On Our Behavior At Mass

There is an old Catholic maxim that provides the basis of today's reflection, "Lex orandi, lex credendi."   The Latin means, literally, "the law of prayer is the law of belief."  More colloquially, it often is recited as "we believe as we pray", or perhaps "as we pray, so we believe."  You get the picture.  The maxim expresses a truth observed by fathers and doctors of the Church throughout her nearly two thousand years of existence.  It bears frequent repetition and contemplation.

Liturgy, which includes both the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Divine Office (a/k/a Liturgy of the Hours), is the public prayer of the Church.  As such, the manner in which we comport ourselves at Mass and while praying the Office (the latter being optional for the laity, but highly recommended!) not only reflects, but forms, the core of our beliefs as Christians.  This is one of the more important reasons why the Church specifies rubrics, or rules, for the Liturgy.

Logically, it follows that the more reverent and focused we are at Mass on the Word of the Lord and the holy Eucharistic sacrifice, the stronger our faith will become in all that the Word and the Eucharist are and represent.  The Word is, after all, God speaking directly to us through the instrument of the authors He inspired, and the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, given to us by God's boundless grace for our eternal redemption, and offered back to the Father by the whole Church in thanksgiving for this indescribably awesome gift.  Since God does not need this offering, he accepts our prayers and remains on the altar, to be received and consumed by us, the faithful members of Christ's mystical body on Earth, as a channel of sanctifying grace, after which we are sent back into the world to carry Christ and his Gospel to all.

This is the essence of the Mass, which we accompany with prayers, chants (preferably) or songs, and with meaningful gestures, all according to the rubrics--standing, kneeling or sitting at appropriate times for appropriate reasons.  As the priest or bishop leads the faithful in prayer, all should be participating not only externally but internally as well, praying from the heart all of the words of our audible responses as well as silently praying with the priest as he consecrates the Holy Eucharist.  As stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: (a/k/a "G.I.R.M., or the "rulebook" for the liturgy):

17. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass or the Lord’s Supper be so ordered that the sacred ministers and the faithful taking part in it, according to the state proper to each, may draw from it more abundantly[26] those fruits, to obtain which, Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and entrusted it as the memorial of his Passion and Resurrection to the Church, his beloved Bride.[27]

18. This will fittingly come about if, with due regard for the nature and other circumstances of each liturgical assembly, the entire celebration is arranged in such a way that it leads to a conscious, active, and full participation of the faithful, namely in body and in mind, a participation fervent with faith, hope, and charity, of the sort which is desired by the Church and which is required by the very nature of the celebration and to which the Christian people have a right and duty in virtue of their Baptism.[28]

[26] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 14, 19, 26, 28, 30.

[27]Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 47.

[28]Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14.

Now, a question: how many Catholics in the pews at any given U.S. parish understand any, much less all, of the foregoing?  More importantly, how many act accordingly when they attend Mass?  If you answered "hardly any", you're probably right.  And that's sad.

A fellow blogger recently commented on this general topic, expressing her frustration and mystification with the way so many Catholics in the U.S. engage in extraneous gestures at Mass, such as raising hands in the priestly orans position, and/or holding hands (like Protestants!) during the Our Father, neither of which is prescribed by the faithful by the G.I.R.M.  Here is a short excerpt from her post:

I know why I used to lift my hands in the air when I was a Protestant during services. It is a verse from the New Testament (there are several other verses as well, some in the Old Testament) and encouraged by the ministers to join them in raising our hands (the only 'priesthood' is among all the believers). This was done to show the congregation was the same as the minister- mere believers. Ministers were nothing special.

1 Timothy 2:8 "I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention."

But that isn't how a Catholic Mass works...or so I thought when I first became Catholic a decade ago. The missal said "stand" and I stood, the missal said "sit" and I sat, the missal said "kneel" and I knelt. The missal never said "hold hands" or "raise your hands in the air" etc., so I didn't, but others do. I don't get that. 

Read the rest of her post here.

I think Julie makes a great point.  And it's not confined to raising hands or holding hands during the Our Father.  Look around you the next time you go to Mass on Sunday, and ask yourself these questions:

1.  Before Mass, are people kneeling in prayer as they prepare to hear the Word of God and witness the miracle of the consecration of the Holy Eucharist?  Or are they glad-handing and chattering as if they're attending a happy hour or a birthday party?  I'll bet the latter greatly outnumber the former.

2.  Are you and your fellow parishioners dressed as if you're preparing to meet the God who created the universe out of nothing?  Or like you're going to a ballgame or to the beach?  In my regular parish in the Great State of Texas, where summer lasts for the better part of the year, it's mostly the latter. Shorts, tank tops or t-shirts, jeans, and flip flops are everywhere.  (I sometimes want to ask these people if they would dress that way for a personal meeting with the Governor or the President?  And if so, why would they not show at least as much respect for Jesus in the Eucharist as to an elected politician?)  The more "formally" dressed are likely wearing something appropriate for the golf course or "casual day" at the office.  I confess falling into this category myself, since while I never wear shorts to Sunday Mass, I rarely even take the trouble to wear a sport coat and dress slacks, much less a suit and tie, which would be most appropriate to the occasion.  Mea culpa!

3.  Are you one of the unfortunates whose parish forces a completely artificial "let's all greet our neighbor" ritual into the beginning of the Mass?  The "Liturgy of the Greeting" that doesn't appear anywhere in the G.I.R.M. or Missal?  If so, you have my sympathy.  You should be getting ready to meet Christ in the Eucharist, instead.  But I'm repeating myself.

4.  After Mass starts, how many are really paying attention to the readings, vs. looking at their smartphones, or gazing around at just about anything except the lector or the deacon or priest? Again, the latter probably outnumber the former.

5.  Back to Julie's comments quoted above--I'll almost guarantee you that most of the people are at least reciting the Our Father in the orans position, if not holding hands Protestant-style with total strangers. Amiright?  Eeeuw.

6.  Now comes my least favorite part of the Mass, the "sign of peace."  Is it barely controlled chaos, not to mention a great way to spread cold and flu germs throughout the congregation?  And if you have the temerity to refuse to shake hands with everyone around you, get ready for the hurt or even angry expressions on the faces of your pew neighbors, or even to be poked and prodded by someone who wants to insist that you hold hands with them.  Sheesh.  The more reverent parishes omit this optional exercise, and I wish mine would.  Notice, you'll never see it done during the televised EWTN Mass celebrated at their chapel in Irondale, AL or at the Shrine in Hanceville.  Never.

7.  Aaaand....Holy Communion.  Does your congregation unanimously shuffle down the aisle toward the priest or "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as if walking up to the counter at Burger King, without even so much as a reverent bow of the head? Does anyone make a profound bow, or even maybe genuflect, before receiving the Blessed Sacrament?  Very rare in most places, I would guess.  The real question here, I think, is: how many folks act as if they are about to hold in their hands or receive on their tongue the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?  Do not most people treat the whole thing as nothing more than a symbol, a cultural exercise devoid of faith in the Real Presence?  In other words, aren't most people acting like they don't really believe what the Church teaches about the Holy Eucharist?  And do you ever wonder how many of those people heading down the aisle to receive the Eucharist have darkened the door of a confessional at any time in the recent past?  Or even the not-so-recent past?  Amazing how many people never commit a serious sin, isn't it?  :)

All of the foregoing behaviors (excepting, I think, the ones in paragraph 7) might seem more or less innocuous by themselves, but added together they spell a significant lack of reverence for, and likely tenuous belief in, the truths of the Mass, and therefore the key truths of the Faith itself.  And these are the behaviors of people who actually attend Mass!  To paraphrase the Holy Apostle Paul, how much more lack of faith must there be in those who don't even bother to show up on Sundays?

Here's the thing: we didn't arrive at this state of affairs quickly.  We are witnessing the cumulative effects of decades of neglect of proper instruction, both in homes of the faithful and in the parishes and dioceses.  We are stuck with a whole generation or two, at least, of priests and bishops who were formed under Modernist seminary faculty, as a result of which they themselves often do not fully believe all that the Church teaches.  Even if they do believe, so long as the money keeps rolling into the parish and diocesan coffers, they see no reason to "rock the boat" by admonishing the faithful as to proper behavior in the celebration of Holy Mass.  The Novus Ordo liturgy itself also must share a large chunk of the blame, having stripped so many pious prayers from the Mass while it shifted the focus of the liturgy from Christ on the altar to the priest and other "ministers" milling around the sanctuary--a liturgy centered on Man instead of God.

One way to find more reverence at Mass it to attend a TLM parish, but most of us don't have that as a realistic option, at least not yet.  Otherwise, there's not much any of us can do by ourselves, except resolve to provide a good example to our fellow parishioners, and spend time in prayer and adoration asking the Lord to help move the hearts and minds of all toward a more reverent and respectful attitude, in word, gesture and deed.  And I suppose I should spend less time worrying about how other people behave and do a better job myself of imitating Christ.  That's a full-time job for anyone.  But it still makes my heart ache to see so many people essentially disrespecting Our Lord in his own house.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

Easter--An Under-Appreciated Feast

April 4, 2015

So, here we are.  The disciplines of the Lenten season are about to expire, and we Catholics began this evening, at Easter Vigils around the world, to celebrate the most important event in human history, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  Alleluia, He is risen!  Just typing that phrase gives me little chills.  But how different that is from the way I looked at Easter (not to mention Good Friday) for most of my life.

Growing up, I don't recall ever being taught much about the absolute necessity for the Resurrection as the foundation of our faith.  We kids were much more interested in Christmas, for all the obvious reasons, and even in the late 1950's, where my earliest memories lie, our culture seems to have pretty much relegated Easter to a distant second place, with bunnies and candy and eggs, and like that.  Maybe my Catholic friends back then took it more seriously than we did, but if so, they never talked about it with us non-Catholics.  Sure, we got Good Friday and Easter Monday off from school, even in the public schools, and I'm sure our Protestant ministers gave nice sermons on the importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection on Easter Sunday, but to my recollection we just didn't hear much about it otherwise, and everyone still acted as if Christmas was the really big feast. 

Today, of course, we live in a post-Christian culture which is more and more willing to engage in outright persecution of anyone who takes Christianity seriously, (although, obviously, they haven't started killing us yet here in the good old U.S.A.; please pray for our persecuted brethren in the Middle East and Africa).  Most in public schools don't even dare mention Good Friday or Easter out of fear of "offending" someone, much less give kids a school holiday.  Instead, we have "spring break", which is just another week of vacation, or for many college students, something most resembling a pagan orgy. Religious significance is ignored or even actively suppressed.

So as I made my journey into the Roman Catholic Church ten years ago, I was for all practical purposes learning from scratch about the true importance, not only of Easter, but also the entire Paschal Mystery. As usual, the depth and breadth of Catholic Church teachings about the Resurrection bring marvelous rewards to those who plumb them.

As for the Resurrection itself, St. Paul makes the importance pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, as follows:

[12] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
[15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
[16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
[17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
[18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
[19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.

That does get the point across, I believe!  Catholic theology has taught me that all of Salvation History is bound together as a single piece, most especially the events of Holy Week, from the entry into Jerusalem to the Last Supper to the Passion and finally the Resurrection, but without that last one, the whole thing loses its meaning.  We would all be like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke's Gospel, men without hope, sadly reflecting on what might have been (even though they had the "might have been" part wrong, as did most of Christ's followers, since they were looking for an earthly King who would open a can of you-know-what on the Romans and liberate the Jews.)  Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion was just another Roman execution of a rabble-rouser.  Without the Resurrection, the Pharisees could have just gone back to being Pharisees, (which I guess they did anyway, but they wouldn't have had Christians to kick around), and the Sadducees would have gone on arguing with the Pharisees about whether there is an afterlife, instead of converting to Christianity in such large numbers that they basically ceased to exist as a major faction in Judaism.  Indeed, as Paul points out, absent the Resurrection, Christ Himself would be just another prophet, killed by the people to whom he was preaching. 

We Catholics, of course, get an added celebration every year at the Easter Vigil, when we welcome  all those who seek full communion with the Church that Christ founded, and who receive the Sacraments of Initiation:  Baptism (if not previously baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula set forth by Jesus in the last verses of the Gospel of Matthew), Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist.  In these events, we celebrate souls receiving new life in Christ, the sealing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal salvation, seeing in each of them the promise of the Resurrection itself.  It does help to keep the mind focused on the real-world impact of the central event, in addition to making us able to share the joy of these new Catholics and their families and friends as we all share in the joy of the Risen Lord's opening of the gates of Heaven.

And that, as St. Paul reminds us, is really the point.  The Resurrection of Christ in his glorified body gives us the hope of eternal life.  What else is there, really, to live for in this life?

As Catholics, it seems to me that we also bear in mind to a greater extent than most other Christians (except our Orthodox brethren, of course) that Good Friday always precedes Easter Sunday.  The burden of human sin had to be carried to the Cross and atoned for in our Lord's suffering sacrifice before the opening of Heaven could make any sense.  This is why we use the Crucifix, rather than an empty Cross, as a symbol of our faith: because we need to be reminded of the price of our redemption.  As St. Paul also said, "...but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." 1 Cor 1:23.

One last point, which came as a great surprise to me upon my entry into the Church, is that the Catholic Church continues to celebrate Easter all the way to Pentecost, fifty days later.  Each day in the "Octave of Easter" is a liturgical Solemnity, and the equivalent, liturgically speaking, of Easter Sunday itself.

Yes, as I have learned, the Church takes Easter very, very seriously.  What a pity that so many Christians today, including many Catholics, no longer act as if they fully understand its true significance.

A happy and blessed Easter season to all!  Laudator Jesus Christus!

Communion In The Hand vs. On The Tongue--Does It Matter?

While I am anything but the World's Biggest Fan of the "Crux" blog run by John L. Allen, Jr. of the Boston Globe, occasionally a friend will send me something from that site, or I'll encounter an interesting piece on New Advent or some other aggregator site, and will give it a read.  Just today I received via email a link to an interesting commentary on Crux, by Mathew N. Schmalz, on the seemingly endless debate about what is the "better" way to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament--on the tongue or in the hand?  It's worth reading and considering, and has a good brief review of the history of communion in the hand in the USA, as well as the author's experiences in other countries.  Mr. Schmalz concludes his reflection as follows:

"Debating Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue does raise important issues. But all too often, it has become a way, on both sides, of judging people we do not know. In doing so, we can distract ourselves not only from the miracle what is happening in front of us, but also from the miracle that is happening alongside of us.
And so what is it about Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue?
As always, the problem is with our own sinful selves."

Nothing to argue with there, really, although I might add that part of the problem is the choice itself, which the Church could take care of by revoking the indult given to the US Bishops years ago.  More on that below.

My friend also e-mailed this link, to a post from several years ago by one of my favorite Catholic bloggers, Father John Zuhlsdorf (a/k/a "Father Z.")  It raises what I think is a serious issue, that of the fragments or crumbs which tend to fall from the hosts used in most Catholic churches in the US (based on both personal experience and some research), even if all concerned are exercising due care.  Fr. Z demonstrates photographically that crumbs/fragments are likely to be present in one's hand merely by having the consecrated host placed there by the priest or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.  I'd venture to say that darn near nobody ever licks or otherwise removes any fragments from the palm of their hand after consuming the Sacrament, so those fragments, each of which contains the whole and entire Presence of Christ, end up getting dropped somewhere between the place of reception and the communicant's pew.  That is with the exception, of course, of those communicants who bolt directly for the parking lot upon receiving.  Their fragments could even end up outside.  (More on my view of early departure from Mass in a subsequent post, perhaps!)

The friend who sent me these articles commented that he stopped receiving in the hand after seeing Fr. Z's photographs. I can understand that.

As for myself, I've floated back and forth on this practice since my entry into the Church (ten years ago next week!)  At my original parish, where I went through RCIA, we were not even told we had a choice; had it not been for my "auxiliary" education in the faith via EWTN, Catholic Answers and independent reading, I would not have known anyone received other than in the hand prior to actually seeing people do it at Mass.  (Remember, we Candidates were not there to watch the communion process until the Easter Vigil itself.)  I have read all sorts of commentary from both perspectives, including issues such as those raised by Fr. Z and by the writer on Crux, as well as hygiene, reverence, tradition vs. indult, the "throne" theory attributed to St. Cyril and endorsed in word, at least, by Pope Benedict XVI, in the book Light of the World, although he normally required receipt on the tongue when he celebrated Mass, and probably others.  I've also seen commentary such as appears in the comments on Fr. Z's post about the type of host used--the thin white kind vs. the larger and slightly darker colored ones like we use at my current parish.  Many say the small, white ones are less prone to leaving particles, but I wouldn't know about that; I do know they dissolve quickly and don't require chewing, which is another issue that seems to get folks excited.  

In any case, my thought process has always been centered on showing the reverence I believe we all should show to the Lord's Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.  Once I learned the teaching of the Church on the Real Presence, I was so captivated by it that showing great reverence just seemed like the only logical thing to do.  That doesn't mean I think I'm smarter than anyone else or have some special gift of discernment; on the contrary, one of the things that attracted me initially to the Church was the much greater sense of reverence I saw at a Catholic Mass as compared to the Protestant (mostly Methodist) services to which I was accustomed.  Some adherents of the TLM greatly disparage today's "Ordinary Form" as having very little reverence in comparison with the TLM, but the OF was all I knew when I started my journey, and it can be celebrated with great reverence, indeed. 

Deep down, I think showing proper reverence doesn't depend on whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue, although I appreciate the argument that says only ordained clergy or properly trained lay ministers should handle the consecrated host. I also am aware that a fair number of folks who might be called "traditionalists" believe that communion in the hand was an intentional effort on the part of "modernists" to strip the Church of belief in the Real Presence.  They maintain (and I have not researched the history here) that immediately after the Protestant separation, Luther and others adopted the practice of communion in the hand precisely as a means of demonstrating rejection of the Catholic doctrine.  But I'm not getting into all of that here.  The Church still teaches Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, so if communion in the hand was an attempt to change that, it has failed, at least so far.

To me, what is most important is a person's general demeanor.  In the Sacred Liturgy, every movement and posture of the priest, deacon(s), lay ministers and faithful is intended to be meaningful, because we are physical persons, and how we move and act is part and parcel of what is in our hearts--it both reflects what is there, and helps to form us into better disciples.  I remember reading a while back about one of our separated brethren saying that if he believed what the Catholic Church teaches about Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, he would crawl on his belly up to the foot of the altar to receive Him.  And, in principle, he's absolutely right.  Now, obviously, having everyone prostrate themselves to receive Holy Communion would make things a bit difficult logistically, but it's the same principle that underlies the practice of the communion rail in the TLM, and there are times when I wish we could go back at least to that manner of distributing Communion, even within the Ordinary Form rite.  

This next part I say somewhat reluctantly, in light of the passage I quoted above from the Crux article, so I'm trying not to be sinfully judgmental here, in the sense of inferring from exterior actions what is in someone's heart:  I especially tend to wish for a return to the communion rail when I see people at Sunday Mass bopping up the aisle as if they were in line for a burger and fries, casually receiving the Eucharist without even a minor bow of the head, and then walking away as if the whole thing were sort of boring, and gee, I'm glad THAT's over with, now what's for brunch?  It's entirely possible that these folks are solid believers who do all they can to live out the faith in their daily lives, but you'd never know it from the way they treat Holy Communion.  There is also a very good chance that the reason they don't show more reverence is that nobody ever taught them otherwise.  And that's really sad.

At the end of it all, it may well be that the loss of some particles of the Blessed Sacrament, and thus the Presence of the Lord, is unavoidable even when everyone is careful, regardless of whether communion is given in the hand or only on the tongue.  However, if I were Czar of the Universe (to quote my professor of contract law way back when),  I would prefer to see it standardized, even if for no other reason than to shut off the frequently uncharitable debate.  And going a bit further in the line of reasoning, it makes sense to me that the fewer people who touch the consecrated host, the more likely it will be that such loss can be avoided.  Again, as noted, I'm not convinced that it's in any way "bad" for us ordinary lay Catholics to touch the Blessed Sacrament with our grubby hands, as long as we treat it as what it is, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I just think it's a mathematical certainty that when we all receive in the hand, more little pieces which are the substance of the Lord Jesus will be dropped on floors or on the ground and walked on, unknowingly, by lots of other people than would be the case if everyone received on the tongue.

So, as Czar, I would opt for receipt on the tongue only, and require the use of patens. Also, to shut down another sometimes contentious discussion, this one about hygiene at Mass, if the Precious Blood is to be administered to the faithful, it should be by intinction only.  The USCCB could do this, simply by declining to follow the indult (exception) granted back in the oh-so-silly 1970's.  Maybe they could spend some time studying this instead of issuing all sorts of political statements on issues beyond their expertise.  Or the Holy See could revoke the indult, though I suspect that's not an issue very high on the Pope's radar at the moment.  Either way, I bet that after the usual period of wailing and grinding of teeth that erupts whenever a change in liturgical norms occurs, everyone would get used to it and life would go on.

Of course, if communion in the hand were to be abolished in the USA, priests and Ministers and communicants would all need remedial training on how to make receipt on the tongue work smoothly, as too many people don't really know how to, for lack of a better term, present a proper "target" so the priest or extraordinary minister can place the host on the tongue without actually touching the tongue with their fingers.  That's yucky, even if you don't have a communicable disease to spread around (and if you do, you should probably just stay home, anyway.) Also, I suspect that since in my experience about 95% of communicants receive in the hand, the EMHC's themselves are not very adept at placing the host, either.  Time to practice!  Pizza afterwards!

That's my little contribution to this discussion.  Thanks for reading.  Laudator Jesus Christus!

UPDATE--March 24, 2015:

A friend and RCIA colleague at my parish went and did some research on this issue and came up with the following:

Thomas Aquinas in ST 77:4 states:

“Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.”

This still needs to be reconciled with the practice of rinsing the ciboria on the altar to capture the particles left in the bottom of the vessel after Communion, as great care is required by the Church to be taken by the priests and deacons to ensure these are not lost.  I think that is fairly easy to do, since it is obvious that when particles reside in the sacred vessels, they are in fact part of the consecrated species.  However, once removed from the altar, if reduced to "fine particles", then Aquinas is saying it no longer remains the body and blood of Christ if it can no longer be recognized as bread.  

Makes sense to me.  

Laudator Jesus Christus!