|
Post by pianistclare on May 11, 2021 13:59:42 GMT
Interesting to note that everyone tends to fixate on the communion in the hand issue. The Apostles received in the hand and Jesus did not worry so much about it. It wasn't until centuries later and clericalism that the issue was forced on the laity. I receive on the tongue becuase that's how I learned as a child, I don't look askance on others who receive in the hand nor do I think they are the least bit disrespectful of the Eucharist.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 11, 2021 14:19:01 GMT
Interesting to note that everyone tends to fixate on the communion in the hand issue. The Apostles received in the hand and Jesus did not worry so much about it. It wasn't until centuries later and clericalism that the issue was forced on the laity. I receive on the tongue becuase that's how I learned as a child, I don't look askance on others who receive in the hand nor do I think they are the least bit disrespectful of the Eucharist. The CITH/COTT debate was one of the more lively ones on CAF, cropping up every so often like hot spots at a fire scene, and I don't wish to open it, but I do have these thoughts:
- The Apostles were all bishops.
- Some say that it was a Middle Eastern custom for the host (no pun intended) to place morsels of food into the mouths of his guests. Whether Our Lord did this, no one can say, but it wouldn't have been culturally alien.
- I can easily surmise that eucharistic piety developed over time --- while It was always the Body of Christ, the early Church may not have "thought this through", just as it was not immediately evident that since Our Lord is truly present in the Eucharist, we may adore It, pray to It, and so on. Even today, the Eastern Christian churches don't attempt to explain the "how", nor the precise moment at which it takes place, they just "behold the mystery".
- I don't accuse anyone of being deliberately irreverent, but a Particle is a Particle, and if It retains the accidents of bread, then It remains the Body of Christ. I'm not sure to what extent lightly catechized people in today's Church grasp this as a practical matter. Therefore irreverence, even if unintentional, can and does happen.
- In theory, if it could be absolutely assured that nothing retaining the accidents of bread remained in the communicant's hand after receiving communion, I would have no problem with it. I much prefer to see the Eucharist touched by only ordained hands, but I will not dogmatize about that --- hermits, and others for whom it was necessary, self-communicated.
- To hear the host bakers tell it, the edges of the hosts are sealed, and no fragments can fall or slough off, but the study published in The Angelus proves otherwise. I'm not asking anyone to like the SSPX, or even to approve of the fact that they publish a magazine, but facts are facts. Either a Particle retains the accidents, or It does not.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on May 11, 2021 14:38:04 GMT
But in fact, you ARE saying that communion in the hand is improper. The good Sisters of the Visitation that bake for us, see no problem with it. As I said, I'm not about to call anyone out for receiving in the hand when it is permitted. And, as point of history, at the night of the Last Supper the Apostles were not Bishops. They became Bishops due their various ministries and travels. And really, what has that got to do with anything? Ask any Archbishop if he thinks he's more than a priest. He will not say he is more beyond the number of people he ministers to.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 11, 2021 15:12:02 GMT
But in fact, you ARE saying that communion in the hand is improper. The good Sisters of the Visitation that bake for us, see no problem with it. As I said, I'm not about to call anyone out for receiving in the hand when it is permitted. And, as point of history, at the night of the Last Supper the Apostles were not Bishops. They became Bishops due their various ministries and travels. And really, what has that got to do with anything? Ask any Archbishop if he thinks he's more than a priest. He will not say he is more beyond the number of people he ministers to. No, not improper per se, as I said above about CITH if it could be absolutely assured that no visible fragments would remain. If there can be that assurance, I won't call anyone out on it either.
It's always been my understanding that the Apostles were bishops from the moment Our Lord baptized them and that they were called to follow Him. I would be interested to see if anyone has ever actually "taken this apart" and determined (as though it really matters 2000 years later) precisely when they became priests and/or bishops. I think it can be safely assumed it happened either before, or when, Our Lord said "do this in memory of Me". This would be something to study. I have just gone on the concept of the bishops to this day, being the successors of the Apostles, a fact no one denies. And as far as what an archbishop would say if he were asked if he is "more than a priest", I have to think he would reply that he has jurisdiction over the faithful in a way that priests do not, and that he is empowered to ordain (and is the usual, but not mandatory, minister of confirmation as well).
(There is an obscure passage in Ott that refers to abbots, who were not bishops, having been given permission by the Pope to ordain priests, in at least one case. Ott's contention was that while the latent power of priests to ordain other priests does exist, the permission from the Pope is required for validity. The very interesting character Father Lucian Pulvermacher in Montana, who was elected by a rump sedevacantist "conclave" of laity as "Pope Pius XIII", not to be confused with Jude Law's character, used this potesta ligata --- "sacramental jumper cables" --- to ordain another man as a priest, then consecrated him as a bishop, then had that man to consecrate him as a bishop... you can't make this stuff up. That said, I read Fr Pulvermacher's writings, and he would have made a fine pope indeed, he had many edifying things to say, he expressed them in simple language, and he was totally traditional. But the usual channels, please.)
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on May 11, 2021 21:09:45 GMT
Those wishing to receive in the hand need not defend their position or advocate for it just as those wishing to assist/attend/celebrate an existing EF need not defend or advocate for their choice to do so. Both are legitimate options.
All parties to the decisions are fully aware of the physical properties of the consecrated breads. Standing and in the hand has become the nearly universal practice. It is accepted by the authorities and faithful along with any potential for scattering particles. How does this speak to so called ‘particle theology?’
Eucharist is something celebrated as community, it brings the community together, it is the communion of the faithful. Often arguments are made to use this very communion to tear apart or put down members of the faithful by their chosen manner of reception.
Communion has been received in many different manners: by hand, kneeling on the tongue, standing on the tongue, on the tongue by way of intinction, intinction by way of a spoon, kneeling by hand, standing by hand. In each a communicant has received worthily.
Those fretting over disbursed particles seem to express it may be too dangerous to celebrate the Eucharist. Or at least the Eucharist ought to be celebrated as little as possible, lest more and more particles of the Body of Christ be lost and not treated reverently enough.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 11, 2021 23:11:50 GMT
Those wishing to receive in the hand need not defend their position or advocate for it just as those wishing to assist/attend/celebrate an existing EF need not defend or advocate for their choice to do so. Both are legitimate options. All parties to the decisions are fully aware of the physical properties of the consecrated breads. Standing and in the hand has become the nearly universal practice. It is accepted by the authorities and faithful along with any potential for scattering particles. How does this speak to so called ‘particle theology?’ Eucharist is something celebrated as community, it brings the community together, it is the communion of the faithful. Often arguments are made to use this very communion to tear apart or put down members of the faithful by their chosen manner of reception. Communion has been received in many different manners: by hand, kneeling on the tongue, standing on the tongue, on the tongue by way of intinction, intinction by way of a spoon, kneeling by hand, standing by hand. In each a communicant has received worthily. Those fretting over disbursed particles seem to express it may be too dangerous to celebrate the Eucharist. Or at least the Eucharist ought to be celebrated as little as possible, lest more and more particles of the Body of Christ be lost and not treated reverently enough. Kneeling on the tongue? Standing on the tongue? Is that even physically possible?
I'm sorry, I know this is arguably the most serious issue in the world (aside from venial sin, let alone mortal), but I couldn't resist that. Now that I have that out of the way...
I hear what you are saying, but I have my doubts that at least more gently or lightly catechized people (or those people who are just obtuse about such matters) comprehend how a stray particle, that retains the accidents of bread, can be wholly and entirely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. If they don't, and if they don't inspect their hands for stray, unseen particles, then, yes, that's a problem. It is the same problem as would exist if a large consecrated priest's Host somehow disappeared and ended up in mud, in a gutter, or worse. I'm not sure to what extent modern catechetics "hammer it home" that Christ is truly present even in the smallest particle that retains the accidents of bread. In my day, "everybody just knew", and in my pretty conservative diocese, when CITH was introduced, there was some pushback. Before CITH was introduced, it never would have even occurred to the average Catholic to receive in the hand (or from a layperson for that matter). It wasn't on anybody's radar screen until it was introduced "from above". Catholics being Catholics, and this not being a matter that threatened seriously to disrupt their lives (unlike, let's say, obeying Church teaching on birth control after Humanae vitae came out), they did what they were told.
I have served at many Masses, both OF and EF, where patens were used, and those patens exist to catch those very particles. The altar server handles that paten with all the care humanly possible, and yes, crumbs do fall. I've seen it many times. That's why the paten is used. Sadly, though, in the OF, patens are pretty much a thing of the past. Not sure who decided that they weren't to be used anymore.
All of this said, if by some chance a visible particle floats or falls away unseen, and becomes the victim of inadvertent and unknown sacrilege, that is not something any of us can worry about. It is not nearly as bad as a knowingly unworthy communicant going ahead and receiving the Host anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on May 12, 2021 0:48:54 GMT
Those wishing to receive in the hand need not defend their position or advocate for it just as those wishing to assist/attend/celebrate an existing EF need not defend or advocate for their choice to do so. Both are legitimate options. All parties to the decisions are fully aware of the physical properties of the consecrated breads. Standing and in the hand has become the nearly universal practice. It is accepted by the authorities and faithful along with any potential for scattering particles. How does this speak to so called ‘particle theology?’ Eucharist is something celebrated as community, it brings the community together, it is the communion of the faithful. Often arguments are made to use this very communion to tear apart or put down members of the faithful by their chosen manner of reception. Communion has been received in many different manners: by hand, kneeling on the tongue, standing on the tongue, on the tongue by way of intinction, intinction by way of a spoon, kneeling by hand, standing by hand. In each a communicant has received worthily. Those fretting over disbursed particles seem to express it may be too dangerous to celebrate the Eucharist. Or at least the Eucharist ought to be celebrated as little as possible, lest more and more particles of the Body of Christ be lost and not treated reverently enough. Kneeling on the tongue? Standing on the tongue? Is that even physically possible?
I'm sorry, I know this is arguably the most serious issue in the world (aside from venial sin, let alone mortal), but I couldn't resist that. Now that I have that out of the way...
I hear what you are saying, but I have my doubts that at least more gently or lightly catechized people (or those people who are just obtuse about such matters) comprehend how a stray particle, that retains the accidents of bread, can be wholly and entirely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. If they don't, and if they don't inspect their hands for stray, unseen particles, then, yes, that's a problem. It is the same problem as would exist if a large consecrated priest's Host somehow disappeared and ended up in mud, in a gutter, or worse. I'm not sure to what extent modern catechetics "hammer it home" that Christ is truly present even in the smallest particle that retains the accidents of bread. In my day, "everybody just knew", and in my pretty conservative diocese, when CITH was introduced, there was some pushback. Before CITH was introduced, it never would have even occurred to the average Catholic to receive in the hand (or from a layperson for that matter). It wasn't on anybody's radar screen until it was introduced "from above". Catholics being Catholics, and this not being a matter that threatened seriously to disrupt their lives (unlike, let's say, obeying Church teaching on birth control after Humanae vitae came out), they did what they were told.
I have served at many Masses, both OF and EF, where patens were used, and those patens exist to catch those very particles. The altar server handles that paten with all the care humanly possible, and yes, crumbs do fall. I've seen it many times. That's why the paten is used. Sadly, though, in the OF, patens are pretty much a thing of the past. Not sure who decided that they weren't to be used anymore.
All of this said, if by some chance a visible particle floats or falls away unseen, and becomes the victim of inadvertent and unknown sacrilege, that is not something any of us can worry about. It is not nearly as bad as a knowingly unworthy communicant going ahead and receiving the Host anyway.
Individual bishops and national conferences are likely aware of the level of catechesis prevalent amongst the faithful. These same bishops or conferences could well remove permission if they perceived an eminent threat of profanation by communion in the hand. It seems those arguing against communion in the hand are at odds with bishops permitting such a practice. In interesting fashion many (most?) eastern Catholic bishops require no catechesis for the reception of the Eucharist by the young and these same persons are permitted and encouraged to receive if they find themselves worshiping in a Latin rite setting. Inadvertent and unknown ‘sacrilege’ seem to be the crux of the issue. The need of black gloves to determine the potential for tiny particles seems to accentuate the point. Do reasonable persons need black gloves and close inspection to determine what is or is not according to its accidents bread? Consuming perceptible pieces seems quite evident, licking one’s hands to insure consumption of tiny particles seems less so. Should those receiving on the tongue and wearing a beard worry over the particles which may have been intercepted on their way to falling into the paten? Should the beardless worry there may be particles on their chin? Have persons conducting such experiments examined other parts of the communicants body including beard, chin, or material extracted by flossing or brushing of teeth? Or have such experiments perhaps been conducted with know results in mind and largely performed to advance their own position on how communion ‘ought’ to be received? Much of the worry about ‘sacrilege’ involving tiny particles and the occasional host being absconded with or misused seems to make the Lord out as a hapless, powerless victim unable to protect himself. For some who prefer communion in the hand there may be appreciation for ‘take and eat’ as opposed to place it in my mouth and I shall consume.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on May 12, 2021 13:25:16 GMT
Those wishing to receive in the hand need not defend their position or advocate for it just as those wishing to assist/attend/celebrate an existing EF need not defend or advocate for their choice to do so. Both are legitimate options. All parties to the decisions are fully aware of the physical properties of the consecrated breads. Standing and in the hand has become the nearly universal practice. It is accepted by the authorities and faithful along with any potential for scattering particles. How does this speak to so called ‘particle theology?’ Eucharist is something celebrated as community, it brings the community together, it is the communion of the faithful. Often arguments are made to use this very communion to tear apart or put down members of the faithful by their chosen manner of reception. Communion has been received in many different manners: by hand, kneeling on the tongue, standing on the tongue, on the tongue by way of intinction, intinction by way of a spoon, kneeling by hand, standing by hand. In each a communicant has received worthily. Those fretting over disbursed particles seem to express it may be too dangerous to celebrate the Eucharist. Or at least the Eucharist ought to be celebrated as little as possible, lest more and more particles of the Body of Christ be lost and not treated reverently enough. Kneeling on the tongue? Standing on the tongue? Is that even physically possible?
I'm sorry, I know this is arguably the most serious issue in the world (aside from venial sin, let alone mortal), but I couldn't resist that. Now that I have that out of the way...
I hear what you are saying, but I have my doubts that at least more gently or lightly catechized people (or those people who are just obtuse about such matters) comprehend how a stray particle, that retains the accidents of bread, can be wholly and entirely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. If they don't, and if they don't inspect their hands for stray, unseen particles, then, yes, that's a problem. It is the same problem as would exist if a large consecrated priest's Host somehow disappeared and ended up in mud, in a gutter, or worse. I'm not sure to what extent modern catechetics "hammer it home" that Christ is truly present even in the smallest particle that retains the accidents of bread. In my day, "everybody just knew", and in my pretty conservative diocese, when CITH was introduced, there was some pushback. Before CITH was introduced, it never would have even occurred to the average Catholic to receive in the hand (or from a layperson for that matter). It wasn't on anybody's radar screen until it was introduced "from above". Catholics being Catholics, and this not being a matter that threatened seriously to disrupt their lives (unlike, let's say, obeying Church teaching on birth control after Humanae vitae came out), they did what they were told.
I have served at many Masses, both OF and EF, where patens were used, and those patens exist to catch those very particles. The altar server handles that paten with all the care humanly possible, and yes, crumbs do fall. I've seen it many times. That's why the paten is used. Sadly, though, in the OF, patens are pretty much a thing of the past. Not sure who decided that they weren't to be used anymore.
All of this said, if by some chance a visible particle floats or falls away unseen, and becomes the victim of inadvertent and unknown sacrilege, that is not something any of us can worry about. It is not nearly as bad as a knowingly unworthy communicant going ahead and receiving the Host anyway.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on May 12, 2021 13:26:15 GMT
Thank you, Ratioefides. Well stated.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on May 12, 2021 16:40:51 GMT
I think there have been according to blood type.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on May 12, 2021 17:09:17 GMT
Blood type from Eucharistic samples? Like hosts turning to flesh? Because there certainly is no DNA from Christ or Mary, or Joseph for that matter. I read somewhere that the blood type of a certain host was A negative.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 12, 2021 18:14:46 GMT
Kneeling on the tongue? Standing on the tongue? Is that even physically possible?
I'm sorry, I know this is arguably the most serious issue in the world (aside from venial sin, let alone mortal), but I couldn't resist that. Now that I have that out of the way...
I hear what you are saying, but I have my doubts that at least more gently or lightly catechized people (or those people who are just obtuse about such matters) comprehend how a stray particle, that retains the accidents of bread, can be wholly and entirely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. If they don't, and if they don't inspect their hands for stray, unseen particles, then, yes, that's a problem. It is the same problem as would exist if a large consecrated priest's Host somehow disappeared and ended up in mud, in a gutter, or worse. I'm not sure to what extent modern catechetics "hammer it home" that Christ is truly present even in the smallest particle that retains the accidents of bread. In my day, "everybody just knew", and in my pretty conservative diocese, when CITH was introduced, there was some pushback. Before CITH was introduced, it never would have even occurred to the average Catholic to receive in the hand (or from a layperson for that matter). It wasn't on anybody's radar screen until it was introduced "from above". Catholics being Catholics, and this not being a matter that threatened seriously to disrupt their lives (unlike, let's say, obeying Church teaching on birth control after Humanae vitae came out), they did what they were told.
I have served at many Masses, both OF and EF, where patens were used, and those patens exist to catch those very particles. The altar server handles that paten with all the care humanly possible, and yes, crumbs do fall. I've seen it many times. That's why the paten is used. Sadly, though, in the OF, patens are pretty much a thing of the past. Not sure who decided that they weren't to be used anymore.
All of this said, if by some chance a visible particle floats or falls away unseen, and becomes the victim of inadvertent and unknown sacrilege, that is not something any of us can worry about. It is not nearly as bad as a knowingly unworthy communicant going ahead and receiving the Host anyway.
Individual bishops and national conferences are likely aware of the level of catechesis prevalent amongst the faithful. These same bishops or conferences could well remove permission if they perceived an eminent threat of profanation by communion in the hand. It seems those arguing against communion in the hand are at odds with bishops permitting such a practice. In interesting fashion many (most?) eastern Catholic bishops require no catechesis for the reception of the Eucharist by the young and these same persons are permitted and encouraged to receive if they find themselves worshiping in a Latin rite setting. Inadvertent and unknown ‘sacrilege’ seem to be the crux of the issue. The need of black gloves to determine the potential for tiny particles seems to accentuate the point. Do reasonable persons need black gloves and close inspection to determine what is or is not according to its accidents bread? Consuming perceptible pieces seems quite evident, licking one’s hands to insure consumption of tiny particles seems less so. Should those receiving on the tongue and wearing a beard worry over the particles which may have been intercepted on their way to falling into the paten? Should the beardless worry there may be particles on their chin? Have persons conducting such experiments examined other parts of the communicants body including beard, chin, or material extracted by flossing or brushing of teeth? Or have such experiments perhaps been conducted with know results in mind and largely performed to advance their own position on how communion ‘ought’ to be received? Much of the worry about ‘sacrilege’ involving tiny particles and the occasional host being absconded with or misused seems to make the Lord out as a hapless, powerless victim unable to protect himself. For some who prefer communion in the hand there may be appreciation for ‘take and eat’ as opposed to place it in my mouth and I shall consume. To paraphrase (and to clean up a bit) what C.S. Lewis said about elves when Tolkien was reading one of his stories, "oh, goodness, not another blessed CITH thread".
It breaks out like this:
- The salient question seems to be "could the Church ever promulgate, or acquiesce to, a practice or behavior that is contrary to revealed religion, or dangerous to souls, on a large scale for any extended period of time?". The most pious CUF or Blue Army member would say "absolutely not!", the most embittered ultra-traditionalist or sedevacantist would say something like "that's what she's done pretty much continuously for the past 60 years!".
- I cannot dissect what the bishops are aware of, or what they're concerned about. You'd have to ask them.
- To my mind, "visible" means "visible to the ordinary person, paying as much attention as they could to something this important, using unaided clinical 20/20 vision, either natural or corrected".
- The Angelus experiment with black gloves was what it was, and it disclosed what it disclosed, regardless of how the experimenters wanted the study to turn out. And it's entirely possible that someone with very dark skin would have a fragment on the back or side of their hand (palms of the hands of all races are unpigmented) that would not be visible on the hand of someone with lighter skin. Would the very same fragment be the Body of Christ in Kenya (very dark people) but not in Iceland (very light people)?
- Actually, interesting that you mentioned beards, because I used to have one. This could be a concern. So could the clothing underneath the paten area. We can only do what we can do, and if an unseen (though visible if it had been seen) fragment got neglected, then, as you allude to (even if indirectly), that is when we have to put it in the Hands of the Lord, and think no more about it.
- Not to split hairs, but "take" does not necessarily mean "take it in your hands". Even in COTT-only days, people routinely referred to "taking" communion. If a nurse asks if a patient is able to "take" nourishment, they are not necessarily referring to using hands, in fact, it probably means simply to ingest by whatever means (orally, intravenously, feeding tube). If one wanted to get really "wonky" about it, we might want to look at Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), look at the word Jesus used, and see what the untranslated equivalent of "take" means and/or implies in that language. I know that mental gymnastics have been done to justify "for you and for all" in the previous English translation of the NOM by saying "the words Jesus used meant 'the all who are many' " (or something like that).
What it boils down to, people who want to receive CITH are going to do so, and people who want to receive COTT are going to do so. Again, to reiterate, as long as there is no danger of visible fragments being disregarded, I will not go to the cross, to say that people shouldn't receive CITH if the Church allows it. I choose not to. And I would point out that, as late as the mid-1970s, if you had told people "in a few years, you will be receiving communion in the hand, given to you by a layperson", they would have looked at you as though you were crazy. (But then again, if you had told people in the mid-1950s, "in a few years, you will be assisting at a Mass in English, with the priest facing you, with the Introibo ad altare Dei and the Last Gospel removed, everyone will shake hands or even hug right before receiving communion, and you will receive communion standing up", you would have gotten a similar reaction.)
Finally, I have to wonder what Padre Pio would have had to say about the matter. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 12, 2021 18:21:11 GMT
Blood type from Eucharistic samples? Like hosts turning to flesh? Because there certainly is no DNA from Christ or Mary, or Joseph for that matter. I read somewhere that the blood type of a certain host was A negative. No, obviously we couldn't get their DNA, but if it were possible to extract haplotypes, and if those haplotypes indicated a Levantine or Semitic origin, that would pretty much speak for itself. At the very least, it would challenge skeptics to suggest "they got hold of cardiac muscle tissue from someone from Palestine, then unknown to anyone, they slipped it into a monstrance, all the better to trick the scientists into thinking it could be a miracle in which ordinary bread turned into the heart muscle of a Palestinian Jew from 2000 years ago". At that point, a version of Occam's Razor would come into play --- "the simplest explanation is often the correct one".
It's not absolutely impossible that ecclesiastical tricksters could secure a sample of cardiac tissue from a Palestinian Jew in Argentina or in Poland, but that's really reaching. That would take some really smart and really resourceful charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on May 12, 2021 21:09:35 GMT
The DNA of Jesus is thousands of years old. There was a test with unconcrevrated hosts, where people received on the hand with black gloves. There were particles of the host left on the glove. That may be the same test for which I provided a link, a study done by an SSPX adherent and his young son, published in The Angelus. As far as why those Particles remain the Body of Christ, yet do not deserve the reverence due even to the smallest visible Fragment that retains the appearance of bread, I shall leave that to CITH advocates to explain (as well as to explain why the Church for centuries was wrong about how to treat those Particles). In the meantime, I remain unconvinced, and receive only on the tongue.
I would love to see a DNA analysis of some of that cardiac muscle tissue or coagulated blood found in Eucharistic miracles. The haplotypes would tell the whole story. Referring back to my earlier comments, I become a little hesitant to think of His Body being tested for DNA, but even as He suffered violence to His Body for our salvation, now that science has progressed to that point, I have to think He would approve of these tiny Fragments being used to show an unbelieving world that He remains with us. (And besides, assuming It were "living Tissue", the DNA test would end Its life. The same thing happens when we digest It after receiving.)
Type AB
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on May 12, 2021 21:11:56 GMT
That may be the same test for which I provided a link, a study done by an SSPX adherent and his young son, published in The Angelus. As far as why those Particles remain the Body of Christ, yet do not deserve the reverence due even to the smallest visible Fragment that retains the appearance of bread, I shall leave that to CITH advocates to explain (as well as to explain why the Church for centuries was wrong about how to treat those Particles). In the meantime, I remain unconvinced, and receive only on the tongue.
I would love to see a DNA analysis of some of that cardiac muscle tissue or coagulated blood found in Eucharistic miracles. The haplotypes would tell the whole story. Referring back to my earlier comments, I become a little hesitant to think of His Body being tested for DNA, but even as He suffered violence to His Body for our salvation, now that science has progressed to that point, I have to think He would approve of these tiny Fragments being used to show an unbelieving world that He remains with us. (And besides, assuming It were "living Tissue", the DNA test would end Its life. The same thing happens when we digest It after receiving.)
The blood in the Host of St. Genaro has tested same blood type..
|
|