Small particles of the host - why no concern?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
So, God lacks the power to remove Christ body from the accidently dropped particle ?
Click to expand...
Remove from??

That would be consubstantiation…and we all know better. We are Catholic, we know transubstantiation is what takes place.

That crumb IS God. His real presence does not go away because it is dropped.
 
I know what consubstantiation is.

The point is, if God the Father has the power to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, he also has the power to detransform it if abused or accidently dropped.

You do know that the early Church from the Apostles on, received communion in the hand, right ?

The practice of receiving on the tongue exclusively, was because people were abusing the consecrated host by taking it home and giving it to whomever, including pagans and atheists.

Jim
 
The Church doesn’t teach that we can’t crucify Christ again nor could we. There is only one crucifixion, death and resurrection. When Christ returns, it will be in glory, not to be tortured to death again.

The Mass is a living sacrifice of Christ to the Father. The prayers in the Mass are not to Jesus, but to the Father. The priest becomes Christ in the Mass and as such, offers the sacrifice of bread and wine to God the Father, and prays that He will transform them into the body and blood of Jesus. Then, that living sacrifice is given to the faithful who share in unity to the Father, that sacrifice.

We become part of Christ in receiving His body and blood.

Jim
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Why are people no longer concerned with the possibility of small, visible particles of the Eucharist being ignored or falling onto the floor when communion is received?

Before the introduction of communion in the hand, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the protocol was pretty standard — only the priest touched the host, a paten was held by the altar server between the priest and the communicant, and the host was placed on the tongue. Any particles that might have sloughed off the edge of the host — and it did happen (I was an altar server and I’ve seen it) — fell onto the paten. After everyone had received, the priest carefully scraped the particles from the paten into the chalice, and consumed them. Unless something very unusual happened — a swift breeze blowing them off the paten or, God forbid, the server dropping the paten — there was absolutely no likelihood that these particles would ever be exposed to inadvertent sacrilege.

Today, though, we don’t see anything like this. Outside of the TLM, patens are very rare. They’re just not used anymore. The host is laid on the extended palm of the communicant, and then either eaten out of the hand or, what is more common, picked up by the communicant with the other hand and eaten from the fingers.

Is there no longer a concern that particles could fall off the host when receiving communion? Do people look for these particles, and if they see them, what do they do? Does everyone look, or are there people who really don’t comprehend what they are doing, poorly catechized, don’t understand Eucharistic theology, and don’t realize that these particles — if visible — remain the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you’re greatly concerned about this. My recommendation: talk to your pastor about it, or if you have access to him, your bishop. Express your concerns to them.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I know what consubstantiation is.
Click to expand...
I figured you did. That is what you describe.
JimR-OCDS said:
The point is, if God the Father has the power to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, he also has the power to detransform it if abused or accidently dropped.
Click to expand...
So really it is God’s fault.
We don’t need to concern ourselves over crumbs, if God intended we not desecrate the precious Body, he can easily ‘detransform’.
?
I am familiar with transubstantiation.
I am not with ‘detransform’…do you have a reference where one can look this up?
JimR-OCDS said:
You do know that the early Church from the Apostles on, received communion in the hand, right ?
Click to expand...
Don’t care. The church already made a decision on that.
My concern is with the lack of concern over crumbs, spilled drops, etc.
JimR-OCDS said:
The practice of receiving on the tongue exclusively, was because people were abusing the consecrated host by taking it home and giving it to whomever, including pagans and atheists.
Click to expand...
And this justifies disregard of the precious Body?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
As a practical matter, I receive on the tongue, and the priest usually holds the tray containing the hosts close enough to my face that it acts as a paten of sorts. My parish is very liturgically conservative and lay ministers of the host are used sparingly, if at all.
Click to expand...
That “tray” the priest is holding with the consecrated hosts is a type of paten. It’s called a bowl paten.
 
You’re accusing me of making statements I never made.

I never said we can disregard the Eucharist, but accidents happen and God, who his omnipotent, understands.

Jim
 
The Church teaches that this is NOT the case though.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t teach it, but doesn’t mean it’s not the case. In some things the Church just doesn’t know, but will side risking error, just as they do with ensoulment
Not universally, and even when do they did not touch it with their fingers, they profoundly bowed and ate it from their palms, then licked their palms. They also wore a cloth over their hands…
Click to expand...
But the early Church most certainly received in the hand, not on the tongue for Jesus said, take and eat, not stick out your tongue.

Jim
 
Last edited:
PeterT said:
Why are people no longer concerned with the possibility of small, visible particles of the Eucharist being ignored or falling onto the floor when communion is received?

Before the introduction of communion in the hand, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the protocol was pretty standard — only the priest touched the host, a paten was held by the altar server between the priest and the communicant, and the host was placed on the tongue. Any particles that might have sloughed off the edge of the host — and it did happen (I was an altar server and I’ve seen it) — fell onto the paten. After everyone had received, the priest carefully scraped the particles from the paten into the chalice, and consumed them. Unless something very unusual happened — a swift breeze blowing them off the paten or, God forbid, the server dropping the paten — there was absolutely no likelihood that these particles would ever be exposed to inadvertent sacrilege.
Click to expand...
I am going to assume you did not mean this in any condescending way, nor as dismissive to those of us in this forum who do have a concern about it.

The bishop and the pastor, and their fellow bishops and priests, made up their minds a long time ago that they were going to do it this way, and nothing that a traditionalist, conservative Catholic layman will say is going to make them change their minds, and start doing it the way I think they should do it. I don’t have that gift of charisma or persuasion. In 40+ years of being an adult Catholic, I have never had a bishop or priest tell me “you know something, you’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way, you’ve convinced me, I’ll quit doing that [whatever my concern was] and start doing it the way you recommend”. It just doesn’t happen. And yes, I did mention the problems with CITH to the bishop several years ago. He never replied.

If someone were to raise this as an issue, they would in all likelihood be told that there is nothing to worry about. Indeed, a layman and his son did an experiment with hosts, similar to the young man in the video early in this thread. They sent the results to the Vatican and received basically that response. You can read more about it here:

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellane...hand/is_communion_in_the_hand_a_sacrilege.pdf

I know this is from an SSPX magazine and some might have a problem what that. I personally do not. I just ask the reader to look at the “actual size” inset showing the size of the particles. That says it all.
Click to expand...
 
JimR-OCDS said:
You’re accusing me of making statements I never made.
Click to expand...
You need to remind me of what that is.

The last I recall, you were claiming that God can ‘detransform’ if an accident occurs.

I am unfamiliar with ‘detransform’ but if I understand how you are using it, then there is nothing to even disregard. It is just bread.
We can simply vacuum it up.
 
You accused me of being unconcerned about particles dropped on the floor

I never said I was unconcerned.

Detransformed, perhaps the wrong word to use.

What I mean is, God is omnipotent and doesn’t need our protection. We need His.

The particles of consecrated host ACCIDENTLY, falling on the floor once in a great while, can be changed back into just ordinary bread if God desires and it no longer is the body of Christ.

I know the Church doesn’t teach this, but then, the Church isn’t going to teach what she doesn’t know.

Jim
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I am going to assume you did not mean this in any condescending way, nor as dismissive to those of us in this forum who do have a concern about it.

The bishop and the pastor, and their fellow bishops and priests, made up their minds a long time ago that they were going to do it this way, and nothing that a traditionalist, conservative Catholic layman will say is going to make them change their minds, and start doing it the way I think they should do it. I don’t have that gift of charisma or persuasion. In 40+ years of being an adult Catholic, I have never had a bishop or priest tell me “you know something, you’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way, you’ve convinced me, I’ll quit doing that [whatever my concern was] and start doing it the way you recommend”. It just doesn’t happen. And yes, I did mention the problems with CITH to the bishop several years ago. He never replied.

If someone were to raise this as an issue, they would in all likelihood be told that there is nothing to worry about. Indeed, a layman and his son did an experiment with hosts, similar to the young man in the video early in this thread. They sent the results to the Vatican and received basically that response. You can read more about it here:

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellane...hand/is_communion_in_the_hand_a_sacrilege.pdf

I know this is from an SSPX magazine and some might have a problem what that. I personally do not. I just ask the reader to look at the “actual size” inset showing the size of the particles. That says it all.
Click to expand...
Do you second guess other experts in their field? You go to a respected MD and question their diagnosis or prognosis because it does jive with your reasoning?

I suggested that you talk to your pastor (you say you attend a conservative Catholic Church) or your bishop because I was hopeful they could discuss with you any concerns you might have. Your questions are legitimate and should be answered by those who have years of study in this field (priests and bishops) versus us laity here in CAF with our a lot more limited knowledge in regards to the Holy Eucharist.
 
Emeraldlady said:
Did the Vaticans response not put your worries to rest?
Click to expand...
PeterT said:
Do you second guess other experts in their field? You go to a respected MD and question their diagnosis or prognosis because it does jive with your reasoning?

I suggested that you talk to your pastor (you say you attend a conservative Catholic Church) or your bishop because I was hopeful they could discuss with you any concerns you might have. Your questions are legitimate and should be answered by those who have years of study in this field (priests and bishops) versus us laity here in CAF with our a lot more limited knowledge in regards to the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
In answer to Emeraldlady, no. If you will read carefully what the Vatican official said, he did not say “the particles in the picture, despite anything you have been told, don’t really have the appearance of bread”. Rather, he said, among other things, “both the priest offering communion and the recipient are responsible only for the particles which are visible without the use of optical instruments”. No quarrel there. But the particles in the picture do not meet those criteria. They are clearly crumbs of bread. It’s entirely visible.

I have no need to talk to anybody. This is a worldwide problem that is not going to be solved by one man speaking up. I do not need any “expert” telling me that this never happens (because I’ve seen it time and again), or that these particles are not really bread (because clearly they are), or what have you. You do not need “years of study” to understand this. It’s not a sophisticated point of moral or sacramental theology.
 
Emeraldlady said:
The Church has spoken of the consecrated Bread in those terms against ancient arguments about the nature of the host and with regard to reverence for the unconsumed Bread. It was not meant to go so far as to cause anxiety detracting from the experience of gratitude and joy at the great gift of the Eucharist as seems to pervade some peoples minds. To contemplate trampling Jesus under foot as you return from Communion can only be attributed to extreme legalism.
Click to expand...
Yay this! I’m both scrupulous and legalistic and anything I can do that feeds that sucks the joy and love of everything and it is a pretty dismal life trying to love Christ worrying about legalism. It does not negate respect for the Host but puts it into a perspective that I as a non-divine human can live with.
 
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body Matthew 26:26
Click to expand...
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Mark 14 22
Click to expand...
And from the Missile
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.
Click to expand...
Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top