By discard, I meant burn.
Any thing that has been consecrated can be unconsecrated. This applies to ‘holy ground’ as well.
I know this from my own 7 years at a Catholic primary school as an altarboy, where they’d get hosts (even if only one was dropped) that had been dropped, de-consecrate them, and burn them in one of those bowl-shaped oil-burning flames.
Actually, it is in an Aristotelian sense of the nature of substance and being.
I haven’t been Catholic since I was a littl’un, but I seem to recall something about the blood being withheld from the congragation (i.e., the chalice was carried around, but no one drank out of it. Is this correct, no longer done, or just plain wrong?
It used to be that everyone would drink the blood, but lately it seems that they only have the ministers giving Communion drinking it- and even then, they wipe the rim after each person.
Mind you, the last time I went to church was about 10 years ago, and I haven’t been Catholic for 5 (note to ‘lapsed’ Catholics: you can have your sacraments annulled- even baptism, communion, and confirmation!), so maybe it’s changed since. But I recall it being a simple matter of hygeine.
I went to Catholic School for eight years. The nuns had an apparently bottomless well of supposedly enlightening and faith-promoting stories that were, in reality, pretty horrifying and gross. One of them addresses the above question. Here it is (and remember, you asked for it):
The priest was distributing communion at the hospital to the sick, who were unable to come to Church. One poor woman was having some sort of stomach operation, and, even in her hospital bed, she was hooked up to a machine that was constantly pumping out her stomach.
Some time after the priest left, one of the attendants (one presumes this is a Catholic hospital) noticed that the stomach-pumping machine had sucked out the communion wafer, and it was in the jar with the other stomach contents. So…
…(you guessed right) she scooped it out with a spoon and ate it, to prevent profanation of the Host.
(Pause to stomach clenching and possible barfing)
In reality, I suspect they would, in such a case, remove the Host and save it for proper disposal later. There’s a special drain in the sacristy where they pour off the washings from the chalice and leftover fragments. It ultimately goes to a special pit in the ground – a sort of “Holy Waste Dump”. I’ve long been fascinated by the way consecrated items are treated with extreme care and respect resembles our treatment of nuclear material, especially nuclear waste.
I don’t know where einzelwesen gets his information from, but as far as Catholic teaching goes
a consecrated host cannot be “unconsecrated” and become just bread again, and
a sacrament cannot be reversed. You cannot become unbaptised again any more than you can become unborn again.
I wouldn’t think that consecrated hosts which are burned would be “deconsecrated” first. As with the wine mentioned above, burning is an OK disposal method for consecrated materials.
Depending on the parish, Catholic churches do in general distribute the bread and wine (both “species”) at Communion. Smaller churches or those without Eucharistic ministers may not. There is a communcal chalice(s), the rim of which which is wiped off after each person drinks.
And yep, once baptised, always baptised.
This has been quite illuminating. I was raised R.C. until I was six but it was all post vatican II. This puts the chapter in Angela’s Ashes about young Frank’s first communion in better perspective. Now I’m a Lutheran. We use grape juice and don’t have a special sink.
I think I’m glad I’m a Baptist.
I’m glad I’m pagan. Our cakes and ale are only sacred in the sense that they represent abundance and fertility and because the things used to make them come from the earth. If you drop it, I believe it is perfectly ok to throw it away, but most likely you would give it back to the earth.
UDS: I got my information from myself writing away to the Vatican at age 15 and requesting that my sacraments be annulled: happening to know that the sacrament of marriage can be annulled, I wondered if the sacraments I’d done could also be annulled, seeing as though I no longer believed in Catholicism and, after a long struggle with my conscience, thought it’d be dishonest to continue as a Catholic in name. Now I’m agnostic: -if- there is a higher power, I’m sure it doesn’t favour one religion or the other.
They sent me back documents to show that my sacraments had been annulled, as well as a letter which said (in effect) that I’d be the first on the barbeque when they were allowed to toast people for heresy again.
I don’t know where YOU get your information from: of course sacraments can be annulled! (the Sacrament of Marriage being the most common example)
einzelwesen: The annulment of a marriage is a finding that a marriage has never taken place (because, for example, although the proper procedures were followed some essential element, such as the consent or capacity of one of the spouses, is lacking). An annulment is not the reversal of a marriage; it is a finding that there has never been a marriage in the first place.
Conceptually, any sacrament could be similarly annulled if it could be shown that some essential element was lacking at the time of the sacrament. In practical terms there is rarely any need for this, since the other sacraments do not have the same practical implications for peoples’ day-to-day lives as marriage has. It wouls surprise me to learn that there was any procedure for annulling baptism, but if you have been through such procedure and have demonstrated that your baptism was sacramentally invalid from the outset and had this accepted by the Church, I stand corrected.
But no sacrament which was initially valid can be annulled on the basis that the individual has later changed his mind and no longer wishes to be baptised/married/confirmed or whatever.
Wow, cool. How exactly did they word it?
While we’re on the topic of when a transubstantiated wafer is and is not holy, I’d like to bring up the stercorian question: does it remain holy when it is excreted out of the body?
einzelwesen’s story is not true.
The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and Holy Orders all “imprint a character”, or leave an indelible mark on the soul. Once validly conferred, they may not be erased. (See Cans. 849, 879, 1008).
Marriage cannot be erased either. As UDS correctly points out, the annulment of marriage is a judicial finding that there was never a valid sacrament in the first place.
All sacaments, once conferred, enjoy the presumption of validity. When a marriage is challenged, there is an actual trial, before a tribunal. A lawyer is appointed as Defender of the Bond. It is his job to advocate that the marriage was valid. Against him are the party, or parties, seeking the annulment. If they can present compelling evidence - say, for example, that the consent was coerced (“Her father was in the back of the church with a shotgun pointed at me the whole time!”) then the tribunal can find that, appearances to the contrary, there was never a valid sacrament of matrimony in the first place, and issue a decree to that effect.
Needless to say, it is not enough to merely annouce that you don’t think the marriage was valid; even if both parties to the marriage wish it annuled, the trial process must still be followed and the Defender of the Bond must still advocate in favor of the marriage’s validity.
Of the seven sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders all leave an indelible mark upon the soul, and may only be conferred once. Once conferred, they may not be “erased”.
It’s possible to imagine a decree of nullity with regards to Holy Orders – if the person conferring the sacrament was not a bishop, for example, the ordination he performs is invalid.
Baptism, on the other hand, is validly conferred by anyone with the requisite intention to baptize. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a decree of nullity might be sustained for baptism.
Even if it were, however, the process would begin as all canon judicial processes do: at the diocesan level, with the diocesan bisjop, his judicial vicar, and appointed judges. An appeal from that goes automatically, in the cases of decrees of nullity, to either the local episcopal conference or to the Roman Rota. An appeal from the Roman Rota goes to the Supreme Pontiff.
(Note: if einzelwesen happens to be a heads of state, a Cardinals, or a Legates of the Apostolic See, his case would be judged in the first instance by the Pope; if he is a bishop, an Abbot primate or the Abbot superior of a monastic congregation, or the supreme Moderator of a religious institute of pontifical right, his case would be judged in the first instance by the Roman Rota; see Can 1405 § 1 et seq).
In short: einzelwesen’s story is both theologically wrong and procedurally wrong. No one may “write to the Vatican”, and, without any trial or other process, obtain a decree of nullity as regards any sacrament. And with regards to the indelible sacraments, such a decree is well-nigh impossible.
Does pizza remain pizza when it is excreted out of the body?
If it does, I have a great idea for a new franchise.
Sadly, it does not. Neither does the character of the Eucharist remain after digestion.
I’ll raise tomahto.
I’m glad I’m Jewish. We don’t consecrate our bread and wine, we say a blessing over them. ( “…Who brings forth bread from the ground,” “…Creator of the fruit of the grapevine,” respectively.)
After that, the bread and wine become lunch.
Okay, I have a similar question to one that was raised earlier in the thread.
I attend an Episcopal/Anglican church with my wife and her sister, who is disabled. She has trouble with the mobility in her arms. If the host is placed in her hand, she can lift it to her mouth, usually (although we once had what we refer to as the ceremonial “flinging of the host” when she had a spasm and through it over her shoulder).
Anyhow, to avoid choking by drinking from the chalice, she prefers to intinct (dip the bread in the wine). However, because of the wheelchair, she is not close enough to the altar rail for the chalice bearer to place the intincted(?) wager into her mouth (nor would she like that anyway). Usually, my wife will take the wafer from her sister’s hand, dip it in the wine, and feed it to her.
It just crossed my mind that this may not be kosher ;), since my wife has not been appointed or ordained or whatever to serve communion. Am I right in thinking this?
You may want to check with your Rector to verify this, Skammer, but while IANACL (…canon lawyer ;)), it’s my understanding that such licensing is only needed for formal and regular service to a congregation, not for incidental and specialized circumstances such as this. However, unless you’re in a situation where the only entry to “behind the rail” is blocked off during communion (and we attended one church like that), the chalice bearer should be bringing the chalice to her, not obliging her to fend for herself in trying to access it. Again a word to the Rector may be wise.
Skammer,
I’m not sure what the rule is for the Anglican church. On the off chance that someone reading is interested in the Roman Catholic answer to the situation you describe, however:
A lay person may not distribute the Eucharist, in either species, unless he has been granted the faculty to do so. The dioscean bishop, or the priest in cases of necessity, may commission lay people to serve as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
It is permitted to distribute Holy Eucharist by intinction. But a lay person may not do so unless at least the priest has granted this faculty, even for the short period that Skammer describes. In this case, the best choice would be to either take Holy Communion by bread alone, or by intinction offered by the minister, rather than the sister.
Thank you, Poly, (and you too, Bricker, for your RC perspective).
Depending on who the chalice bearer is that day, sometimes they do come around the rail and bring it to her. But she still lacks the coordination to intinct for herself and usually relies on my wife to do it for her.
Now that I’m thinking more about it, I think I’ll talk to the person who coordinates the folks who do that, so that they know how to help her. I’m sure most of them just don’t know what kind of help she needs and don’t want to do the wrong thing.