, I simply do not agree with the basic premise that this is a common and repeated occurance. It most certainly is not, in my experience.

Further, the point should be made that there is no sacrilege where there is no intent, as sacrilege implies intent at the minimum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top