M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
No, I’m just giving my opinion.
Receiving communion in the hand using a purificator?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
I’d agree that if this were to be done, the faithful would need to have a burse for their “purificators”, treating them like corporals (that is, folding in thirds toward the center, with no open ends).
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I am also an essential employee, who works in an industry whete gettin PPE has been difficult, and I do not like hearing about people not using that equipment properly. Nothing in your post indicates you are trained. Sorry if I offended, but I am also offended by improper use if lifesaving PPE.
P
PetraG
Guest
That wasn’t even valid matter for consecration.
When you see the abbreviation STh in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that stands for “Summa Theologica.” Because St. Thomas Aquinas was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius V in 1567, who said he was “the most brilliant light of the Church,” whose works are “the most certain rule of Christian doctrine by which he enlightened the Apostolic Church in answering conclusively numberless errors … which illumination has often been evident in the past and recently stood forth prominently in the decrees of the Council of Trent.”
How is it scrupulous to keep doing what the faithful have always done while saying “others will have to do what they see fit”? I don’t see anything scrupulous about that?
You’re outlining reasons in support of indifference. Indifference is actually considered to be a really bad thing.
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, ‘I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,’ and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked…” Rev. 3:15-17
When Our Lord made his entry into Jerusalem, people threw their cloaks on the road for the donkey to walk on. Walk on him? No. Just no. Come on. This is getting silly.
Last edited:
A
Agnus-Dei
Guest
You did not hear about it being used improperly by me personally. The other people, yes, I could agree. They all were wearing the now typical two layer cloth design. Loose, with gaps all around. These were not approved PPE, so no loss in that regard. Everyone fooling with them when they moved, it was a mess. I doubt any protective quality at all really.
I see no importance, nor requirement to provide credentials when making a post here describing what I observed. Not pertinent to the discussion.
Dominus vobiscum
I see no importance, nor requirement to provide credentials when making a post here describing what I observed. Not pertinent to the discussion.
Dominus vobiscum
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Referring to the catechism is to refer to official teaching. If that particular section of the catechism refers to a specific part of Summa, then that particular part of Summa is part of official church teaching. To simply refer to Summa is hardly the same thing since Summa as a whole is not doctrine no matter what that pope thought of Thomas.
Then you should read my whole reply and what I replied to, in order to get the context.
I’m pointing out the simple fact that he shed his body on this, apparently, dirty ground through all of his life without anything in scripture supporting the idea that he found that offending. Yet people are making his body touching the ground a problem. So I simply wonder where that idea comes from?
Yes, come on.
Margaret_Ann:
I thought about this, crafting some kind of small burse, and ironing the purificator into folds precisely as you describe.
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting where you are going with all of this, but it seems to me like you want to make a case for not exercising any more care or caution with handling the Body of Christ than you would with handling any other sort of food. This runs counter to centuries of traditional Catholic practice. The doctrine of Christ being truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Blessed Sacrament, that has the outward appearance and accidents of unleavened wafer bread and pure grape wine, developed and was better understood over time. Logical conclusions were drawn, such as “how, then, should these species be treated?”, “what about crumbs and droplets?”, “do we, then, worship these Species as God Incarnate Himself?”, “should we not then pray to, and adore, these Species as Christ Himself?”, and many more. Very elaborated procedures developed for the proper and reverent treatment of the Body of Christ. We came to see that It is not to be treated “just like regular food”.Margaret_Ann:
You don’t think reverence has gone into scrupulosity when people say something is “dirty” when Jesus obviously did not think so himself, according to scripture?
I know you are going to do as you see fit, but I am going to observe these traditional practices, and maintain these traditional sensibilities, and so will many, many Catholics besides me.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Is there any indication from scripture that they were looking for any particles of bread, falling off, during the last supper? Are there any instructions from Jesus or the apostles that this should be done in order not to “desecrate” his body?
You made all kind off assertions earlier about his body being trampled upon by dirty shoes and so on and how this was something utterly horrible. I then simply pointed out the fact that Jesus shed his body to the ground all the time when he lived here without that being a problem for him then. Actually he shed about 9 lbs per year from his skin alone. This was eaten by bacteria and other critters as well as trampled on by other persons. Not that it was a goal but as a normal part of life.
What I’m getting at is that the idea of that it would be the horror of all horrors if some particles of the “body” fell off simply does not seem… balanced.
If this practice you are referring to isn’t found in scripture or from the apostles then is it even a possibility that this is is a piety that has grown, and grown and grown over the centuries to a level that simply isn’t proportional to what is presented during the last supper?
Just asking. And no need to ask forgiveness. I take no offense from an open discussion.
P
PetraG
Guest
There is no indication in Holy Scriptures that the True Presence is diminished by being divided, and it is the judgement of the Church Fathers at Trent that particles are also the Holy Eucharist.
Council of Trent:
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.
The Council of Trent took pains to include particles as still being worthy of the worship of latria due to the Blessed Sacrament. They judged that this piety is proportional and right.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Did I say it was diminished?
P
PetraG
Guest
I could hardly assume you meant there is no disrespect in walking on consecrated hosts?
What are you saying, if not that small particles are not worthy of the same worship and utmost respect as the Eucharist in any larger form or at any other time?
I’m sorry, I must have missed something; I am very confused.
You seemed to be talking as if small particles are like stray hairs or flaky skin? (I am referring to particles that are clearly distinguishable by inspection from dust.)
What are you saying, if not that small particles are not worthy of the same worship and utmost respect as the Eucharist in any larger form or at any other time?
I’m sorry, I must have missed something; I am very confused.
You seemed to be talking as if small particles are like stray hairs or flaky skin? (I am referring to particles that are clearly distinguishable by inspection from dust.)
Last edited:
As I said above, what it means, and everything it entails, to say that “This is the Body of Christ”, became clearer over time. If we know, for instance, that a 1mm crumb of bread retains the accidents of bread, and is thus the Body of Christ whole and entire, then how we would treat that “crumb of bread” logically follows. Using your reasoning, there would be no such thing as Adoration or Benediction, because Our Lord didn’t mention this, and neither did the apostles (at least not so far as we are aware). It developed later, again, as the Church became more aware of the implications of what it means to have the Eucharistic Lord living among us.
Scripture does not record each and every word or action of Jesus on this earth. He very well may have told the apostles to treat His Body with reverence… even small visible particles. As noted above, He probably didn’t say anything about Adoration or Benediction either, but we do it.
Those fragments of His Body that were shed, as part of normal human biology and nature, were dead fragments. Even if He cut His finger, let’s say in his carpentry and stonemasonry work, or tore off a small piece of skin from this cut, that blood or that flesh would die within seconds. The Eucharist is His living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, whole and entire, as long as the outward accidents of bread and wine remain.
Not according to what @PetraG points out, from the teaching of the Council of Trent. Trent was a doctrinal council of the Church, which took the logical implications of what “Christ present in (or, perhaps more properly, as) the Holy Eucharist” means. Again, development of doctrine, more precise elaboration.
P
puer.dei
Guest
Nothing indicated otherwise, either.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Yes, talking about quickly removing an N95 so that one could receive Communion, indicates to me that someone does not know what they are doing.
Sadly, I see it everyday, people using PPE that they have no clue how to use properly. My reason for posting what I did was because of that experience.
Sadly, I see it everyday, people using PPE that they have no clue how to use properly. My reason for posting what I did was because of that experience.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, I’d say that in a church the masks are there to keep aerosols out of the air from singing or speaking loudly (which has been experimentally shown to project aerosols farther, but c’mon, we knew that).
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Key here is “appearance”. When a particle is so small that it is no longer apparent to the eye as bread, the presence does not remain.
P
PetraG
Guest
As far as I know, the Church has never defined some fragment size so small that the True Presence is not there. (She may have; I just haven’t found it.) Having said that, the Church surely recognizes that it is impossible to contain something you can’t see. The Church does trust that God knows what we can do and what we can’t do. We can be careful about the small fragments we know will be there, but the Almighty does not engage in “gotcha.” (Our more obvious failings, the ones anyone who has to live with us knows quite well even if we don’t, are numerous enough.)
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Do the consecrated bread and wine cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ when the Mass is over?
No. During the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and this they remain. They cannot turn back into bread and wine, for they are no longer bread and wine at all. There is thus no reason for them to change back to their “normal” state after the special circumstances of the Mass are past. Once the substance has really changed, the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” ( Catechism , no. 1377). Against those who maintained that the bread that is consecrated during the Eucharist has no sanctifying power if it is left over until the next day, St. Cyril of Alexandria replied, “Christ is not altered, nor is his holy body changed, but the power of the consecration and his life-giving grace is perpetual in it” ( Letter 83, to Calosyrius, Bishop of Arsinoe [ PG 76, 1076]). The Church teaches that Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain (cf. Catechism , no. 1377).
Please note that the Church states “appearance”. A crumb so small that it is indistinguishable from a fleck of debris or paper, an appearance that looks like a fragment of the host. The Church has never taught that a microscope must be used to determine, or even a magnifying glass.
In the US, hosts are manufactured in such a way that they do not “crumble”. The only crumbs are from the fracture. Father does not distribute those fractured pieces to anyone who receives in the hand.
No. During the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and this they remain. They cannot turn back into bread and wine, for they are no longer bread and wine at all. There is thus no reason for them to change back to their “normal” state after the special circumstances of the Mass are past. Once the substance has really changed, the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” ( Catechism , no. 1377). Against those who maintained that the bread that is consecrated during the Eucharist has no sanctifying power if it is left over until the next day, St. Cyril of Alexandria replied, “Christ is not altered, nor is his holy body changed, but the power of the consecration and his life-giving grace is perpetual in it” ( Letter 83, to Calosyrius, Bishop of Arsinoe [ PG 76, 1076]). The Church teaches that Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain (cf. Catechism , no. 1377).
Please note that the Church states “appearance”. A crumb so small that it is indistinguishable from a fleck of debris or paper, an appearance that looks like a fragment of the host. The Church has never taught that a microscope must be used to determine, or even a magnifying glass.
In the US, hosts are manufactured in such a way that they do not “crumble”. The only crumbs are from the fracture. Father does not distribute those fractured pieces to anyone who receives in the hand.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, the small fragments tend to come from the fracture. I have been in parishes, though, where the pastor elects to use very large main hosts, the kind that he fractures into, well, this is the kind I mean:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These produce a far higher number of small fragments, obviously. That decision is above my pay grade, though. You do learn to be ready for the inevitable consequences, which includes small but still visible fragments on the corporals. Not often–in my experience, the priests are very careful to find those and consume them when purifying the sacred vessels–but often enough that you learn to keep an eye out.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Tell ya what: I’ll sell you 2L of water with 1dL of wine in it, at the price of a normal bottle of wine, and we’ll see how willing you are to buy that “wine” from me.
- Status