Abuse or Sin Against the Eucharist?

[Thomas62408]

There was an item in our parish bulletin that explained a new communion procedure during Mass. I did not notice it, but apparently someone did and called them on it, hence the item in the bulletin.

It was rather vague and mysterious to me as I had never contemplated this before, but since it was addressed in the bulletin I think it is worth asking the experts here.

The following is a direct quote from the bulletin:

These new procedures include the use of a new and larger ciborium and the Ministers of the Cup no longer go back into the sacristy to purify the vessels during Mass. This change comes at the recommendation of the Liturgy Committee as well as a number of Eucharistic Ministers. They felt rushed at times cleaning the cups and believe it is important that all be present for the Prayer after Communion, as this prayer asks for the spiritual effects of the Eucharist to take effect in our lives.

They go on to say that they want to only use consecrated host from that Mass to be consumed and that what is left in the Tabernacle really should only be used for the dying in the administration of Viaticum.

Is this something to be concerned about? Is this an abuse or a sin against the Holy Eucharist?

My feeling is that these procedures have always been in place for a reason and that if you want to be a Eucharistic Minister be glad to serve the Lord in your works at Mass. If you think you are really missing out on something, perhaps it is time to hang up the Eucharistic Minister gig and just go to Mass.

Also, I must say I am somewhat troubled by a “Liturgy Committee”. Isn’t that the Magesterium?

 

[Sir_Knight]

They felt rushed at times cleaning the cups and believe it is important that all be present for the Prayer after Communion, as this prayer asks for the spiritual effects of the Eucharist to take effect in our lives.

Our priest explained this to us saying that even if we are not present in the main Church but in the back cleaning the cups, it doesn’t mean that we are missing out on the blessing because we are serving the Lord and might be getting even greater blessings.

 

[Phemie]

The only problem here is that the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are purifying the vessels. It’s not their place to do so, that is for the priest, deacon or instituted acolyte to do.

Not purifying immediately is perfectly acceptable. The remaining Precious Blood is consumed and the chalices are set aside, covered, on the credence table. They are purified after Mass.

As for not going to the Tabernacle, that is also best. While there is nothing WRONG about using previously consecrated Hosts, the symbolism is better if everyone receives from the Hosts consecrated at THIS Mass.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The only problem here is that the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are purifying the vessels. It’s not their place to do so, that is for the priest, deacon or instituted acolyte to do.

Unless they are not available. According to Canon law, the needs of the faithful comes before such duties – at least that is how it was explained to us by our priest as to why EMHC will continue to purify the vessels even though Rome said they were not suppose to. He even quoted the exact Canon law supporting his actions.

 

[EasterJoy]

Unless they are not available. According to Canon law, the needs of the faithful comes before such duties – at least that is how it was explained to us by our priest as to why EMHC will continue to purify the vessels even though Rome said they were not suppose to. He even quoted the exact Canon law supporting his actions.

What canon law was that, which supercedes the rubrics set down by Rome? I find it hard to believe that Rome has not interpreted what “needs of the faithful” does and does not mean in this case.

This is why I question his explanation: It was explained to me by a member of the clergy that there was permission for purification of the vessels to occur outside of Mass or to be done by laity in the United States in the past, but that this permission was withdrawn because of abuses. Now the purification has to occur during Mass, and must be done by clergy–which would include an instituted acolyte, I guess, but we don’t have any at our parish, so that point is moot. Furthermore, the clergy must maintain total silence during the ritual. They may not engage in conversation for any but grave reasons. (The altar servers and EMsHC at our parish have been instructed not to approach them with questions, even discretely, while the purification is taking place. There is also no rushing: when the purification is done, the course of the Mass resumes, and not before.)

This does not preclude laity from cleaning the vessels in the sacristy outside of Mass–for instance, using soap and water–when the Blessed Sacrament is no longer reposing in the vessels.

Perhaps, though, those are the rules in our archdiocese. Different bishops may have different understandings with Rome, even bishops within the USCCB. I’d be interested in seeing what canon law he’s referring to, though.

 

[benedictgal]

Unless they are not available. According to Canon law, the needs of the faithful comes before such duties – at least that is how it was explained to us by our priest as to why EMHC will continue to purify the vessels even though Rome said they were not suppose to. He even quoted the exact Canon law supporting his actions.

However, the Holy See has said otherwise. The following is a letter that the Holy Father directed then-prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments sent in 2006 rescinding the indult that Pope John Paul II had granted:

Prot. n. 468/05/L Rome, 12 October 2006
Your Excellency,

I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.

I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:

1. There is no doubt that “the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 281; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

1. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

1. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). “For pastoral reasons”, therefore, “this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1390).

1. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.

1. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops’ Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain, Your Excellency,
Devotedly yours in Christ,

• Francis Cardinal Arinze
  Prefect

The Holy Father is the authentic rule-making authority, exercising this through his Curia. Since he has rescinded the indult, the practice should stop.

Furthermore, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter:

119.] The Priest, once he has returned to the altar after the distribution of Communion, standing at the altar or at the credence table, purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice, then purifies the chalice in accordance with the prescriptions of the Missal and wipes the chalice with the purificator. Where a Deacon is present, he returns with the Priest to the altar and purifies the vessels. It is permissible, however, especially if there are several vessels to be purified, to leave them, covered as may be appropriate, on a corporal on the altar or on the credence table, and for them to be purified by the Priest or Deacon immediately after Mass once the people have been dismissed. Moreover a duly instituted acolyte assists the Priest or Deacon in purifying and arranging the sacred vessels either at the altar or the credence table. In the absence of a Deacon, a duly instituted acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the credence table and there purifies, wipes and arranges them in the usual way.209

:

Thus, the Church has spoken rather clearly and directly on this matter.

 

[benedictgal]

There was an item in our parish bulletin that explained a new communion procedure during Mass. I did not notice it, but apparently someone did and called them on it, hence the item in the bulletin.

It was rather vague and mysterious to me as I had never contemplated this before, but since it was addressed in the bulletin I think it is worth asking the experts here.

The following is a direct quote from the bulletin:

These new procedures include the use of a new and larger ciborium and the Ministers of the Cup no longer go back into the sacristy to purify the vessels during Mass. This change comes at the recommendation of the Liturgy Committee as well as a number of Eucharistic Ministers. They felt rushed at times cleaning the cups and believe it is important that all be present for the Prayer after Communion, as this prayer asks for the spiritual effects of the Eucharist to take effect in our lives.

They go on to say that they want to only use consecrated host from that Mass to be consumed and that what is left in the Tabernacle really should only be used for the dying in the administration of Viaticum.

Is this something to be concerned about? Is this an abuse or a sin against the Holy Eucharist?

My feeling is that these procedures have always been in place for a reason and that if you want to be a Eucharistic Minister be glad to serve the Lord in your works at Mass. If you think you are really missing out on something, perhaps it is time to hang up the Eucharistic Minister gig and just go to Mass.

Also, I must say I am somewhat troubled by a “Liturgy Committee”. Isn’t that the Magesterium?

To your original question, perhaps this quote from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal might shed some light for you:

1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.73

Now, note the word “desirable”. It is strongly suggested, but, not necessarily a requirement. In many parishes, the celebrant will go to the Tabernacle to retrieve the ciborrium because it is difficult to get an accurate count of who will be receiving Holy Communion, especially if he church is filled to the gills. Even in our parish, where we have the unconsecrated hosts in a table and have people place their individual hosts in the ciborrium, we never get an accurate count because of late-comers or folks who simply forget to put their host into the vessel.

I hope this helps.

 

[m134e5]

Unless they are not available. According to Canon law, the needs of the faithful comes before such duties – at least that is how it was explained to us by our priest as to why EMHC will continue to purify the vessels even though Rome said they were not suppose to. He even quoted the exact Canon law supporting his actions.

It doesn’t take all that long to purify the vessels at Mass. If it does take longer than the congregation would like, then perhaps they should spend that time praying for more priests.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What canon law was that, which supercedes the rubrics set down by Rome? I find it hard to believe that Rome has not interpreted what “needs of the faithful” does and does not mean in this case.

This is why I question his explanation: It was explained to me by a member of the clergy that there was permission for purification of the vessels to occur outside of Mass or to be done by laity in the United States in the past, but that this permission was withdrawn because of abuses. Now the purification has to occur during Mass, and must be done by clergy–which would include an instituted acolyte, I guess, but we don’t have any at our parish, so that point is moot. Furthermore, the clergy must maintain total silence during the ritual. They may not engage in conversation for any but grave reasons. (The altar servers and EMsHC at our parish have been instructed not to approach them with questions, even discretely, while the purification is taking place. There is also no rushing: when the purification is done, the course of the Mass resumes, and not before.)

This does not preclude laity from cleaning the vessels in the sacristy outside of Mass–for instance, using soap and water–when the Blessed Sacrament is no longer reposing in the vessels.

Perhaps, though, those are the rules in our archdiocese. Different bishops may have different understandings with Rome, even bishops within the USCCB. I’d be interested in seeing what canon law he’s referring to, though.

However, the Holy See has said otherwise. The following is a letter that the Holy Father directed then-prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments sent in 2006 rescinding the indult that Pope John Paul II had granted:

The Holy Father is the authentic rule-making authority, exercising this through his Curia. Since he has rescinded the indult, the practice should stop.

Furthermore, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter:

:

Thus, the Church has spoken rather clearly and directly on this matter.

I wasn’t taking notes and I do not have a searchable reference of Canon Law but when the EMHC raised these objections, the priest had the passage with him and read it to us – which basicly said that the needs of the flock comes ahead of these requirements.

 

[japhy]

I wasn’t taking notes and I do not have a searchable reference of Canon Law but when the EMHC raised these objections, the priest had the passage with him and read it to us – which basicly said that the needs of the flock comes ahead of these requirements.

What need do the flocks have in this regard? They have to have Communion under both kinds, and they have to have lay people purifying the sacred vessels, and they have to leave Mass 5 minutes after Communion ends?

There’s a reason why the indult was not renewed. The lack of renewal didn’t come with a footnote.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I wasn’t taking notes and I do not have a searchable reference of Canon Law but when the EMHC raised these objections, the priest had the passage with him and read it to us – which basicly said that the needs of the flock comes ahead of these requirements.

The canon law was in force when the instructions were issued by the Holy Father and Cardinal Arinze, and they were aware of them. Whatever canon law was quoted does not overrule these instructions, which were issued to be authoritative given any and all other laws in force.

However, even apart from this, the law permits the purification to be left until after the conclusion of Mass, and so there is no need of the people that could possibly necessitate the EMHC to purify the vessels for the sake of time, speed, or manpower: the priest can do it afterwards, when these issues no longer present problems.

I understand what you’ve said about the explanation, but the unfortunate reality is that some priests do misinterpret texts to find a justification for illegitimate things. Sometimes, they do this on purpose. Sometimes, they misinterpret them unintentionally - that is, they legitimately misunderstand. Sometimes, they were taught by those who misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted them. In any event, the point is that the law is clear, regardless of what the priest said. The point is also that in saying this, neither I nor anyone else is saying the priest is necessarily a nasty or dieobedient guy. Certainly, he could be, but he could also just be honestly mistaken. Don’t misunderstand us as coming down on him, necessarily. However, do try to look at the situation objectively and realize he may indeed be doing something wrong.

God bless!

 

[Corki]

However, even apart from this, the law permits the purification to be left until after the conclusion of Mass, and so there is no need of the people that could possibly necessitate the EMHC to purify the vessels for the sake of time, speed, or manpower: the priest can do it afterwards, when these issues no longer present problems.

God bless!

This was my thought too. I see why there would be canon law on this for extraordinary circumstances. For example, if the vessels are left to be purified after Mass but the priest is called away urgently to attend someone dying. In that case, the needs of the faithful, in this case the dying person, would be more important. That could be a case where the EMHC would purify the vessels rather than leaving them until the priest came back.

I just can’t see a need of the faithful that would require EMHCs to purify vessels as an ordinary procedure.

 

[thistle]

There was an item in our parish bulletin that explained a new communion procedure during Mass. I did not notice it, but apparently someone did and called them on it, hence the item in the bulletin.

It was rather vague and mysterious to me as I had never contemplated this before, but since it was addressed in the bulletin I think it is worth asking the experts here.

The following is a direct quote from the bulletin:

These new procedures include the use of a new and larger ciborium and the Ministers of the Cup no longer go back into the sacristy to purify the vessels during Mass. This change comes at the recommendation of the Liturgy Committee as well as a number of Eucharistic Ministers. They felt rushed at times cleaning the cups and believe it is important that all be present for the Prayer after Communion, as this prayer asks for the spiritual effects of the Eucharist to take effect in our lives.

They go on to say that they want to only use consecrated host from that Mass to be consumed and that what is left in the Tabernacle really should only be used for the dying in the administration of Viaticum.

Is this something to be concerned about? Is this an abuse or a sin against the Holy Eucharist?

My feeling is that these procedures have always been in place for a reason and that if you want to be a Eucharistic Minister be glad to serve the Lord in your works at Mass. If you think you are really missing out on something, perhaps it is time to hang up the Eucharistic Minister gig and just go to Mass.

Also, I must say I am somewhat troubled by a “Liturgy Committee”. Isn’t that the Magesterium?

I think you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC’s). They are NOT Eucharistic Ministers. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister.

 

[Thomas62408]

I think you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC’s). They are NOT Eucharistic Ministers. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister.

Yes I understand that. I was just quoting what was in the bulletin itself and got sloppy as well.

Thanks to everyone for your responses and for the interesting conversation that has ensued.

While I learned that only the priest should be purifying the sacred vessels, I must admit that I feel somewhat better about the whole thing since I thought leaving the unconsumed host itself might have been a problem in itself.

 

[Phemie]

Yes I understand that. I was just quoting what was in the bulletin itself and got sloppy as well.

Thanks to everyone for your responses and for the interesting conversation that has ensued.

While I learned that only the priest should be purifying the sacred vessels, I must admit that I feel somewhat better about the whole thing since I thought leaving the unconsumed host itself might have been a problem in itself.

Wait a minute, you can’t leave the Sacred Species unconsumed. The Hosts would have to be reserved in the Tabernacle or immediately consumed and the Precious Blood would have to be drunk immediately. Only the empty vessels can be left, unpurified but covered, on the credence table until after Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Wait a minute, you can’t leave the Sacred Species unconsumed. The Hosts would have to be reserved in the Tabernacle or immediately consumed and the Precious Blood would have to be drunk immediately. Only the empty vessels can be left, unpurified but covered, on the credence table until after Mass.

Yes, that is why the Sacred Hosts are placed inside the Tabernacle. You can’t just leave them out in the open. That would be a huge abuse.

 

[zab]

They go on to say that they want to only use consecrated host from that Mass to be consumed and that what is left in the Tabernacle really should only be used for the dying in the administration of Viaticum.

While I learned that only the priest should be purifying the sacred vessels, I must admit that I feel somewhat better about the whole thing since I thought leaving the unconsumed host itself might have been a problem in itself.

When I read your first post, I did not get the impression that unconsumed Hosts were being left out. It is just that we try not to put out an excessive amount of hosts to be consecrated. And that is the impression that I got from your bulletin notice. The idea is not to put out more than what is needed to be consecrated for that Mass, but sometimes it is difficult to predict the number of people that will be showing up for each Mass, espcecially when some special event is taking place that weekend. In most cases there will be some Hosts remaining and those will go in the tabernacle.

 

[jeanannemarie]

I was searching for a thread in which to ask this question and I decided this might be a good place. What if a Eucharistic minister does some questionable things with the hosts he takes for the shut-ins? I don’t know a thing about the rules and regulations on this subject and I would not be concerned it the person himself wasn’t making comments about the procedure that sound iffy to me. I couldn’t find anything in the catechism. Are there rules listed for this somewhere?

 

[zab]

I was searching for a thread in which to ask this question and I decided this might be a good place. What if a Eucharistic minister does some questionable things with the hosts he takes for the shut-ins? I don’t know a thing about the rules and regulations on this subject and I would not be concerned it the person himself wasn’t making comments about the procedure that sound iffy to me. I couldn’t find anything in the catechism. Are there rules listed for this somewhere?

What questionable things?

 

[jeanannemarie]

What questionable things? Taking an extra host for spouse who does not attend Mass or go to Confession, having the Host in the car for extended periods of time while other errands come first, or just consuming half a host and saving half for another person not present at Mass. I just wondered if those things would be approved of. I would guess not, but I certainly don’t know. Just wondering as I listen to this person chat about these situations. I remain silent and somewhat shocked and too meek to offer any comment since I don’t know the rules.