Small particles of the host - why no concern?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What you are describing is a change in the physical properties.
A particle too small to be bread, a drop too small to be wine.

However, what I have read repeatedly in this thread are not these minutia, but instead what is described as crumbs.
 
Last edited:
CRV said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
fine particles
Click to expand...
Difference between fine particles and visible particles recognizable as part of the host.

As I said before - that which is plainly visible to the eye and recognizable as such. Using a magnifying glass to identify is not needed.
Click to expand...
How often at Mass have you sighted particles visible to the eye on the floor or in your hand? I can’t believe that this is an issue.
CRV said:
Again,

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) CRV:
Read the article written by Fr John Hardon in the link I gave in a previous post.
Click to expand...
Yes I did read the article and it was addressing belief in the Real Presence and only passingly referring to dropped crumbs that had apparently happened at a Mass that was using a non commercially made bread.
Click to expand...
 
vz71 said:
What you are describing is a change in the physical properties.
A particle too small to be bread, a drop too small to be wine.

However, what I have read repeatedly in this thread are not these minutia, but instead what is described as crumbs.
Click to expand...
Again, have you ever seen these crumbs on the floor which would make it an issue?
 
Emeraldlady said:
How often at Mass have you sighted particles visible to the eye on the floor or in your hand?
Click to expand...
I am aware of a dropped host that had to be dissolved in the vasculum. But wrt parts of a host, I have also said in previous posts upthread, that hosts nowadays use ingredients that are manufactured differently themselves in addition to how the hosts themselves are made nowadays.

At one parish I attended, there was an occasion where the priest had to break the hosts (more people attended than forseen, and Father only consecrated enough for that Mass with some reserved for the sick in the Tabernacle (keeping in mind freshness too)), and he broke them over the ciborium to minimise any crumbs/particles being lost.

When a priest breaks the host in half and a small piece which he adds to the chalice, he breaks it either over the paten which is on the corporal or the corporal itself, so any crumbs are not lost. He wipes the paten over the chalice when purifying it. And that is why the corporal should never be shaken out when being placed on the altar if being prepared by the sacristan ahead of Mass for the priest on his instructions.

But wrt particles being lost from the Blessed Sacrament being placed in the throne made by cupping the hands of the communicant in the OF Mass, then hopefully one would see this and consume the particle too.

But I wonder how many people look at their hand when picking up the host with their other hand?

I see no harm in being careful. Doesn’t mean people should minutely inspect their hand fastidiously either. Just see what is visible to the eyes.
 
JustLOL said:
I viewed the original post not to be about particles falling on the altar or floor, but more of a condemnation of receiving in the hand.
Click to expand...
OP here. My original post certainly was about particles — crumbs and similarly-sized visible particles that retain the appearance of bread. I do not agree with CITH and I do not receive that way, but the Church has approved CITH, while at the same time urging reverence even to those very small portions that, again, retain the appearance of bread. If CITH can be received without any of these particles being desecrated, then that is fine.

I would note, though, that this was never a problem when the host was received only on the tongue, and when patens were used. I have served more Masses than I can remember, both OF and EF, and I can tell you that particles do sometimes fall onto the paten. They are visible; they are basically little crumbs.
Emeraldlady said:
Aquinas specifically mentions quantity as per fine particles as changing the species. He distinguishes between when the bread is broken into small parts keeping the visible attribute of bread and then the corruption of the accidents such as the fine particles.
Click to expand...
I do concede that there is a point where particles cease to have the appearance of bread. However, where that point lies is debatable. This takes on the flavor of a kind of “sorites” argument — “how big does the particle have to be?”. A crumb? A flake? A little spot of something white? Dust? Again, these things are not problematical when you have COTT and a paten that is purified by the priest after communion

The young man’s video early in this thread was very helpful in illustrating this. Not saying that CITH is sinful, just stating the fact.
CRV said:
But wrt particles being lost from the Blessed Sacrament being placed in the throne made by cupping the hands of the communicant in the OF Mass, then hopefully one would see this and consume the particle too.

But I wonder how many people look at their hand when picking up the host with their other hand?

I see no harm in being careful. Doesn’t mean people should minutely inspect their hand fastidiously either. Just see what is visible to the eyes.
Click to expand...
Point very well made.

Just for the heck of it, I wonder what the Orthodox say about particles of the Eucharist. Anybody here know?
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
JustLOL:
I viewed the original post not to be about particles falling on the altar or floor, but more of a condemnation of receiving in the hand.
Click to expand...
OP here. My original post certainly was about particles — crumbs and similarly-sized visible particles that retain the appearance of bread
Click to expand...
Ah, now, you see - I think this is why some of us are talking at cross purposes.

To me, a crumb is much bigger than a particle. I don’t view the words ‘particle’ and ‘crumb’ as synonymous. A particle, to me, is me is barely visible - something like the dot at the end of a sentence, or even smaller. A ‘crumb’ is easily visible, like what can be left on a plate after eating a sandwich.

Where you are using the word ‘particle’, I wonder if the word ‘part’ is more accurate?
 
Emeraldlady said:
Again, have you ever seen these crumbs on the floor which would make it an issue?
Click to expand...
What exactly would you call an issue in this case?
The idea that we may be trampling upon God would seem to me a serious enough of an issue that we should do whatever it takes to insure this does not happen.
 
This thread brought to mind something else.

The other day, a crystal bowl was accidentally dropped in my kitchen. It promptly shattered into hundreds of tiny slivers and a few larger pieces.
The açcess to the kitchen was immediately cut off until we got every piece up. We were on our hands and knees inspecting the floor to make sure we got every piece up…lest a tiny, almost imperceptible, piece of the crystal get stepped on by my children, and they end up cut by a sliver.

Why wouldn’t we take just as much caution knowing our Lord may be laying on the ground?
 
That may be true, but the context of this picture, which I have seen often, is one of making CITH responsible for Jesus being trampled.
What bothers me is fanaticism and scrupulosity found in this thread.
If it can’t be identified as “bread” it is no longer the Body of Christ.
 
I’m going to give my 2 cents again. Why is it a problem to criticize something that BEGAN as an affront to the authority and magisterium of the Catholic Church? And now that the Church allowed what began as dissidence, people who dislike it are “fanatics” and “scrupulous”?
 
Do you agree that even the smallest crumb is bread? Yesterday, I almost started a fire because small particles of bread fell into the toaster? Was it bread that burned, or something that can no longer be identified as bread since it was unseen or unnoticed?
 
vz71 said:
Fair enough.
However, this is GOD. Every part is the most precious gift that can be given.
Every part is the whole. And we should make every effort to keep these from being desecrated… should we not?
Click to expand...
Yes, we should take care to keep the consecrated host from being desecrated… I not believe that a particle falling qualifies as being desecrated which typically is defined as treating (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect.
 
I think both people you are talking to are saying the same thing, just approaching the question from different directions.

It’s true that the smallest recognizable fragment of “bread” or the smallest recognizable drop of “wine” are still Jesus. That’s taught to assure people that there is not some minimum or superior amount of Jesus that can be had.

It is also true that the Real Presence persists only as long as the appearances of bread and wine do. So we don’t have to worry about dustlike or literally microscopic particles escaping, or molecules of “wine” evaporating. It also means there don’t need to be weird questions about digesting and excreting Jesus.

The point of argument here seems to be over how common it is to have visible particles of the host drop to the floor or the clothing of parishioners, and how small those particles can be before they no longer have the appearance of bread. While it doesn’t seem to be the central issue here, the concern seems to tie into the difference between receiving Communion directly on the tongue and receiving it in one’s hand and then transferring it to one’s mouth, and whether the latter method leads to a great number of lost crumbs.
 
Concern doesn’t necessarily equate to fanaticism.

However, I’ve seen more fanatical reactions to this than not.

Jim
 
Negligence or not, it is an issue to discuss with your confessor.
God is now on the floor.
What are we going to do about it?
 
So, God lacks the power to remove Christ body from the accidently dropped particle ?

How is it God has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the first place, if you believe this ?

Jim
 
So when Satanists take the body of Christ to abuse, God lets them abuse the body of Christ ?

Jim
 
We can not Crucify Jesus again and we don’t at Mass, the Church does not teach this.

Satanists were taken to Court for steeling what did not belong to them, the Consecrated Host. They could also be charge for steeling unconsecrated hosts as well, for it does not belong to them.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top