|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 18, 2023 16:30:04 GMT
... to remain the true Body of Christ, worthy of respect and adoration as Lord and God?
And how should those fragments be treated?
Without getting into a discussion of the merits of receiving communion in the hand --- I long resolved on this forum that I would not discuss this topic, my stance should be well-known based upon past commentaries --- does this question have any ramifications for those who do, indeed, choose to receive CITH?
Again, to get back to the question, at what point, if any, does that fragment cease to be the Body of Christ?
My first thought is to say "when it can no longer be seen by the naked eye", because, someone correct me if I'm wrong, one accident of a substance is that it is perceptible to the senses, to-wit, that it can be seen (as well as felt, smelled, touched, tasted, and so on).
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Mar 20, 2023 1:39:49 GMT
My thought on the matter is when God decides it is not the real presence.
Forget about the size for a moment, and say an entire eucharist is taken by someone with the intent to desecrate said eucharist. Will God allow his own body to be desecrated? No, he would not. It is by the power of God that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, and by no other means.
So whether a small piece or a large piece of the eucharist, at the point where that piece is no longer intended to be received as the body of Christ it no longer remains the body of Christ.
As far a communion in the hand, back to the earliest days in the Church, communion was given in the hand. I know there is a line of thought that the ordinary Catholic isn't worthy of touching the body of Christ and placing it into their own mouth, however this directly contradicts all the accounts within the Bible which Christ welcomed children and others touch of his body. He actually welcomed the touch of his body by the ordinary man/woman/child, because by that touch he knew and could feel their belief in him as God made man.
I would love to hear any argument contrary to what is told to us in the Bible and what I base my belief on.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2023 6:44:52 GMT
My thought on the matter is when God decides it is not the real presence. Forget about the size for a moment, and say an entire eucharist is taken by someone with the intent to desecrate said eucharist. Will God allow his own body to be desecrated? No, he would not. It is by the power of God that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, and by no other means. So whether a small piece or a large piece of the eucharist, at the point where that piece is no longer intended to be received as the body of Christ it no longer remains the body of Christ. As far a communion in the hand, back to the earliest days in the Church, communion was given in the hand. I know there is a line of thought that the ordinary Catholic isn't worthy of touching the body of Christ and placing it into their own mouth, however this directly contradicts all the accounts within the Bible which Christ welcomed children and others touch of his body. He actually welcomed the touch of his body by the ordinary man/woman/child, because by that touch he knew and could feel their belief in him as God made man. I would love to hear any argument contrary to what is told to us in the Bible and what I base my belief on. What you say here, while I realize it is offered with the best of intentions and with sincerity, runs counter to this from the Council of Trent: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” (CCC 1377; cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon III)This is from an excellent article that reflects my thinking entirely: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/07/fragments-of-eucharistic-species.htmlGod did certainly allow His own Body to be desecrated, in his Passion on the Cross (as well as the scourging and other outrages that took place on that day), and it is incredibly speculative, to opine that He withdraws His Real Presence while the accidents of the species remain. I'm reminded of what Luther said about the Real Presence being akin to the heat and the glow that occurs when iron is cast into the blacksmith's forge, and that both the iron and the glow remain what they are, the iron does not become the glow, and the glow does not become the iron. As to increased reverence that was shown to the Blessed Sacrament over time, while the Eucharist existed from the very beginning, it wasn't at first obvious to the Church that if Christ is truly present, then it is appropriate to pray to Him in that Sacrament, to display It on an altar (Adoration), for the priest to hold It up in processions and bless the faithful with It (Benediction), and so on. Those developments came later. And I have to think that at some point, someone said something like "hey, all those little crumbs, They, too, are the Body of Christ, are they not? --- and if so, They should be treated with reverence, as each one of Them is the whole and entire Christ". Fast-forward to Trent and the quote above. Again, not to morph this into a CITH discussion --- I asked about fragments, not how those fragments are dealt with in CITH (some say that contemporary Hosts are made in such a way that there are no crumbs, but that is not true, a Catholic layman and his son proved that there are in a controlled experiment) --- but while the Church has never officially taught, to my knowledge, that a layperson is unworthy to touch the Host, she has indeed taught that Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic species. Let those who choose CITH bear that in mind, and ponder whether fragments are worthy of the greatest vigilance, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 20, 2023 9:21:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Mar 20, 2023 16:03:27 GMT
My thought on the matter is when God decides it is not the real presence. Forget about the size for a moment, and say an entire eucharist is taken by someone with the intent to desecrate said eucharist. Will God allow his own body to be desecrated? No, he would not. It is by the power of God that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, and by no other means. So whether a small piece or a large piece of the eucharist, at the point where that piece is no longer intended to be received as the body of Christ it no longer remains the body of Christ. As far a communion in the hand, back to the earliest days in the Church, communion was given in the hand. I know there is a line of thought that the ordinary Catholic isn't worthy of touching the body of Christ and placing it into their own mouth, however this directly contradicts all the accounts within the Bible which Christ welcomed children and others touch of his body. He actually welcomed the touch of his body by the ordinary man/woman/child, because by that touch he knew and could feel their belief in him as God made man. I would love to hear any argument contrary to what is told to us in the Bible and what I base my belief on. What you say here, while I realize it is offered with the best of intentions and with sincerity, runs counter to this from the Council of Trent: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” (CCC 1377; cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon III)This is from an excellent article that reflects my thinking entirely: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/07/fragments-of-eucharistic-species.htmlGod did certainly allow His own Body to be desecrated, in his Passion on the Cross (as well as the scourging and other outrages that took place on that day), and it is incredibly speculative, to opine that He withdraws His Real Presence while the accidents of the species remain. I'm reminded of what Luther said about the Real Presence being akin to the heat and the glow that occurs when iron is cast into the blacksmith's forge, and that both the iron and the glow remain what they are, the iron does not become the glow, and the glow does not become the iron. As to increased reverence that was shown to the Blessed Sacrament over time, while the Eucharist existed from the very beginning, it wasn't at first obvious to the Church that if Christ is truly present, then it is appropriate to pray to Him in that Sacrament, to display It on an altar (Adoration), for the priest to hold It up in processions and bless the faithful with It (Benediction), and so on. Those developments came later. And I have to think that at some point, someone said something like "hey, all those little crumbs, They, too, are the Body of Christ, are they not? --- and if so, They should be treated with reverence, as each one of Them is the whole and entire Christ". Fast-forward to Trent and the quote above. Again, not to morph this into a CITH discussion --- I asked about fragments, not how those fragments are dealt with in CITH (some say that contemporary Hosts are made in such a way that there are no crumbs, but that is not true, a Catholic layman and his son proved that there are in a controlled experiment) --- but while the Church has never officially taught, to my knowledge, that a layperson is unworthy to touch the Host, she has indeed taught that Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic species. Let those who choose CITH bear that in mind, and ponder whether fragments are worthy of the greatest vigilance, or not. Your quote from the CCC has nothing to do with my statement. I mentioned nothing about division of the Eucharist or dividing Christ. I said it remains the real presence as long as God decides it is. One could argue that the species never ceases to exist, it only becomes small enough particles that one can't recognize it. How long within our digestive tract does it remain the Body of Christ? Yes, Christ was desecrated for the sole purpose of our salvation. Yes, God allowed and even demanded that that take place. However now that salvation has been offered through Christ's death and resurrection, there is no longer a need for God to be desecrated, and no reason why God would allow this to happen again. Why would only those who receive CITH have to be concerned about vigilance? Maybe people with beards should be, just in case a particle drops off and gets lodge in their beard. Maybe people who wear sweaters should be, or people with long hair. The list could go on. Singling out people who receive CITH as a group that may not be as vigilant it very telling. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2023 16:19:27 GMT
Your quote from the CCC has nothing to do with my statement. I mentioned nothing about division of the Eucharist or dividing Christ. I said it remains the real presence as long as God decides it is. One could argue that the species never ceases to exist, it only becomes small enough particles that one can't recognize it. How long within our digestive tract does it remain the Body of Christ? See the article cited by tisbearself as to when the species, according to Jimmy Akin --- and I agree with his contentions --- cease to be the Body or Blood of Christ. If the species cannot be recognized as bread (or wine), then the Real Presence ceases to be. The common estimation as to when the species retain that appearance once in the digestive process is around 10-20 minutes. During that time, you are literally a walking ciborium. Dust is clearly not bread. Crumbs, that's a judgment call, depends on the crumb. It's a type of sorites argument. We once had a character on CAF who had an obsession with the Eucharist and bodily functions. Always had to wonder if he was a troll just having fun, or whether he had an extreme case of OCD. But once the species have entered the digestive system and start becoming chyme and, ahem, other stuff, there is no appearance of bread, ergo no Real Presence. Yes, Christ was desecrated for the sole purpose of our salvation. Yes, God allowed and even demanded that that take place. However now that salvation has been offered through Christ's death and resurrection, there is no longer a need for God to be desecrated, and no reason why God would allow this to happen again.
Yet if the species retain the Real Presence, and if They are deliberately desecrated (or even accidentally desecrated through culpable negligence), then, yes, sacrilege does occur. Why would only those who receive CITH have to be concerned about vigilance? Maybe people with beards should be, just in case a particle drops off and gets lodge in their beard. Maybe people who wear sweaters should be, or people with long hair. The list could go on. Singling out people who receive CITH as a group that may not be as vigilant it very telling.Priests and altar servers with patens take a great deal of diligence in assuring that this does not happen. I have served many a Mass, both TLM and Novus Ordo, and I can tell you, it does happen. I've seen many a crumb fall, sometimes quite large ones. That's what patens are for.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebj on Mar 20, 2023 16:28:02 GMT
It's funny that this subject should show up now.
I do LotH in Spanish, following Padre Eduardo Cueva's YouTube channel, on which he posts Laudes and Visperas every day. He has photos and videos of a number of things (geysers, clouds, sunsets, etc.) as visual backgrounds. One of them is a closeup photo of the exact moment of the breaking of the bread. A couple days ago I took a closer look, and oh my goodness! There are crumbs flying everywhere :-O
Dxx
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2023 17:33:26 GMT
It's funny that this subject should show up now. I do LotH in Spanish, following Padre Eduardo Cueva's YouTube channel, on which he posts Laudes and Visperas every day. He has photos and videos of a number of things (geysers, clouds, sunsets, etc.) as visual backgrounds. One of them is a closeup photo of the exact moment of the breaking of the bread. A couple days ago I took a closer look, and oh my goodness! There are crumbs flying everywhere :-O Dxx Yes, that is going to happen. We are solemnly assured by the "experts" that modern-day communion hosts (Cavanagh et al) are sealed in such a way that there can be no crumbs when they are given to communicants (whether COTT or CITH), but when you break one of them, yes, you will have crumbs. "At what point does a crumb cease to have the appearance (and other accidents, viz. taste, smell, feel, and so on) of bread, and thus cease to be the Body of Christ?" is the real question here. I would welcome a controlled experiment, done in a similar fashion to the SSPX article, performed by someone who maintains that crumbs just don't exist, or that any residue does not have the accidents of bread. Get a couple of folks from Where Peter Is to do it, and see what they come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 20, 2023 19:20:27 GMT
I've had a couple of experiences of receiving in my usual CITH manner and the priest puts the host in my hand too hard and breaks it. Yes, it does make some crumbs. Like I said, I just put the large pieces in my mouth and then discreetly lick my palm.
I can do COTT too, I received only in that manner from age 7 till about age 13 because there was no CITH in our diocese for those years, but usually only do COTT at TLM, Ordinariate, and OF's where the majority of other people are receiving COTT. It helps avoid confusion, also during the pandemic a lot of places had some special line, special procedure, or requirement to be at the end of the line to receive COTT, and it was just too much hassle when I've been receiving mostly CITH since I was in high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Mar 21, 2023 16:57:38 GMT
Communion in the hand became a serious source of arguments here with some older Catholics during the pandemic once people could go to Church again. A lot of the remaining older Italian and Irish parishioners started arguments over it, one woman started leaving leaflets around the local parishes ensuring us the priest we had now were demons and could not deliver the Eucharist via COTT as it would expose them. Yes, I know there's no logic to that but there rarely is in such rambling. Since receiving on the hand was not the norm you are talking about some serious arguments and grumbling. In Ireland you just didn't see CITH much until recent years, it was regarded with distaste and the only exceptions were when it was used with the ill or elderly where they couldn't control their head movements etc. Some of the stuff put into our heads as kids was quite funny such as you had to wait until the host dissolved on your tongue and chewing it was to kill Christ again and stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 21, 2023 18:44:10 GMT
Communion in the hand became a serious source of arguments here with some older Catholics during the pandemic once people could go to Church again. A lot of the remaining older Italian and Irish parishioners started arguments over it, one woman started leaving leaflets around the local parishes ensuring us the priest we had now were demons and could not deliver the Eucharist via COTT as it would expose them. Yes, I know there's no logic to that but there rarely is in such rambling. Since receiving on the hand was not the norm you are talking about some serious arguments and grumbling. In Ireland you just didn't see CITH much until recent years, it was regarded with distaste and the only exceptions were when it was used with the ill or elderly where they couldn't control their head movements etc. Some of the stuff put into our heads as kids was quite funny such as you had to wait until the host dissolved on your tongue and chewing it was to kill Christ again and stuff like that. If you go to Mass with Mexican clergy and EMHCs in Mexico, they pretty much only do COTT. It's handy to be able to switch back and forth because you never know what you will run into if you travel. In Prague I had to attend some early morning daily Mass as there was no other one available and it was First Friday and I didn't want to miss, and the priest not only was doing COTT but he was intincting every host. I was taught that you weren't supposed to chew the host, just let it dissolve. Fortunately my generation was too young to get the lectures on how chewing Jesus somehow hurt him, but it was considered disrespectful. I remember a couple of the elderly sisters at my elementary school getting worked up and yelling if they saw kids chewing on the way back from communion like they were "chewing gum" or "cows chewing their cud". As an adult I thought this was all pretty silly, Jesus certainly doesn't want you to choke or have a host stuck to the roof of your mouth for 15 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 21, 2023 22:38:48 GMT
Communion in the hand became a serious source of arguments here with some older Catholics during the pandemic once people could go to Church again. A lot of the remaining older Italian and Irish parishioners started arguments over it, one woman started leaving leaflets around the local parishes ensuring us the priest we had now were demons and could not deliver the Eucharist via COTT as it would expose them. Yes, I know there's no logic to that but there rarely is in such rambling. Since receiving on the hand was not the norm you are talking about some serious arguments and grumbling. In Ireland you just didn't see CITH much until recent years, it was regarded with distaste and the only exceptions were when it was used with the ill or elderly where they couldn't control their head movements etc. Some of the stuff put into our heads as kids was quite funny such as you had to wait until the host dissolved on your tongue and chewing it was to kill Christ again and stuff like that. If you go to Mass with Mexican clergy and EMHCs in Mexico, they pretty much only do COTT. It's handy to be able to switch back and forth because you never know what you will run into if you travel. In Prague I had to attend some early morning daily Mass as there was no other one available and it was First Friday and I didn't want to miss, and the priest not only was doing COTT but he was intincting every host. I was taught that you weren't supposed to chew the host, just let it dissolve. Fortunately my generation was too young to get the lectures on how chewing Jesus somehow hurt him, but it was considered disrespectful. I remember a couple of the elderly sisters at my elementary school getting worked up and yelling if they saw kids chewing on the way back from communion like they were "chewing gum" or "cows chewing their cud". As an adult I thought this was all pretty silly, Jesus certainly doesn't want you to choke or have a host stuck to the roof of your mouth for 15 minutes. I tend to have dry mouth, evidently due to medications I take, and it is very difficult for me to swallow a Host whole. I really don't feel right about chewing, so I gently allow the Host to dissolve ever so slightly on my tongue (I attempt to generate moisture before I receive), then break It with my tongue on the roof of my mouth, then swallow It. I took a bottle of water discreetly with me to Mass last night (TLM for Solemnity of St Joseph) and partook of it as needed, as I was feeling a bit more parched than usual, and had eaten something salty before Mass (well outside the one-hour fast). I'm not going to dogmatize about chewing vs non-chewing, it's just my choice not to. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 21, 2023 22:41:08 GMT
Communion in the hand became a serious source of arguments here with some older Catholics during the pandemic once people could go to Church again. A lot of the remaining older Italian and Irish parishioners started arguments over it, one woman started leaving leaflets around the local parishes ensuring us the priest we had now were demons and could not deliver the Eucharist via COTT as it would expose them. Yes, I know there's no logic to that but there rarely is in such rambling. Since receiving on the hand was not the norm you are talking about some serious arguments and grumbling. In Ireland you just didn't see CITH much until recent years, it was regarded with distaste and the only exceptions were when it was used with the ill or elderly where they couldn't control their head movements etc. Some of the stuff put into our heads as kids was quite funny such as you had to wait until the host dissolved on your tongue and chewing it was to kill Christ again and stuff like that. I'm going to let y'all engage in the CITH vs COTT debate, my thoughts on this are well-known. I can only say that if one is going to receive CITH, think about those particles, and think about What and Who they are. (No doubt everyone here would do precisely that, but there are many, outside this forum, who have no clue.) |
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Mar 22, 2023 0:02:15 GMT
This whole thing about chewing and nuns I can recall as well. Fortunately, my aunt is a religious sister and observed in reply to that once that chewing food is how we process it and that the Eucharist is spiritual food. She was getting tired of someone going on about the horrors of people chewing Communion wafers and how they were crucifying Christ again and was plainly fed up hearing what she regarded as nonsense. But it was a common point of view.
|
|
