Another EMHC issue

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I do not think there is anything specific forbidding a lay person going to the tabernacle during Mass.

Approaching the tabernacle is not approaching the altar. An altar server can be in the sanctuary for the whole Mass. Going to the tabernacle can be the opposite direction to the altar.

Arguments can be made about the tabernacle key being in maximum safe keeping (canon 938). So a parish priest could have such a policy of forbidding lay people going to the tabernacle on this basis.

I agree that extraordinary ministers are “always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful” (GIRM 162). But the practice I often see is the blessed sacrament being brought from the tabernacle, to the altar and then to extraordinary ministers.

The GIRM has: “85. 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 …”. But desirable is not a requirement, so going to the tabernacle during Mass is not forbidden.

I believe it’s in there somewhere. A priest or Deacon (unless they are unable to do so physically) are to remove and replace the Blessed Sacrament in the tebernacle, A lay person is no longer to do this.

 

[benedictgal]

I believe it’s in there somewhere. A priest or Deacon (unless they are unable to do so physically) are to remove and replace the Blessed Sacrament in the tebernacle, A lay person is no longer to do this.

Brother Rich is on target with his answer. In order for an EHMC to receive the sacred vessels from the priest (and, in many cases, these vessel(s) may be located inside the Tabernacle–as in my parish), it only stands to logical reason that the celebrant or deacon must be the one to go to the Tabernacle and remove the Blessed Sacrament.

If only the celebrant and/or deacon can approach the Tabernacle to return the remaining consecrated Hosts, then it stands to reason that only the celebrant and/or deacon can retrieve the ciborrium in order to distribute Holy Communion.

 

[japhy]

Brother Rich is on target with his answer. In order for an EHMC to receive the sacred vessels from the priest (and, in many cases, these vessel(s) may be located inside the Tabernacle–as in my parish), it only stands to logical reason that the celebrant or deacon must be the one to go to the Tabernacle and remove the Blessed Sacrament.

If only the celebrant and/or deacon can approach the Tabernacle to return the remaining consecrated Hosts, then it stands to reason that only the celebrant and/or deacon can retrieve the ciborrium in order to distribute Holy Communion.

GIRM #162 – “These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.” – does seem to imply that an EMHC is not to take a sacred vessel on his/her own, but is always to receive the sacred vessel from the hands of the priest. This would mean they cannot retrieve a ciborium from the tabernacle, nor take a ciborium or chalice for distribution: they must have these things handed to them.

 

[benedictgal]

GIRM #162 – “These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.” – does seem to imply that an EMHC is not to take a sacred vessel on his/her own, but is always to receive the sacred vessel from the hands of the priest. This would mean they cannot retrieve a ciborium from the tabernacle, nor take a ciborium or chalice for distribution: they must have these things handed to them.

AMEN!!!

I had quoted that section earlier, but, since I had done something similar (several times) in another thread, I didn’t want to send Phemie falling off her chair laughing. She thought John Liburne and I were in some sort of Abbott and Costello deal.

 

[rpp]

Does the GIRM specify at what point in the MAss that the ciborium is to be retrieved from the Tabernacle?

At my former parish, the priest retrieved it just before he self-Communicated. At the place where I go to daily Mass (a convent), the priest retrieves the Reserved Eucharist while distributing the Holy Eucharist but only if he runs out. I do not recall when they get Him at my new parish, but that parish uses an altar rail and never makes use of EMHCs.

 

[benedictgal]

Does the GIRM specify at what point in the MAss that the ciborium is to be retrieved from the Tabernacle?

At my former parish, the priest retrieved it just before he self-Communicated. At the place where I go to daily Mass (a convent), the priest retrieves the Reserved Eucharist while distributing the Holy Eucharist but only if he runs out. I do not recall when they get Him at my new parish, but that parish uses an altar rail and never makes use of EMHCs.

Although it doesn’t quite specify, what my PV (parochial vicar) does is after he has exchanged the sign of peace with the altar server(s), he goes to the Tabernacle to retrieve the ciborrium. Then, when he returns to the altar, the choir begins the Agnus Dei and he conducts the Fraction Rite.

At the Cathedral, the administrator, who is also the new diocesan director for Divine Worship, waits for the faithful to finish exchanging the Sign of Peace, conducts the Fraction Rite (while the cantor sings the Agnus Dei), self-communicates under both species, goes to the Tabernacle, retrieves the ciborrium and then, after he distributes Holy Communion under both species to the EMHC (they distribute through the chalice), he gives them their chalices and then they proceed to distribute.

 

[japhy]

Does the GIRM specify at what point in the MAss that the ciborium is to be retrieved from the Tabernacle?

Ideally (in the Ordinary Form) not at all. GIRM #85 says 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 that same Mass”. The GIRM doesn’t explain what to do when this is not possible, but it seems evident that resorting to the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle is the thing to do. If you didn’t consecrate enough hosts, you’d have to; if you consecrated too many (regularly), you might not use the reserved Blessed Sacrament at a “proper rate”.

At my former parish, the priest retrieved it just before he self-Communicated. At the place where I go to daily Mass (a convent), the priest retrieves the Reserved Eucharist while distributing the Holy Eucharist but only if he runs out.

My pastor gets it during the Sign of Peace; some of our visiting priests do too, others do it after the communicate.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Does the GIRM specify at what point in the MAss that the ciborium is to be retrieved from the Tabernacle?

At my former parish, the priest retrieved it just before he self-Communicated. At the place where I go to daily Mass (a convent), the priest retrieves the Reserved Eucharist while distributing the Holy Eucharist but only if he runs out. I do not recall when they get Him at my new parish, but that parish uses an altar rail and never makes use of EMHCs.

It should be retrieved from the tabernacle when it is realized that there may not be enough Hosts Consecrated at that Mass for all communicants, Or after Holy Communion for the remaining Hosts.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Does the GIRM specify at what point in the MAss that the ciborium is to be retrieved from the Tabernacle? …

No, there is no specified time for this. That is an argument for not having the priest do it. It is a distraction from the main event.

For example, doing it at the Sign of Peace: The GIRM has: “154. … The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration.” What happens if the tabernacle is outside the sanctuary? Why do something else that disturbs the celebration?

At the fraction: “83. … The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance.” Is going to the tabernacle prolonging unnecessarily?

During communion? Stop the procession from processing?

My point is that it is not meant to happen. So I can understand an approach that aims to minimise this distraction, by using a lay person rather than the priest. I am not aware of any liturgical law that forbids this.

Returning remainig consecrated hosts is specified. In the GIRM:
“163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.” This makes returning them different to getting them.

 

[benedictgal]

No, there is no specified time for this. That is an argument for not having the priest do it. It is a distraction from the main event.

For example, doing it at the Sign of Peace: The GIRM has: “154. … The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration.” What happens if the tabernacle is outside the sanctuary? Why do something else that disturbs the celebration?

At the fraction: “83. … The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance.” Is going to the tabernacle prolonging unnecessarily?

During communion? Stop the procession from processing?

My point is that it is not meant to happen. So I can understand an approach that aims to minimise this distraction, by using a lay person rather than the priest. I am not aware of any liturgical law that forbids this.

Returning remainig consecrated hosts is specified. In the GIRM:
“163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.” This makes returning them different to getting them.

However, John, common sense would indicate that if a layman shouldn’t be allowed to carry the consecrated hosts to the tabernacle after communion, then he shouldn’t be allowed to do so before communion.

Sometimes I think that common sense gets thrown out the window. Now, I realize that in my own case, I have all of the common sense that God gave a turnip on certain things; however, I don’t think RS would contradict itself. If it’s no for one instance, then, it stands to reason that is should be no for the other.

 

[rpp]

However, John, common sense would indicate that if a layman shouldn’t be allowed to carry the consecrated hosts to the tabernacle after communion, then he shouldn’t be allowed to do so before communion.

Sometimes I think that common sense gets thrown out the window. Now, I realize that in my own case, I have all of the common sense that God gave a turnip on certain things; however, I don’t think RS would contradict itself. If it’s no for one instance, then, it stands to reason that is should be no for the other.

It seems to me that in many cases, people get caught up in legalism. “If it does not specifically say I can’t, then why can’t I?” Rather than 'Hmm…, the implication here is that the priest should be the one handling everything, so except for actually distributing Holy Communion, let’s keep the lay people out of it and at a minimum."

Or maybe I am have a fundamental misunderstand of liturgical theory versus liturgical execution.