Small particles of the host - why no concern?

[CilladeRoma]

Probably, based on the context of being on the forum, “Edited To Add”.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Is there no longer a concern that particles could fall off the host when receiving communion?

And if you don’t mind my asking, why is that?

 

[JimG]

At my former parish, a large suburban parish with seven Masses each weekend, the use of the paten was normal. Each person distributing communion was accompanied by an altar server holding a paten. The post communion ablutions ensured that the patens were cleaned of any particles which were then consumed in the usual manner. I’m sure that before the advent of the verncular Mass, every parish had a supply of patens. What happened to them? Some parishes never quit using them.

 

[Glennon_P]

Some parishes never quit using them

My parish never quit using them.

 

[Titivillus]

Whilst it doesn’t say in B & W that since 1969…

Considering the numbers of Bishops who opposed Communion in the hand being introduced according to the document - then surely after reading that, doesn’t it stand to reason that in the intervening years Communion in the hand has become the norm?

We are undoubtedly using the word differently. You are using the word to mean the common practice, while I am using it to the standard practice?

Administration of Communion on the tongue (with or without intinction) is always permitted. Administration of Communion in the hand is permitted only where the practice has been requested and the Holy See has permitted it (which, my understanding is: Almost everywhere around the world – Still, my understanding is that a bishop (or even a pastor) my suspend administration in the hand for particular circumstances, eg a heightened danger of sacrilege)

 

[CRV]

We are undoubtedly using the word differently. You are using the word to mean the common practice , while I am using it to the standard practice ?

Administration of Communion on the tongue (with or without intinction) is always permitted. Administration of Communion in the hand is permitted only where the practice has been requested and the Holy See has permitted it (which, my understanding is: Almost everywhere around the world – Still, my understanding is that a bishop (or even a pastor) my suspend administration in the hand for particular circumstances, eg a heightened danger of sacrilege)

Ah, ok … yes, you’re right we 're using it in the ways you say. But I would also say that it is the standard practice simply because the OF Mass with CITH is the majority and even at these Masses COTT is far less common (at the majority of parishes.).

Administration of Communion on the tongue (with or without intinction) is always permitted.

Yes, it is.

Administration of Communion in the hand is permitted only where the practice has been requested and the Holy See has permitted it (which, my understanding is: Almost everywhere around the world

Agreed.

my understanding is that a bishop (or even a pastor) my suspend administration in the hand for particular circumstances, eg a heightened danger of sacrilege)

That’s right.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

At my former parish, a large suburban parish with seven Masses each weekend, the use of the paten was normal. Each person distributing communion was accompanied by an altar server holding a paten. The post communion ablutions ensured that the patens were cleaned of any particles which were then consumed in the usual manner. I’m sure that before the advent of the verncular Mass, every parish had a supply of patens. What happened to them? Some parishes never quit using them.

They just disappeared. If I had to guess, it was due to the proliferation of EMHCs. You would have to have a separate altar server for each EMHC, to hold the paten. That wasn’t feasible.

I suppose you could have two EMHCs at each station — one to hold the ciborium, and another to hold the paten between the administering EMHC and the communicant. That, too, wouldn’t be feasible.

Having two permitted modes of reception, CITH and COTT, as well as reception under both species, complicates things even more.

 

[Usagi]

Yes! People who are concerned, please understand this!

Your zeal for the Real Presence and its reverent treatment is commendable, but there are clearly different types of hosts out there.

In all the (OF and CITH-offering) parishes I’ve attended, the hosts are of a very non-crumbly sort. Having an individual one placed in your hand and transferring it to your mouth produces no visible particles. (And I check, being aware of this particular worry.)

Since all my experience has been with hosts like that, every time this issue comes up and causes great consternation, I have to wonder what kind of hosts are used elsewhere that so easily drop visible crumbs. I believe they exist if you guys say so, but please understand that the other kind do too, and present far less of a risk of this particular problem.

Worrying about people not being well-catechized in the Real Presence is reasonable (though I think we are past the biggest danger period these days). Worrying about desecration of visible particles of the Eucharist, unless you have witnessed specific instances (in which case you are quite right to address them directly) may be more of a phantom fear, or at least not as widespread as the level of worry (and art of Our Lord being trampled upon) would seem to indicate.

 

[PBWY]

The fact that not only was nightshade’s illustration flagged by this community, but it was actually fully removed by the moderator is really disheartening. Yes it’s graphic. Yes it’s disturbing. But yes, it’s also the truth. And the truth is often offensive. My treatment of it isn’t to say that everyone who receives on the hand is irreverent and wreckless, but it is a graphic reminder of the reality of what the Eucharist actually is and the potential abuses that can occur when we perhaps aren’t observant and thoughtful and intentional in our actions. That’s not saying that everyone who receives in the hand is irreverent and wreckless, at least from my perspective.

I really, really don’t expect that everyone will receive the Eucharist the same way, that everyone be reverent in the same ways, or that a conversation like this won’t be at least a little bit contentious given that we are from all different walks of life. That would be absurd.

It’s so foreign to me how people could come away from Mass feeling like Jesus got trampled on or whining and complaining about how irreverent everyone else was. That to me is what is irreverent.

But the assumption that because I’ve participated in this conversation in the way that I have, I must walk away from the Eucharist not feeling joy and gratitude, but judgment and annoyance toward others is completely incorrect and unfair. This isn’t Mass and I don’t ever leave Mass feeling that way. This is a public forum for discussions of this very nature. The fact that I am participating in this conversation in the way that I am comes from the overwhelming joy and gratitude I have in the blessing of being able to take part in the sacrament, especially as a convert having been raised in a Calvinist church that made an absolute joke out of Communion.

 

[PBWY]

Continued.

My seriousness and, yes, concern about the subject comes much in part from that place of conversion - my pursuit for the fullness of the faith - the simple reality that one of the greatest things that distinguishes me as a Catholic from me as a Presbyterian is that I now get to come before the True Presence of Christ in the One True Church and relish the incredible blessing that truly is. But not only do I get to come before Him and bring Him my thanksgiving and petitions with all of my imperfections, but I get to unify myself more fully with Him by actually participating in the sacrament of Holy Communion. It is the biggest deal in my life, the highlight of my days, the healing of my soul, and the single greatest source of my hope and my joy.

As such, I defend it and its reverent practice fiercely. That’s how I was formed, and I won’t apologize for it. It’s not schismatic or heretical. It’s not even judgmental. It’s just Catholic. It’s the reality of my faith. And it’s OK if you don’t feel that way too, or if you don’t practice reverence in the same ways that I do. We all have our own ways of being reverent. All I pray is that you are.

So just as CilladeRoma has the right to point out again and again that the Church permits reception in the hand, and as such the practice shouldn’t be judged or questioned, I and others have the right to point out that the Church also permits reception on the tongue with the use of a paten, which also shouldn’t be judged or questioned. And when the conversation is specifically about the concern for abuse of Sacred Particles, which absolutely is a legitimate concern, it is relevant to state the opinion that perhaps among the the greatest safeguards against the reality of nightshade’s illustration, is the use of the paten and reception on the tongue.

Now, I don’t expect to change anyone or change CAF, but I can’t bring myself to come here anymore if a blatant truth and the discussion thereof is going to be handled with such disgust and censorship. Especially as it pertains to the literal handling of Jesus Christ who has granted me so much that I struggle to feel truly worthy of.

God bless.

 

[FiveLinden]

Out of interest: how many of those deeply concerned about this suffer from scruples?

 

[CRV]

So, because an individual has the greatest respect for the Body of Our Lord and wish to avoid commiting sacrilege, then they are automatically considered to be scrupulous?

Whilst some people may be scrupulous and are particular in ensuring this sin in not commited, the vast majority are simply being good practicing Catholics.

 

[FiveLinden]

Whilst some people may be scrupulous and are particular in ensuring this sin in not commited, the vast majority are simply being good practicing Catholics.

You may be right. But how do we know? That’s why I’m asking.

 

[CRV]

To what end ? Simple curiosity?

In the EF rubrics, after the consecration the priest holds his thumb and forefinger together until after communion of the laity and his thumb and forefinger are purified during the following ablutions . This is so to ensure no visible particle (regardless of how small) of Our Lord is lost. For the love of and reverence of Our Lord, to prevent any sacrilege from occurring.

And beside the Tabernacle is (it is at mine) a Vasculum with water for the priest to dip the tips of his fingers in, after touching the Blessed Sacrament, lest any particle be stuck to his fingers and inadvertently lost.

So if a priest takes care not to loose any visible particle of the consecrated host, then surely the lay faithful should do no less?

 

[Frankie65]

PBWY I am absolutely with you on this. My own thoughts and this will probably get me flagged too is it is like the vehement protests that go on against real pictures of aborted babies. Because the truth is too horrible and too challenging, challenging in that we might personally not be doing enough to stop it or care about it, we wont be looking at it, we will be looking away or demanding it be taken down

I think that people who fight hardest for the defence of our Lord’s sacred body on the altar are those like the medieval saints who understand most perfectly what He has done for us in this regard

 

[Frankie65]

In the EF rubrics, after the consecration the priest holds his thumb and forefinger together

I attend a religious order NO and thankfully the priests of that order do the same

 

[FiveLinden]

To what end ? Simple curiosity?

That’s the reason I’m here. Curiosity, though maybe not simple.

 

[FiveLinden]

If a particle is so small it would not be identified as having the appearance of bread unless you knew its origin surely it ceases to be anything but something that was once consecrated just as a host does if it is dissolved in water?

 

[CRV]

unless you knew its origin

Which is exactly what happens at Communion time - there is no doubt it is a consecrated host - Our Lord Jesus Himself in his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - GOD.

a host does if it is dissolved in water

Only in special cases - not just to dispose of consecrated hosts as is.
The reason it is dissolved in water is for the utmost reverence for Our Lord, it is recognized a being a host or partial host, even a vomited up host is to be treated respectfully - all are still Jesus/God. But once it has dissolved (and therefore no longer retains the appearance of a consecrated host), then and only then may it (still respectfully) be disposed of down the sacrarium. But when it is being putting into this special receptacle (a vasculum is also used for this purpose), it is known to be a consecrated host - so again all care must be taken.

ETA

surely it ceases to be anything but something that was once consecrated

Once consecrated, always consecrated.

As an example - we shed our eyelashes - so once it falls out it is still our eyelash, it doesn’t just become non-eyelash simply because it is no longer attached to our eyelids - wouldn’t you agree?

And in the context of a Catholic Church where this discussion was focused, it is pretty obvious what that particle might be. So out of care and reverence, it’d be best to dispose of any found odd fragment accordingly as this shows our intent in the matter, rather than just dismissing this as “I’m not sure, so won’t do anything about it - too bad if it is” is not an attitude I would hope of any Catholic who suspects the fragment they are looking at might be part of a consecrated host.

 

[FiveLinden]

But when it is being putting into this special receptacle (a vasculum is also used for this purpose), it is known to be a consecrated host - so again all care must be taken.

Surely this can’t be so? Still a consecrated host? Sent down a drain to the ground? Even with ‘all care’ I can’t believe this is Catholic teaching - i.e. that the host remind the body of Christ?