I Found Jesus At Work Tonight

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='23 July 2010 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1279869150' post='2146703']
1. HCF was fortunate enough to recognize the pyx, rescue a potentially consecrated Host and to pay it adoration by keeping vigil with a small candle while it is in her custody.

2. She plans to return the pyx and Host to the custody of a parish as soon as humanly possible.

3. Once in custody of a priest, I am sure that he will accord the Host the due honor accorded to the Sacrament as a Catholic and as a minister of the Church, by whose proclamations he operates.


Why can't we just have a thread that says YAY Jesus got rescued from the drawer at the mall and leave it at that? And thank you to HCF for treating Jesus like an honored guest in her home.
[/quote]

It WAS fortunate that HCF recognized the pyx--I wouldn't have. Although I would have recognized the religious symbol on the box.

However, I WOULD recognize a host, and I, like HCF, would take the pyx with me. Then I'd log on Phatmass and ask what to do.

If it ever happens to me, now I will recognize a pyx.

Sometimes I think I take it too much for granted that Jesus lives just across the street from me.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 03:46 AM' timestamp='1279871198' post='2146721']
I don't disagree with St. Pius V. I disagree with your eisegetical reading of him.
[/quote]

And the rest of us disagree with your lack of understanding

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:50 AM' timestamp='1279871455' post='2146723']
And the rest of us disagree with your lack of understanding
[/quote]

Is there a mouse in your pocket?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1279871198' post='2146721']
I don't disagree with St. Pius V. I disagree with your eisegetical reading of him.
[/quote]

If a priest has good reason to assume a host is poisoned... what is he to do?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Slappo' date='23 July 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1279871653' post='2146725']
If a priest has good reason to assume a host is poisoned... what is he to do?
[/quote]

In the case of a poisoned Host, the Host would be placed in a chalice filled with water and left there to dissolve. After the Host had completely dissolved, the water could then be poured down the sacrarium. That said, in this circumstance there is no reason to think the Host is poisoned.

[Slappo]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1279870257' post='2146713']
THANK YOU!

Some folks around here need to put their personal feelings aside and stop looking for an argument.
[/quote]

I would add to my post... that IMO for a host to be considered "contaminated" to the point of properly and reverently disposing of the host rather than consuming, it would need to be in a state the equivalent of or worse than a host that had been vomited up by a person.

Dropped in some dirt or even the mud, or even being very stale and even moist or soggy would not be "contaminated" in my book. Poisoned... covered in material that is deadly or sickening to eat (read: human or animal waste), I would not expect a priest to consume.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 03:57 AM' timestamp='1279871856' post='2146726']
In the case of a poisoned Host, the Host would be placed in a chalice filled with water and left there to dissolve. After the Host had completely dissolved, the water could then be poured down the sacrarium.
[/quote]

So he would dispose of it?

Then feel free to recant your personal attack on my "interpretation" of Pope St Pius V

[Jaime]

[quote name='Slappo' date='23 July 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1279871953' post='2146727']
I would add to my post... that IMO for a host to be considered "contaminated" to the point of properly and reverently disposing of the host rather than consuming, it would need to be in a state the equivalent of or worse than a host that had been vomited up by a person.

Dropped in some dirt or even the mud, or even being very stale and even moist or soggy would not be "contaminated" in my book. Poisoned... covered in material that is deadly or sickening to eat (read: human or animal waste), I would not expect a priest to consume.
[/quote]

I think if you read my posts, we're on the exact same page.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1279871972' post='2146728']
So he would dispose of it?
[/quote]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1279872140' post='2146730']
I'll answer your question when you answer mine.
[/quote]



There is no mouse in my pocket

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1279871972' post='2146728']
So he would dispose of it?[/quote]

If you want to call it that. But, like Slappo, I would say that such thing could only be done if the Host had apparently and obviously been poisoned or if it were covered in vomit or feces.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1279871972' post='2146728']
Then feel free to recant your personal attack on my "interpretation" of Pope St Pius V
[/quote]

I still feel the same way about your interpretation of St. Pius V, so to do so would be dishonest.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1279872433' post='2146732']
If you want to call it that. But, like Slappo, I would say that such thing could only be done if the Host had [b]apparently and obviously been poisoned[/b] or if it were covered in vomit or feces.



I still feel the same way about your interpretation of St. Pius V, so to do so would be dishonest.
[/quote]

But not under great great suspicion of poison due to recent death threats aimed at the diocese or the priests of a certain order etc etc (add even more circumstances to increase suspicion of poison here)?


I think under great suspicion of poison (read: valid suspicion not paranoia), it would still be proper to follow the rubrics of handling a poisoned host.




And because we do not know the circumstances in HCF's diocese or that particular area, you cannot make a blanket statement that there is no reason to suspect such a thing with this host. Threats could have been made privately and the diocese has chosen not to reveal the threats to the public. You also have not inspected the host yourself to see if poisoning is a possibility.




anyways... I think we're all on the same page that unless something serious happened to the host or there was extreme reason to believe that the host was very dangerous to consume, the proper way of handling this particular host would be consuming.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Slappo

[Jaime]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1279872433' post='2146732']
If you want to call it that. But, like Slappo, I would say that such thing could only be done if the Host had apparently and obviously been poisoned or if it were covered in vomit or feces.



I still feel the same way about your interpretation of St. Pius V, so to do so would be dishonest.
[/quote]

Really because I want to call it that. Slappo wants to call it that. Why?

[quote]37. If anything poisonous touches the consecrated host, the priest is to consecrate another and consume it in the way that has been explained, while the first host is to be put into a chalice full of water and [b]disposed of[/b] as was explained regarding the Blood in paragraph 36 above.
[/quote]

[quote] If anyone vomits the Eucharist, the vomit is to be gathered up and [b]disposed of[/b] in some decent place.[/quote]

Because that would be what Pope St Pius V would say .

you on the other hand have said

[quote][b]I would argue with anyone who says that a person would be justified in disposing of a Host.[/b] [/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 03:16 AM' timestamp='1279872982' post='2146734']
Really because I want to call it that. Slappo wants to call it that. Why?





Because that would be what Pope St Pius V would say .

you on the other hand have said
[/quote]

Why don't you provide the original Latin word used in that place? I could if I chose to, but the burden of proof rests on you since you are the one making the claim. The text is easily accessible online, by the way, as are several Latin dictionaries.

[Slappo]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1279872982' post='2146734']
Really because I want to call it that. Slappo wants to call it that. Why?





Because that would be what Pope St Pius V would say .

you on the other hand have said
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1279874352' post='2146735']
Why don't you provide the original Latin word used in that place? I could if I chose to, but the burden of proof rests on you since you are the one making the claim. The text is easily accessible online, by the way, as are several Latin dictionaries.
[/quote]


Ok, enough bickering. An easily accessible latin translation translation is "dispose." Whether or not it is the best translation is irrelevant as the point is that the host would not be consumed, but would be properly handled according to rubrics laid out in the aforementioned document.

I only used the word disposed as it is what has been used previously in this thread. No other suitable word has been mentioned. I think we all know what is meant when we use the word disposed. Personally I think it is a bad word for what we are talking about, but it also gets the point across (though rather crudely). Disposed has bad connotation, it sounds like "taking out the trash", but we all know that it isn't what is meant.

So please... get over yourselves you two.