This is something that I know has occurred recently.

A person enters a sacristy of a chapel that is used occasionally and sees hosts (possibly consecrated) on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down. This person takes one of them and, out of reverence, takes it home and places it in a Communion Pyx. The Pyx is then placed on the home altar.

I have the following questions and would appreciate a clear answer:

Would this episode be considered as a desecration? And if yes, want penalties are incurred?

Does such an altar, provided that the host is consecrated, could somehow be considered as a form of chapel, albeit irregular?

This person takes one of them and...

The theft is a mortal sin, everything after that continues to be wrong.

This is something that I know has occurred recently.

A person enters a sacristy of a chapel that is used occasionally and sees hosts (possibly consecrated) on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down. This person takes one of them and, out of reverence, takes it home and places it in a Communion Pyx. The Pyx is then placed on the home altar.

I have the following questions and would appreciate a clear answer:

Would this episode be considered as a desecration? And if yes, want penalties are incurred?

Does such an altar, provided that the host is consecrated, could somehow be considered as a form of chapel, albeit irregular?

The penalty for desecration of a consecrated host is automatic excommunication where the person can only recieve absolution from the apostolic penitentiary in Rome. From the code of Canon Law;

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Tridentine MT

This is something that I know has occurred recently.

A person enters a sacristy of a chapel that is used occasionally and sees hosts (possibly consecrated) on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down. This person takes one of them and, out of reverence, takes it home and places it in a Communion Pyx. The Pyx is then placed on the home altar.

I have the following questions and would appreciate a clear answer:

Would this episode be considered as a desecration? And if yes, want penalties are incurred?

Does such an altar, provided that the host is consecrated, could somehow be considered as a form of chapel, albeit irregular?

The penalty for desecration of a consecrated host is automatic excommunication where the person can only recieve absolution from the apostolic penitentiary in Rome. From the code of Canon Law;

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Dear Poche,

that has occurred to me too. What I am not certain is if retaining the host in a pyx tantamounts to a sacrilegious purpose as mentioned in the Canon (bold)  :thinking:

It is very serious matter. It would still need to be confessed. The priest can determine the gravity of the situation.

Why on earth would anyone think hosts in the sacristy "on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down" to be consecrated hosts?  I can imagine absolutely no circuмstances in which this would be true (unless it were in a Conciliar Novus Ordo church, in which case, the hosts would still be ordinary bread).

While thievery is a sin, I cannot imagine that the theft of a single bread wafer would constitute a mortal sin, though the intention involved here may increase this sin's gravity.

The more serious sin, however, is the veneration of what is obviously a piece of bread.  While this would not constitute desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, I agree with the above comments that the matter is serious enough that it should be confessed to a real priest (as opposed to a Novus Ordo priest).

It is a Novus Ordo chapel, usually closed but sometimes opens for requests (wedding Masses, etc.) As far as can be verified no TLM was celebrated there.

Quote from: TKGS

Why on earth would anyone think hosts in the sacristy "on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down" to be consecrated hosts?  I can imagine absolutely no circuмstances in which this would be true (unless it were in a Conciliar Novus Ordo church, in which case, the hosts would still be ordinary bread).

While thievery is a sin, I cannot imagine that the theft of a single bread wafer would constitute a mortal sin, though the intention involved here may increase this sin's gravity.

The more serious sin, however, is the veneration of what is obviously a piece of bread.  While this would not constitute desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, I agree with the above comments that the matter is serious enough that it should be confessed to a real priest (as opposed to a Novus Ordo priest).

It took until Post #8 -- wow!

Better late than never, I guess.

I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up this obvious point.

Another one:

What are you doing messing around with the Novus Ordo? You really need to refrain from the Conciliar Church completely, even if there is no Tridentine Mass in your area. Does the phrase "destruction of Faith" mean anything to you?

Just look up the numbers on what happened after Vatican II, and then tell me why you are going to be "different".

You are not "different", or "special". To think you are somehow above such danger is mere pride, nothing more.

"Oh, I know that attending the Novus Ordo distorted, weakened or killed the faith of hundreds of millions -- but I'm strong!"

Yeah, right -- you know what your punishment will be? Loss of Faith, and it will be your own fault. God will hold it against you for putting your Faith in jeopardy, even though you had 50 years of evidence to look at. Those who stuck with the Novus Ordo 50 years ago might be let off the hook -- they didn't know how noxious to the Faith it was.

Sorry to be harsh, but that's the situation we're in today.

Matthew, did I say that I attend Novus Ordo? :smash-pc:

Matthew, did I say that I attend Novus Ordo? :smash-pc:

Well, you did say, "As far as can be verified no TLM was celebrated there."

My admonition was for whoever did this deed.

Your OP was rather vague. Almost calculatedly so (like how a lawyer would talk). Just something I noticed. If it wasn't you that did this, you should be more explicit, because my gut instinct says it was you.

Does anyone out there agree? Here is part of the OP:

This is something that I know has occurred recently.

A person enters a sacristy of a chapel that is used occasionally and sees hosts (possibly consecrated) on a shelf, not in a container but just laid down. This person takes one of them and, out of reverence, takes it home and places it in a Communion Pyx. The Pyx is then placed on the home altar.

I have the following questions and would appreciate a clear answer:

This is something you know occurred...A person... you never say it's hypothetical, while going out of your way to avoid using the first OR third person. Quite the verbal gymnastics.

Moreover, if you simply heard about this after it happened, you wouldn't necessarily know where the host ended up, and you certainly wouldn't know that reverence motivated the "person" who did it.

If it was a friend or acquaintance that did it, you would have phrased it that way. It would have been easier, more common, etc. than the legalese, "This is something that I know has occurred..."

Again, if it's not you, I'd be willing to edit your OP for you because *everyone* is going to assume it's you. Just FYI. (I guess I missed my calling as a detective).

Anyhow, let's just say that I would never waste my time in a "church" or "chapel" where no TLM is ever said to begin with. That's the safest path, and how it should be.

After all, if you spent a 1/2 hour in a place where no TLM is ever said, you could have read a comic book or something. At least the comic book isn't masquerading as Catholic.

And no, this doesn't go against my view of the Novus Ordo. *some* N.O. Catholics (individuals) are of good will, but most have lost (or are far progressed in losing) the Faith. But the Novus Ordo itself is evil, full stop.

Is it not true that when hosts are not consumed in a mass, that they are left in the church to decay, because the body of Christ cannot be corrupt, and the hosts are no longer the body of Christ once they corrupt and decay?