Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='zunshynn' date='23 July 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1279863230' post='2146637'] There is NO reason to think that a host in a pyx is contaminated and should be disposed of rather than consumed. If there is even the slightest possibility that a host is consecrated, it should ALWAYS be consumed. There is no reason why an unconsecrated host would be inside a pyx in a mall. [/quote] A consecrated host that is contaminated shall not ever be consumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1279863615' post='2146643'] A consecrated host that is contaminated shall not ever be consumed. [/quote] But [i]is[/i] it contaminated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='notardillacid' date='23 July 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1279863958' post='2146646'] But [i]is[/i] it contaminated? [/quote] That's my point. If the priest decided that the fact that the host was left unprotected for an undetermined amount of time was justifiable to treat the host as contaminated, I wouldn't disagree with his decision. And again, proper disposal is not disrespectful. No one is talking about putting it in the trash bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='notardillacid' date='23 July 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1279863958' post='2146646'] But [i]is[/i] it contaminated? [/quote] And what does "contaminated" imply? That germs got into the pyx? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1279864156' post='2146650'] That's my point. If the priest decided that the fact that the host was left unprotected for an undetermined amount of time was justifiable to treat the host as contaminated, I wouldn't disagree with his decision. And again, proper disposal is not disrespectful. No one is talking about putting it in the trash bin. [/quote] Then you are not arguing that the priest must dispose rather than consume, but that if he chooses to dispose then he does so on legitimate grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Why don't we leave what to do in the hands of someone who has the authority to make such a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='23 July 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1279864371' post='2146654'] Why don't we leave what to do in the hands of someone who has the authority to make such a decision. [/quote] Because it's more fun to bicker on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I guess you could give the host to the nearest dog. JUST KIDDING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='23 July 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1279864206' post='2146652'] And what does "contaminated" imply? That germs got into the pyx? [/quote] No There are reasons why Tabernacles are locked There are reasons why there are at least two people in the room whenever adoration occurs. There are reasons why a pyx is never to be left unattended. The biggest reason is that there is evil in the world that would want to desecrate our Lord. I'm not saying anything happened. Its most likely that it fell out of a priest/deacon/extraordinary minister's pocket and nobody knew what it was. What I'm saying is that if a priest decided that because it was not guarded, he wanted to treat it as if it were contaminated, it is not a disrespectful thing to do. Its done all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='notardillacid' date='23 July 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1279864366' post='2146653'] Then you are not arguing that the priest must dispose rather than consume, but that if he chooses to dispose then he does so on legitimate grounds? [/quote] I think I've said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1279864681' post='2146660'] I think I've said that [/quote] I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='notardillacid' date='23 July 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1279864721' post='2146661'] I thought so. [/quote] thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1279864616' post='2146659'] What I'm saying is that if a priest decided that because it was not guarded, he wanted to treat it as if it were contaminated, it is not a disrespectful thing to do. Its done all the time. [/quote] The frequency of an action's occurrence has no bearing on whether an action is properly respectful to God or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1279864616' post='2146659'] No There are reasons why Tabernacles are locked There are reasons why there are at least two people in the room whenever adoration occurs. There are reasons why a pyx is never to be left unattended. The biggest reason is that there is evil in the world that would want to desecrate our Lord. I'm not saying anything happened. Its most likely that it fell out of a priest/deacon/extraordinary minister's pocket and nobody knew what it was. What I'm saying is that if a priest decided that because it was not guarded, he wanted to treat it as if it were contaminated, it is not a disrespectful thing to do. Its done all the time. [/quote] So "contaminated" could mean that He was desecrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zunshynn Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='22 July 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1279863615' post='2146643'] A consecrated host that is contaminated shall not ever be consumed. [/quote] A number of years ago, a non-Catholic woman came to Mother Angelica when she was giving a talk in some place in New York, and told her she had "something Catholic" she didn't know what to do with. She operated a retreat house of some kind, and at one point a priest celebrated mass and left hosts there, but then they had no priest come again for a long time, and being non-Catholic and having no idea what to do with them, eventually she saw they were spoiling, and buried them. When she heard Mother Angelica talking about the Blessed Sacrament, she realized that's what they were, and told Mother. Mother asked her to take her and show her where the hosts were so she did, and they dug them up. They were filthy, having been there for almost three years, but Reverend Mother and the priest that was with her carefully separated everything that they could identify as possibly being a part of a host and consumed everything. And with everything else, the dirt and the paper bag that they had been in, they burned it, and she placed the ashes in a small urn and then placed that inside the tabernacle cloister. Do you think she was worried about contamination? No. Did she know what had happened to them? No. What she did know was that her Lord and her Spouse was there, that this was the Bread of Angels and she could only think of doing reparation to Him. So that's what she did. THAT is respectful. THAT is how one treats the King of Kings. One does not "dispose" of Him because He "might be contaminated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts