Receiving under both species.

  • Thread starter Thread starter misterbee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s no need to receive from the Chalice except to give the Mass a ***supper-like ***appearance (not exactly the view that should be enforced), as stated in the CCC.

The laity receiving is only permitted…like other abuses. Doesn’t make it right. John Paul II even said that the “touch the sacred vessels is a **privilege **of the ordained…”

Are there any Popes who have encouraged the laity to receive from the Chalice? Really, what is the point? It takes more time and money. Time that could be used receiving the Lord properly on our knees, and the money could go to all those wonderful lawsuits the American “Catholic” Church has to deal with.
 
rwoehmke said:
Once the fluids evaporate it no longer has the accidents of wine and Jesus is gone just as he leaves when the host starts to deteriorate. Isn’t that what is taught?
Click to expand...
How long does it take the Fluid to evaporate from the carpet that most churches enjoy? The area of the carpet that has the Precious Blood is to be cut out and (burned for purification…buried…which is the “norm?”).
 
kikyo said:
How long does it take the Fluid to evaporate from the carpet that most churches enjoy? The area of the carpet that has the Precious Blood is to be cut out and (burned for purification…buried…which is the “norm?”).
Click to expand...
The spill can be soaked up and the cloth sufficiently rinsed in the sacrarium then washed. Guess if it was a bad enough spill it could be steam cleaned and liquid poured into the sacrarium.
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
The spill can be soaked up and the cloth sufficiently rinsed in the sacrarium then washed. Guess if it was a bad enough spill it could be steam cleaned and liquid poured into the sacrarium.
Click to expand...
But still, all of the Precious Blood isn’t soaked into the cloth. It was my understanding that, at least before the Church got extremely lazy (okay, before *some *members did) the protocol for spilled Blood, or even a dropped Eucharist, required that piece of the carpet to be removed to avoid leaving Jesus behind at all for desecration? Has this *formally *changed, or is it, again, simply laziness or lack of belief? I’ve heard some say, “well, He understands…” or even “now the floor is sanctified…” (punch:mad: the nerve!)
 
kikyo said:
But still, all of the Precious Blood isn’t soaked into the cloth. It was my understanding that, at least before the Church got extremely lazy (okay, before *some *members did) the protocol for spilled Blood, or even a dropped Eucharist, required that piece of the carpet to be removed to avoid leaving Jesus behind at all for desecration? Has this *formally *changed, or is it, again, simply laziness or lack of belief? I’ve heard some say, “well, He understands…” or even “now the floor is sanctified…” (punch:mad: the nerve!)
Click to expand...
I do not know about the official change BUT going by other purification practices in the church: If there is problem soaking up the wine straight away from the carpet then once you start adding water to help ‘float’ the remaining wine up to be absorbed. Then just like when you are purifying items in the sacrarium, this addition of water is what changes things back to the accidents and it is no longer the sacrament.
 
kikyo said:
But still, all of the Precious Blood isn’t soaked into the cloth. It was my understanding that, at least before the Church got extremely lazy (okay, before *some *members did) the protocol for spilled Blood, or even a dropped Eucharist, required that piece of the carpet to be removed to avoid leaving Jesus behind at all for desecration? Has this *formally *changed, or is it, again, simply laziness or lack of belief? I’ve heard some say, “well, He understands…” or even “now the floor is sanctified…” (punch:mad: the nerve!)
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a little bit of both I think. Though the Church has not officially changed her position on how to handle the aforementioned situation, it has I believe allowed “pastoral discretion.” Holy Mother Church trusts that her priests, and bishops, will suffiently take care of the matter should it arise.

Then I also think it is because of sheer laziness and the more Protestant, “Oh, He understands” rather than the Catholic, “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Fetch Father O’Malley! HURRY!”

For example, I went to a Mass when the priest accidentaly dropped a couple hosts, so he put the paten back on the altar, went back to the place where he dropped the hosts, got down on his knees, and picked up the fallen consecrated hosts with his tongue, then sort of “licked” the surrounding area. Then at another parish I saw a priest drop several hosts, then simply bent down to pick them off, blew on them, and then continued distributing Holy Communion.

That just goes to show which priest actually thinks he can change bread and wine into the living Body and Blood of Christ…
 
BritishCatholic said:
Well, it’s a little bit of both I think. Though the Church has not officially changed her position on how to handle the aforementioned situation, it has I believe allowed “pastoral discretion.” Holy Mother Church trusts that her priests, and bishops, will suffiently take care of the matter should it arise.

Then I also think it is because of sheer laziness and the more Protestant, “Oh, He understands” rather than the Catholic, “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Fetch Father O’Malley! HURRY!”

For example, I went to a Mass when the priest accidentaly dropped a couple hosts, so he put the paten back on the altar, went back to the place where he dropped the hosts, got down on his knees, and picked up the fallen consecrated hosts with his tongue, then sort of “licked” the surrounding area. Then at another parish I saw a priest drop several hosts, then simply bent down to pick them off, blew on them, and then continued distributing Holy Communion.

That just goes to show which priest actually thinks he can change bread and wine into the living Body and Blood of Christ…
Click to expand...
Licking up the ‘dust’ from the floor seems a bit too scrupulous.

I don’t see what is wrong with the other priest blowing off what ever contaminate that may have gotten on it. Out of respect for the Sacrament those would be consumed (usually by the priest).

It seems BOTH really believe.
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
Licking up the ‘dust’ from the floor seems a bit too scrupulous.

I don’t see what is wrong with the other priest blowing off what ever contaminate that may have gotten on it. Out of respect for the Sacrament those would be consumed (usually by the priest).

It seems BOTH really believe.
Click to expand...
You may not see the err with it, but you fail to understand that, in doctrine, practice, and belief, the consecrated host cannot become “contaminate”. It is a spotless oblation to the Almighty.

However, we all know accidents happen. But my bit was that the priest gave those fallen hosts to communicants instead of consuming them himself.
 
BritishCatholic said:
You may not see the err with it, but you fail to understand that, in doctrine, practice, and belief, the consecrated host cannot become “contaminate”. It is a spotless oblation to the Almighty.

However, we all know accidents happen. But my bit was that the priest gave those fallen hosts to communicants instead of consuming them himself.
Click to expand...
The accidents can become contaminated and potentially cannot be consumed. The Sacrament is not changed till process are put in place to do so (like adding water to the wine or disolving a host before pouring the water down the sacrarium’s drain.
 
Every Particle contains Jesus Christ, Body-Blood-Soul-Divinity. The reverent priest picking up the Eucharist with his tongue was in the right, whereas the other priest, though He may believe, still has a somewhat flip attitude in regards to It’s treatment. If one were to take a hammer to the Eucharist and smash It into tiny bits, Jesus is still there, and needs to be handled properly. Wasn’t it St. Justin Martyr (?) who bent over to pick up the Holy Eucharist with his tongue from the vomit of a possessed person? That’s reverence! Maybe it was St. Lawrence? Someone help me out on this!
 
kikyo said:
Every Particle contains Jesus Christ, Body-Blood-Soul-Divinity. The reverent priest picking up the Eucharist with his tongue was in the right, whereas the other priest, though He may believe, still has a somewhat flip attitude in regards to It’s treatment. If one were to take a hammer to the Eucharist and smash It into tiny bits, Jesus is still there, and needs to be handled properly. Wasn’t it St. Justin Martyr (?) who bent over to pick up the Holy Eucharist with his tongue from the vomit of a possessed person? That’s reverence! Maybe it was St. Lawrence? Someone help me out on this!
Click to expand...
When the accidents are no longer recognizable as bread and wine it is no longer the Sacrament.

If this ‘licking’ was anywhere near what the church teaches then at mass the priest would be licking the patten and other vessels clean.
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
When the accidents are no longer recognizable as bread and wine it is no longer the Sacrament.

If this ‘licking’ was anywhere near what the church teaches then at mass the priest would be licking the patten and other vessels clean.
Click to expand...
The Sacred Vessels are easily purified. One is more likely to pick up the Particles with the tongue than by wiping with a cloth.
 
kikyo said:
The Sacred Vessels are easily purified. One is more likely to pick up the Particles with the tongue than by wiping with a cloth.
Click to expand...
Does the Church recommend using the tongue anywhere for this process??
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
When the accidents are no longer recognizable as bread and wine it is no longer the Sacrament.

If this ‘licking’ was anywhere near what the church teaches then at mass the priest would be licking the patten and other vessels clean.
Click to expand...
While I’m sure you are probably a far better Catholic than I, you seem to dismiss just how terribly important the consecrated host -Jesus Christ in the flesh- is. If ever there is an earthquake, a hurricane, a tornado, or a fire, it is the pastor’s job to get to the church ASAP to save that tabernacle.

If the Body of Christ drops on the floor, it should be consumed by the priest in a reverent manner; and rightly so because dropping Our Lord’s body on the ground in quite unrespectful. Such rituals/traditions is what makes the Roman Catholic faith so beautiful. If you don’t like mysteries and you want common sense, I suggest the Episcopal Church.
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
Yes I am Catholic.
Click to expand...
First, do you believe in the True Presence? If so, do you believe that Jesus Christ is God and deserving of honor and respect and reverence?

As to your question: The Sacred Vessels are easily purified with a cloth, that will later be cleansed with great care (at least, ist supposed to be). The priest picked up the Particles with the tongue in order to get the Particles; he wasn’t purifying to floor.
 
kikyo said:
First, do you believe in the True Presence? If so, do you believe that Jesus Christ is God and deserving of honor and respect and reverence?

As to your question: The Sacred Vessels are easily purified with a cloth, that will later be cleansed with great care (at least, ist supposed to be). The priest picked up the Particles with the tongue in order to get the Particles; he wasn’t purifying to floor.
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe in the True Presence.

I do NOT believe licking up the floor is a sign of reverence.

If the particles are visible a (damp) cloth can be used that would then be properly rinsed and then washed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top