Receiving communion in the hand using a purificator?

[Michaelangelo]

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.)

I know English is far from my first language. But I don’t understand what isn’t communicated through my last couple of posts?

A hair is a part of my body regardless if it is attached or not. The fragments of bread some are so preoccupied with are the equivalent of a hair falling off the body of Jesus. Or the aerosol coming out of his mouth every time he opened his mouth.

Since there is no indication in scripture, or in the tradition from the apostles who were present at the last supper, that they were going over the floor and table with a fine comb looking for the inevitble crumbs falling off the bread. This obsession about bread fragments is a construction that came later.

Is this clearer now?

 

[PetraG]

I know English is far from my first language. But I don’t understand what isn’t communicated through my last couple of posts?

A hair is a part of my body regardless if it is attached or not. The fragments of bread some are so preoccupied with are the equivalent of a hair falling off the body of Jesus. Or the aerosol coming out of his mouth every time he opened his mouth.

Since there is no indication in scripture, or in the tradition from the apostles who were present at the last supper, that they were going over the floor and table with a fine comb looking for the inevitble crumbs falling off the bread. This obsession about bread fragments is a construction that came later.

Is this clearer now?

It isn’t the One, Holy, Catholic and Biblical Church. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If we want to know what the Apostles would say today, listen to the Magesterium, and especially the Church Councils. After all, if we don’t believe the successor bishops got the story straight, we have to just come out and admit that we don’t have the slightest idea what the original witnesses saw, heard or testified, do we?

 

[Michaelangelo]

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.

“Accidents”…
That fragment of bread faling off is the equivalent of a droplet in the aerosol that came out of the mouth of Jesus every single time he opened his mouth. He broke bread during the last supper and they were apparently not told to look for all the crumbs falling off that bread. So this is a later construction not coming from either Jesus or the apostles.

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.

Those are later inventions as well, yes.

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.

Yet that piece of information weren’t pased on to other bishops? Really?

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 skin cells you are referring to are known as Stratum corneum and are a mix of dead and not dead cells. Yet they are parts of his body as they all carry the his specific genetic information. And the cells in the blood and in living tissue take far more than a few seconds to die. Whole blood has a shelf life of three to six weeks. And if other tissues died within seconds how do you think organ transplants across continets are possible at all?

The Eucharist is His living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, whole and entire, as long as the outward accidents of bread and wine remain.

So you claim.

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.

Or man-made additions?

 

[Michaelangelo]

It isn’t the One, Holy, Catholic and Biblical Church. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If we want to know what the Apostles would say today, listen to the Magesterium, and especially the Church Councils. After all, if we don’t believe the successor bishops got the story straight, we have to just come out and admit that we don’t have the slightest idea what the original witnesses saw, heard or testified, do we?

It is you who are claiming the magisterium is the voice of the apostles. I’m not because I’ve never seen anything veryfing that claim.

 

[PetraG]

The skin cells you are referring to are known as Stratum corneum and are a mix of dead and not dead cells. Yet they are parts of his body as they all carry the his specific genetic information. And the cells in the blood and in living tissue take far more than a few seconds to die. Whole blood has a shelf life of three to six weeks . And if other tissues died within seconds how do you think organ transplants across continets are possible at all?

OK, but if I were to have died and donated a kidney before my parents died, the person who got my kidney doesn’t become their heir just because it has my parents’ DNA. Besides, this is all totally besides the point when it comes to what we know about the Body and Blood of the Lord because after resurrection death is defeated. It is irrelevant.

This debate was carried out at Trent and the learned Church Fathers who have been invested with the guidance of the Holy Spirit deemed the attitude that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in consecrated particles is an anathema. That is a vehement rejection of the premise that leaves no room for doubt.

It is you who are claiming the magisterium is the voice of the apostles. I’m not because I’ve never seen anything veryfing that claim.

That’s because I’m Roman Catholic and this is what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. I have no control over what a Protestant thinks.

You say there is no evidence it was this way, but I am very sure you have not a shred of evidence that it wasn’t!! Your premise is a made-up supposition without evidence that anyone ever believed it except that Trent condemned those who proposed it as absolutely wrong. You certainly have no evidence that the Apostles believed what you’re supposing they did. Where do you get the authority to throw out this imagined scenario? I have no idea. There is no evidence for it. (Honestly, even when Our Lord fed the multitudes, the Apostles were sent out to gather in the fragments that weren’t consumed…)

Anyway–either you accept what the Church teaches, or you don’t. The teaching of the Church has been posted here. If you won’t accept what the Church teaches, there is not much reason for me to waste my time on convincing you. Go talk to a priest; maybe he can convince you.

 

[Michaelangelo]

OK, but if I were to have died and donated a kidney before my parents died, the person who got my kidney doesn’t become their heir just because it has my parents’ DNA. Besides, this is all totally besides the point when it comes to what we know about the Body and Blood of the Lord because after resurrection death is defeated. It is irrelevant.

@HomeschoolDad made certain claims that I simply refuted. And the organ donor does not have to be dead.

This debate was carried out at Trent and the learned Church Fathers who have been invested with the guidance of the Holy Spirit deemed the attitude that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in consecrated particles is an anathema. That is a vehement rejection of the premise that leaves no room for doubt.

Yes they made certain philosophical assertions. But have I said anything about those fragments would not be the body, according to your view? Nope! I have said that this hunt for fragments has no support from Jesus or the apostles. Because none of the bishops trained by the apostles have recived such information that has been passed on. This practise is something that has come later. And that is fine by me. I don’t mind. All I’m saying is that these bread fragments are no different than all the other fragments of the body Jesus depostited every single day. And that was not a problem for him. Ergo, this is something that has become a problem later.

That’s because I’m Roman Catholic and this is what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. I have no control over what a Protestant thinks.

I’m no protestant.

You say there is no evidence it was this way, but I am very sure you have not a shred of evidence that it wasn’t!! Your premise is a made-up supposition without evidence that anyone ever believed it except that Trent condemned those who proposed it as absolutely wrong. You certainly have no evidence that the Apostles believed this.

I responded to this above.

Where do you get the authority to throw out this imagined scenario? I have no idea. There is no evidence for it. (Honestly, even when Our Lord fed the multitudes, the Apostles were sent out to gather in the fragments that weren’t consumed…)

There is no indication they were fragment hunting at those feedings. Gather leftovers and looking for minute fragments is hadrly the same thing.

Anyway–either you accept what the Church teaches, or you don’t. The teaching of the Church has been posted here.

Nothing in that quote from Trent says that you are obliged to look for minute fragments. I’m fine with you doing it. Trust me. That is not the issue.

If you won’t accept what the Church teaches, there is not much reason for me to waste my time on convincing you. Go talk to a priest; maybe he can convince you.

I have. With several actually. And they agree with me. The church have developed the ritual to look like this… because reasons. Which is perfectly fine. Rituals develop and become harmonized. But this is a later development.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Aaaanyhow! Since this clearly upsets you I will end this discussion. Becuse I do not wish to cause problems.

 

[PetraG]

I have. With several actually. And they agree with me. The church have developed the ritual to look like this… because reasons. Which is perfectly fine. Rituals develop and become harmonized. But this is a later development.

Aaaanyhow! Since this clearly upsets you I will end this discussion. Becuse I do not wish to cause problems.

Yes, exactly, that’s my point, too. There is no reason to continue a debate when the points have been made, no one is changing their minds, and no one is gaining anything in the edification department, either. Better to just be at peace…kind of reminds us why monastics thought a lot of silence was a good route to serene and peaceful fraternity.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I know English is far from my first language. But I don’t understand what isn’t communicated through my last couple of posts?

A hair is a part of my body regardless if it is attached or not. The fragments of bread some are so preoccupied with are the equivalent of a hair falling off the body of Jesus. Or the aerosol coming out of his mouth every time he opened his mouth.

Your English is far better than that of some native speakers. I would have had no clue. You are obviously a very intelligent person.

But I’m sorry, your concept of small fragments of the Host being the equivalent of stray parts or products of one’s body is just wrong. I understand where you are coming from, but even the smallest visible fragment, if It retains the outward accidents of bread, is the Body and Blood of Christ, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire — not just a part or a sloughed-off fragment of that Body, as would occur in nature with things such as hair, skin, aerosol, and so on. A particle of the Host that is as small as a letter on this screen, or even half that size, remains in and of Itself the Incarnate Lord of the Universe, again, whole and entire.

Since there is no indication in scripture, or in the tradition from the apostles who were present at the last supper, that they were going over the floor and table with a fine comb looking for the inevitble crumbs falling off the bread. This obsession about bread fragments is a construction that came later.

I can’t say with certitude, but keep in mind that this was the first time in human history that anyone had ever received the Holy Eucharist, and up until that evening, Our Lord had never explained to anyone what He meant when He said to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Just what He told the apostles (who, keep in mind, were all bishops) aside from what is recorded in Scripture, we have no way of knowing. It is even possible that He brought about a miracle to keep any crumbs from occurring or getting lost in the first place. Certainly this would have been within His power.

The skin cells you are referring to are known as Stratum corneum and are a mix of dead and not dead cells. Yet they are parts of his body as they all carry the his specific genetic information. And the cells in the blood and in living tissue take far more than a few seconds to die. Whole blood has a shelf life of three to six weeks . And if other tissues died within seconds how do you think organ transplants across continets are possible at all?

You bring a very intelligent scientific parallel to this, and that is good, but science does not address how each particle of His Eucharistic Body remains the whole and entire Christ. That’s outside of science’s province.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Eucharist is His living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, whole and entire, as long as the outward accidents of bread and wine remain.

So you claim.

No, it is more like “so the Church teaches”. I just accept her teaching.

There is no reason to continue a debate when the points have been made, no one is changing their minds, and no one is gaining anything in the edification department, either. Better to just be at peace…kind of reminds us why monastics thought a lot of silence was a good route to serene and peaceful fraternity.

I agree. Everybody has made their points, and no one is changing. I go with the teaching of the Church on the Real Presence, and I approach the Holy Eucharist — even barely visible fragments — accordingly. I joyfully and gratefully prostrate myself before a crumb the size of a pin’s head as the Sovereign Lord and Creator of the Universe.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Afaik, that is not the case. Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the smallest Particle of the Host and the smallest Drop of the Precious Blood.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Afaik, that is not the case. Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the smallest Particle of the Host and the smallest Drop of the Precious Blood.

But when these particles and drops cease to have the appearance of bread and wine, and cease to have the other accidents of bread and wine — taste, smell, texture, fluidity (in the case of wine), and so on — then they cease to be “bread and wine”, and thus cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Once the Host disintegrates into mush, a cloudy substance dissolved in water, or froth on top of that water, It ceases to be the Body. Once the Precious Blood evaporates (leaving only a dried stain if it is on cloth), dilutes, or otherwise disarticulates from what was once “wine”, It ceases to be the Blood of Christ.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Once the Precious Blood evaporates (leaving only a dried stain if it is on cloth), dilutes, or otherwise disarticulates from what was once “wine”, It ceases to be the Blood of Christ.

IIRC, there’s a Eucharistic miracle with the Precious Blood on the cloth but I can’t remember it.

 

[otjm]

I can foresee a problem with small particles adhering to the cloth, but these same small particles would adhere to one’s skin, and it is my understanding that these particles can (and should) be consumed by the communicant

I would tend to disagree with you that the same particles would ad here to the skin, as the skin is nowhere near as rough as a purificator.

And if you choose to take a purificator up with you to Communion, I would urge you to speak with the pastor or priest before Mass, as I would strongly suspect you might find yourself being requested to remove the purificator before receiving.

I cannot find the reference, but I have seen repeatedly that the Church holds that if a particle is so small that one could not determine that it came from a Host, that Christ is no longer present.
Is support of that, if a Host has, for example, fallen to the floor and been contaminated, it is to be put into water until it “dissolves”, then is to go down the sacrarium. If one were to look at the water after the Host has “dissolved”, one could see something floating around in the water or collecting at the bottom of the receptacle.

There have been other threads about reception in the hand, with at least on instance of an individual being truly upset that “Christ is being trampled on” because of possible flecks of the Host floating down to the floor. While I respect the concern of the individual, my understanding is that it does not align with Church teaching.

And as an aside, prior to Vatican 2 there was a cloth often hanging down on the “inside” of the altar rail (toward the altar) and it would be flipped up over the rail just prior to Communion. People would place their hands under the cloth. And granted that the altar boy would carry a paten and hold it under each communicant’s chin, that was not perfect, as a Host that was dropped might or might not hit the paten, and depending on how it hit, might or might not stay there.

However, there was nothing - zip, nada, zero - said in the rubrics as to purifying the cloth.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And if you choose to take a purificator up with you to Communion, I would urge you to speak with the pastor or priest before Mass, as I would strongly suspect you might find yourself being requested to remove the purificator before receiving.

I have considered that.

I cannot find the reference, but I have seen repeatedly that the Church holds that if a particle is so small that one could not determine that it came from a Host, that Christ is no longer present.

This actually makes a whole lot of sense. My comments about crumbs, particles the size of a letter on a screen, or particles the size of the head on a tailor’s pin, presuppose that you can tell they have sloughed off from a larger portion of “bread”. A little dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence, there is some room for doubt. Mere dust, I think it’s fair to say the Real Presence is no longer “there”.

There have been other threads about reception in the hand, with at least on instance of an individual being truly upset that “Christ is being trampled on” because of possible flecks of the Host floating down to the floor. While I respect the concern of the individual, my understanding is that it does not align with Church teaching.

Depends on how large and visible the flecks are. See above.

And granted that the altar boy would carry a paten and hold it under each communicant’s chin, that was not perfect, as a Host that was dropped might or might not hit the paten, and depending on how it hit, might or might not stay there.

I would really like to know, if for no other reason than my own edification, who decided we no longer needed to use patens. I have served many a Mass, both TLM and Novus Ordo, using a paten. I have seen many fragments fall upon the paten, and once or twice, the Host Itself.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Depends on how large and visible the flecks are. See above.

It depends if they are visible as bread. Fleck could be many things, a fleck on it’s own does not look like anything except a shade of color.

 

[otjm]

I would really like to know, if for no other reason than my own edification, who decided we no longer needed to use patens.

Looking through the GIRM, it appears that the duty of an acolyte is no longer described as carrying a paten as the priest distributes Communion. The mention of an acolyte in terms of distribution is a reference to an instituted acolyte, and the reference is that they may assist the priest in distributing communion.

And while the GIRM does not address getting rid of altar rails, it states the norm is receiving standing. "160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

 

[JanR]

Jesus doesn’t need a purificator. He’s as pure as they come, and purer.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

I have bad knees, and if I got down on them in a communion line without a kneeler, I might not be able to get back up. I only kneel if there’s a communion rail (normally at the TLM), to give me something to brace myself on, getting down and then back up.

 

[quies]

Okay, but if Pavel Chekov is the altar server, they’re called wessels.