A Mass question

[belmontmac]

We ran out the day of the big snow storm the Sunday before Christmas. I guess everyone waited to go until the 5PM. We did have an extra ciborium prepared in case there were more people than usual but the sacristian didn’t put it on the table and the priest didn’t realize that it wasn’t there until after he started distributing. So we ran out with about 50 people left. They broke the hosts as small as possible and Father apologised and explained that it is not necessary to receive communion at every mass. We really didn’t hear complaints. I guess given the snow situation people understood. We had over 800 at a mass that usually gets about 450 people. The good thing is that all these people thought it was important enough to brave the snow and come to Mass.

I agree, the Mass I originally mentioned was so crowded, the celebrant started the Mass 15 minutes early, as he later said to me while saying he had almost run out of hosts, that nobody else could get into the Church, there is only so much room, so he started early. It is a rather large Church, seated capacity is probably 1000, and they had the Narthex jamed with folding chairs, and still standing room only, barely. It was no surprise that this would be the most attended Mass, much anticipated, but so much more so than even he expected, again a great thing, in my opinion.

 

[Newbie2]

Lest we also forget that the rubrics for Holy Thursday also call for the consecration of a suitable amount of hosts for not only Good Friday, but, for Viaticum as well. Thus, celebrants have to ensure that they have enough consecrated Hosts to distribute to the fathful for the Good Friday liturgy. I know that in the past, the rector had to consecrate about two very full ciboria for use during the Good Friday service, especially since Mass is forbidden on that day and thus, hosts cannot be consecrated…

That’s the whole point, isn’t it? Consecrating a sufficient number of hosts, no matter what the mass.

No, it wouldn’t be “denying” because that word means that the priest has a choice in the matter.

This is one of the reasons why it makes so much sense for priests to always have sufficient consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle (sufficient, but not too many). Especially on days like Christmas (just for example, because it’s in our recent memories) when one just cannot accurately predict how many people will be receiving.

Good explanation…and I get it, but the person still comes to mass, expecting to receive, but cannot. The bottom line in either case, intentional or not, is that the person does not receive. They are “denied” in a certain sense, but you have a point in that we have to be careful not to imply that such would be intentional. My guess is that it’s a very, very rare occurance.

 

[Digitonomy]

But in this case it would not be denying them, it would simply be delaying it until the next Mass. It’s not as though one has to receive Communion every time one goes to Mass.

By that explanation, it wouldn’t be denying them even if there were hosts remaining.

 

[Phemie]

Could you explain what this means. Thanks.

He dipped the unconsecrated hosts into the Precious Blood and give them Communion on the tongue.

 

[Phemie]

By that explanation, it wouldn’t be denying them even if there were hosts remaining.

So Fr. David’s explanation was better than mine: it’s only denial if it’s deliberate. In this case there’s no other option.

 

[japhy]

He dipped the unconsecrated hosts into the Precious Blood and give them Communion on the tongue.

Just to clarify for other readers – this practice (using unconsecrated hosts to distribute the Precious Blood) is expressly forbidden by the Church. Proper intinction is done using consecrated Hosts and the Precious Blood.

 

[PeterLD]

This happened at a Mass I was at once. The priest ran out right when it was my turn! I just went back to my seat.

 

[choy]

is it acceptable for a priest to dip plain hosts (unconcecrated) into Precious Blood and distribute it as “The Blood of Christ”?

i’ve seen this done many times in the Philippines. the culture of Filipinos would prevent the Precious Blood being distributed via the chalice as many people would not agree to sharing the same cup with many different strangers.

EDIT—

i didn’t read the thread through. this was asked and answered

 

[choy]

Just to clarify for other readers – this practice (using unconsecrated hosts to distribute the Precious Blood) is expressly forbidden by the Church. Proper intinction is done using consecrated Hosts and the Precious Blood.

can you quote a Church document that explicitly states this? i find this practice very common in the Philippines

 

[benedictgal]

can you quote a Church document that explicitly states this? i find this practice very common in the Philippines

Here is the reference from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

What you are experiencing is a major abuse.

 

[choy]

Here is the reference from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

What you are experiencing is a major abuse.

thank you!

i’ll forward this to people i know back home and bring this attention to the priests

i never knew this was forbidden until today. and its possible those who do it doesn’t know as well. at least hopefully everyone will be well informed and won’t be subject to major abuse