Can a EMHC retrieve the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle?

[paperwight66]

There is no need for you and the other posters to be rude about this. The documents clearly state who is supposed to be going where and when. The problem is that we’ve either become so accustomed to abuse that it becomes the norm, we ignore the what the rubrics state or we just don’t know about them in the first place.

To simply be condescending to people who are giving answers based on what the actual documents say is to not be charitable in the least.

You are being too sensitive, benedictgal. There was nothing rude or condescending in Annabelle Marie’s post.

As I have said this on another thread. we can quote documents until the cows come home, but if the priest instructs he want something done in a certain way, EMHCs are stuck with it. Do you really imagine that the clergy are ignorant of the documents you quote?

Theory is all very well. You disregard the situation in the real world of parishes, with clergy decisions made on practical grounds more often than not - the layout of the church building, the spryness of old Fr. Retired who has kindly come in to help, and other considerations that perhaps the congregation isn’t aware of. Even if there aren’t practical reasons for the instructions from the priest, do you really imagine things will be changed just because a parishioner waves a document at him? He’s far more likely to dig his heels in, in many cases. Who exactly is in charge of a parish, anyway?

 

[benedictgal]

You are being too sensitive, benedictgal. There was nothing rude or condescending in Annabelle Marie’s post.

As I have said this on another thread. we can quote documents until the cows come home, but if the priest instructs he want something done in a certain way, EMHCs are stuck with it. Do you really imagine that the clergy are ignorant of the documents you quote?

Theory is all very well. You disregard the situation in the real world of parishes, with clergy decisions made on practical grounds more often than not - the layout of the church building, the spryness of old Fr. Retired who has kindly come in to help, and other considerations that perhaps the congregation isn’t aware of. Even if there aren’t practical reasons for the instructions from the priest, do you really imagine things will be changed just because a parishioner waves a document at him? He’s far more likely to dig his heels in, in many cases. Who exactly is in charge of a parish, anyway?

However, the real world scenarios need to take into account what the documents state. The Church gives us norms and rubrics for a reason. They are to be followed. The bishop is supposed to ensure that they are being followed. He is the one who needs to hold his priests accountable for their actions and inactions. If the bishop does not do this, then, he is held accountable to Rome.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was Blessed John Paul’s means of trying to correct a situation that has gone out of control in many a parish and in many a diocese. The document charges everyone, whether clergy or laity, to do what they can to ensure the integrity of the liturgy.

Once we had an older, visiting priest show up for the last of the Sunday Masses. It was my term to serve as EMHC. Before Mass we talked about what our procedure was here at the parish. I told him that the celebrant goes to the Tabernacle. He was surprised. He said that since I was an EMHC I had every right to go up. I told him that it was not in the GIRM and that I was to come up after he communicated. He went ahead and went to the Tabernacle betweeen the Sign of Peace and the Agnus Dei and I went up at my appointed time and then he returned the remaining Sacred Species to the Tabernacle. Needless to say, I wound up going to his parish for Mass a few weeks later and saw him going to the Tabernacle instead of the EMHC.

It amazes me that when someone tries to do it here, one gets pounced on by both the clergy and the laity responding to these threads. At one of our liturgy committee meetings, someone made the same comment you made about the real world as if to say that the documents do not matter. Luckily, one of the priests present told him that he was wrong.

 

[Newbie2]

However, the real world scenarios need to take into account what the documents state. The Church gives us norms and rubrics for a reason. They are to be followed. The bishop is supposed to ensure that they are being followed. He is the one who needs to hold his priests accountable for their actions and inactions. If the bishop does not do this, then, he is held accountable to Rome.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was Blessed John Paul’s means of trying to correct a situation that has gone out of control in many a parish and in many a diocese. The document charges everyone, whether clergy or laity, to do what they can to ensure the integrity of the liturgy.

It amazes me that when someone tries to do it here, one gets pounced on by both the clergy and the laity responding to these threads. At one of our liturgy committee meetings, someone made the same comment you made about the real world as if to say that the documents do not matter. Luckily, one of the priests present told him that he was wrong.

So if the documents are silent about, say, an elderly priest…what then?

 

[Lapey]

There is no need for you and the other posters to be rude about this. The documents clearly state who is supposed to be going where and when. The problem is that we’ve either become so accustomed to abuse that it becomes the norm, we ignore the what the rubrics state or we just don’t know about them in the first place.

To simply be condescending to people who are giving answers based on what the actual documents say is to not be charitable in the least.

benedicgal,

I don’t believe I or anyone else was “simply being condescending.” Your view of what the documents dictate, without regard for any opinion outside of your rigid interpretation is where we disagree. You don’t want to discuss, you want to dictate, and that’s what you always do.

If we were to take your word for every situation in the hard line that you take, we would have to rebuild many churches, and replace many priests, bishops and deacons; not to mention laity. That’s just not reality.

If we would try discussion rather than dictation, maybe it would be better for the forum.

And btw, I asked about the information about where the deacon is disqualified in the documents to approach the tabernacle, and you have chosen to ignore it, or restate that the GIRM only states that the priest goes, so that must mean the deacon is excluded. I know that this is not the case in the real world, the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, and is used for this purpose, licitly.

I have come to know and respect you for the level of knowledge you hold as to the documents, my only question of your ability is the implementation of what the documents mean in the real world; this is where you and I differ. I hope this doesn’t come across as disrespectful, just fact that we will disagree on occasion because of practical application of these documents. It’s simply fact that sometimes there is a little gray; every situation is not as black and white as you state.

PS. You have ignored a couple of my posts, that ok if you care to continue that. I am not trying to argue, it’s called debate. Sometimes we will have differing opinions…

 

[benedictgal]

benedicgal,

I don’t believe I or anyone else was “simply being condescending.” Your view of what the documents dictate, without regard for any opinion outside of your rigid interpretation is where we disagree. You don’t want to discuss, you want to dictate, and that’s what you always do.

If we were to take your word for every situation in the hard line that you take, we would have to rebuild many churches, and replace many priests, bishops and deacons; not to mention laity. That’s just not reality.

If we would try discussion rather than dictation, maybe it would be better for the forum.

And btw, I asked about the information about where the deacon is disqualified in the documents to approach the tabernacle, and you have chosen to ignore it, or restate that the GIRM only states that the priest goes, so that must mean the deacon is excluded. I know that this is not the case in the real world, the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, and is used for this purpose, licitly.

I have come to know and respect you for the level of knowledge you hold as to the documents, my only question of your ability is the implementation of what the documents mean in the real world; this is where you and I differ. I hope this doesn’t come across as disrespectful, just fact that we will disagree on occasion because of practical application of these documents. It’s simply fact that sometimes there is a little gray; every situation is not as black and white as you state.

PS. You have ignored a couple of my posts, that ok if you care to continue that. I am not trying to argue, it’s called debate. Sometimes we will have differing opinions…

It was not that I ignored your posts. It was hard to respond via a Blackberry, which has very small print (my in-home server was out). I do respect you, Deacon Lapey.

My frustration is that there seems to be a prevailing mood (at least that is how I have experienced it both here and in my own diocese) that rubrics don’t matter. I am not directing this towards you, as you have indicated that there is some common ground that we share.

I am not all mouth and typing. I do what I can to help things. In fact, I was asked by one of the priests to compile a side-by-side analysis of the changes in the GIRM. This was not an easy task, but, it is now complete. I hope that this will be a benefit to the folks down here. If the priest did not trust my judgment,he would not have asked me.

Concerning the retired priest, at least for daily Mass, what one parish has done is to have a head/host counrt so as to ensure that they have about as accurate a number of hosts for the communicants as possible. During the times that I have been there, they have been able to get pretty close. The priest consumes what little remains and then purifies the vessels.

The parochial vicar at another parish is also trying his best not to have to retrieve the Sacred Species from the Tabernacle and use what he has already consecrated. It’s been hit or miss, but, he is trying.

 

[Newbie2]

benedicgal,

I don’t believe I or anyone else was “simply being condescending.” Your view of what the documents dictate, without regard for any opinion outside of your rigid interpretation is where we disagree. You don’t want to discuss, you want to dictate, and that’s what you always do.

If we were to take your word for every situation in the hard line that you take, we would have to rebuild many churches, and replace many priests, bishops and deacons; not to mention laity. That’s just not reality.

If we would try discussion rather than dictation, maybe it would be better for the forum.

And btw, I asked about the information about where the deacon is disqualified in the documents to approach the tabernacle, and you have chosen to ignore it, or restate that the GIRM only states that the priest goes, so that must mean the deacon is excluded. I know that this is not the case in the real world, the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, and is used for this purpose, licitly.

I have come to know and respect you for the level of knowledge you hold as to the documents, my only question of your ability is the implementation of what the documents mean in the real world; this is where you and I differ. I hope this doesn’t come across as disrespectful, just fact that we will disagree on occasion because of practical application of these documents. It’s simply fact that sometimes there is a little gray; every situation is not as black and white as you state.

PS. You have ignored a couple of my posts, that ok if you care to continue that. I am not trying to argue, it’s called debate. Sometimes we will have differing opinions…

You’re 100% correct, Lapey, sometimes there are grey areas that the documents cover, and blanket proclaimations sometimes really are not helpful.

I’ll repeat my question in case BG wants to respond. Since the documents are silent about an elderly priest having difficulty or the impossibility of going to a “remote” tabernacle himself, what then? Is he supposed to risk fumbling and dropping a full ciborium or two?

Or does the possibility exist that there is room for an interpretation other than yours? Seems a few of us would like to hear your informed opinion, and I say that as a compliment.

 

[stephraim]

I finally have my Ceremonial of Bishops in front of me.

165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.

Hope this helps.

 

[Newbie2]

I finally have my Ceremonial of Bishops in front of me.

165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.

Hope this helps.

Yeah, but what if the priest cannot phycically do that? There’s a difference in what **should **be done and what can be done. Using the elderly priest example, it’s not a matter of trying to skirt around the rubrics, it’s practical matter to ensure against “accidental profanation”, for lack of a better term.

 

[benedictgal]

I finally have my Ceremonial of Bishops in front of me.

165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.

Hope this helps.

However, that works for bishops, not necessarily for regular Sunday Masses celebrated by a priest. Since our diocese has no office of worship, I will pose this question to the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship by way of an email. I can’t guarantee that I’ll get a quick response, but, I will post as soon as I get one.

I would call a friend at the CDWDS, but, since it’s August, they are pretty much shut down for the month. I don’t think folks would want to wait until September for an answer.

I will say this, the only time I’ve seen a deacon carry the ciborrium back to the Tabernacle during a Papal liturgy is on Good Friday. If memory serves, a priest is the last one to receive from the Holy Father and he is given the ciborrium to take back to the Tabernacle at St. Peter’s.

 

[stephraim]

Yeah, but what if the priest cannot phycically do that? There’s a difference in what **should **be done and what can be done. Using the elderly priest example, it’s not a matter of trying to skirt around the rubrics, it’s practical matter to ensure against “accidental profanation”, for lack of a better term.

Whoa, I wasn’t trying to say anything one way or the other. Rather, I was merely showing that it’s rubrically okay for a deacon or concelebrant to place remaining consecrated hosts in the tabernacle at an episcopal Mass, and mutatis mutandis at a presbyteral Mass. There is precedent for using rubrics of episocpal Masses in presbyteral Masses, as rubricists have frequently applied actions in the Tridentine episcopal Mass taken from the Caeremoniale Episcoporum to the presbyteral Solemn High Mass.

 

[Lapey]

I finally have my Ceremonial of Bishops in front of me.

165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.

Hope this helps.

Thanks!!! This is the document I was refering to yesturday. My memory has failed me, but you found it.

 

[Lapey]

However, that works for bishops, not necessarily for regular Sunday Masses celebrated by a priest. Since our diocese has no office of worship, I will pose this question to the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship by way of an email. I can’t guarantee that I’ll get a quick response, but, I will post as soon as I get one.

I would call a friend at the CDWDS, but, since it’s August, they are pretty much shut down for the month. I don’t think folks would want to wait until September for an answer.

I will say this, the only time I’ve seen a deacon carry the ciborrium back to the Tabernacle during a Papal liturgy is on Good Friday. If memory serves, a priest is the last one to receive from the Holy Father and he is given the ciborrium to take back to the Tabernacle at St. Peter’s.

But again, gal, this does not mean that this is the only way that this can be done licitly.

Submit the question and let us know what you find out.

 

[stephraim]

But again, gal, this does not mean that this is the only way that this can be done licitly.

Submit the question and let us know what you find out.

Yes, please do. If possible, find out whether an instituted acolyte or EMHC are able to retrieve/return consecrated particles to the tabernacle as well.

 

[Lapey]

Yes, please do. If possible, find out whether an instituted acolyte or EMHC are able to retrieve/return consecrated particles to the tabernacle as well.

I am writting an email to our office of worship as well. But as gal stated, no promise on the date of the response.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

There is no need for you and the other posters to be rude about this. The documents clearly state who is supposed to be going where and when. The problem is that we’ve either become so accustomed to abuse that it becomes the norm, we ignore the what the rubrics state or we just don’t know about them in the first place.

To simply be condescending to people who are giving answers based on what the actual documents say is to not be charitable in the least.

I sincerly do not mean to be rude to you, however you always have such terse replies. You think that the documents clearly state. I’m not sure it does. I have no idea as to your credentials…is it what you know…or what you think you know. I don’t take any advice on the internet mearly from one person. I’ve seen you argue with deacons and priests in the past so I’m not sure of your credentials at all.

So, I was mearly trying to get other people to respond.

 

[Lapey]

However, that works for bishops, not necessarily for regular Sunday Masses celebrated by a priest. Since our diocese has no office of worship, I will pose this question to the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship by way of an email. I can’t guarantee that I’ll get a quick response, but, I will post as soon as I get one.

I would call a friend at the CDWDS, but, since it’s August, they are pretty much shut down for the month. I don’t think folks would want to wait until September for an answer.

I will say this, the only time I’ve seen a deacon carry the ciborrium back to the Tabernacle during a Papal liturgy is on Good Friday. If memory serves, a priest is the last one to receive from the Holy Father and he is given the ciborrium to take back to the Tabernacle at St. Peter’s.

This is my email to Fr Glenn on this subject this morning;

*Good morning Father Glenn,

I have a question concerning who is the appropriate minister, priest, deacon, acolyte or EMHC; to approach to tabernacle within the mass to repose remaining host after communion. It’s been a hot topic lately and the GIRM states the priest is to perform this duty, but I know us as acolytes before ordination and deacons since, have been asked to perform this duty.

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.”

“183. When the distribution of Communion is completed, the deacon returns to the altar with

the priest and collects the fragments, if any remain, and then carries the chalice and other sacred

vessels to the credence table, where he purifies them and arranges them in the usual way while

the priest returns to the chair. It is also permissible to leave the vessels that need to be purified,

suitably covered, at the credence table on a corporal and to purify them immediately after Mass

following the dismissal of the people.”

Notice in #163 the priest is given that duty specifically, and in 183 it is not mentioned. Does that mean that the deacon should not perform this duty? Doesn’t make sense to me, especially when compared to the rubrics of the celebration with a bishop, where in the Ceremonial of Bishops it states;

“165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.”

I don’t have a copy of this; I am going with someone else’s information here.

Anyway, if you can help with this issue, it would be very much appreciated; or just tell me I worry too much about nothing.

Thanks,

*This is from Fr. Glenn who is the Director of the Office of Worship for our diocese, he agrees with me;

*Gary,

Note the section titles. Paragraph 163 occurs in the section entitled “Mass without a Deacon,” just before paragraph 120. section 183 occurs in the section entitled “Mass with a Deacon.” Therefore #163 would not mention the deacon. So #183 GIRM and the Ceremonial are in sync.

Hope this helps.

Fr. Glenn*

 

[benedictgal]

This is my email to Fr Glenn on this subject this morning;

*Good morning Father Glenn,

I have a question concerning who is the appropriate minister, priest, deacon, acolyte or EMHC; to approach to tabernacle within the mass to repose remaining host after communion. It’s been a hot topic lately and the GIRM states the priest is to perform this duty, but I know us as acolytes before ordination and deacons since, have been asked to perform this duty.

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.”

“183. When the distribution of Communion is completed, the deacon returns to the altar with

the priest and collects the fragments, if any remain, and then carries the chalice and other sacred

vessels to the credence table, where he purifies them and arranges them in the usual way while

the priest returns to the chair. It is also permissible to leave the vessels that need to be purified,

suitably covered, at the credence table on a corporal and to purify them immediately after Mass

following the dismissal of the people.”

Notice in #163 the priest is given that duty specifically, and in 183 it is not mentioned. Does that mean that the deacon should not perform this duty? Doesn’t make sense to me, especially when compared to the rubrics of the celebration with a bishop, where in the Ceremonial of Bishops it states;

“165 When the giving of communion is over, one of the deacons consumes the blood that remains, takes the cup to a side table, and there purifies and arranges it, or he may do so after Mass. Another deacon or one of the concelebrants takes any remaining consecrated particles to the tabernacle, then at a side table cleanses the paten or ciborium over the cup before the cup is cleansed.”

I don’t have a copy of this; I am going with someone else’s information here.

Anyway, if you can help with this issue, it would be very much appreciated; or just tell me I worry too much about nothing.

Thanks,

*This is from Fr. Glenn who is the Director of the Office of Worship for our diocese, he agrees with me;

*Gary,

Note the section titles. Paragraph 163 occurs in the section entitled “Mass without a Deacon,” just before paragraph 120. section 183 occurs in the section entitled “Mass with a Deacon.” Therefore #163 would not mention the deacon. So #183 GIRM and the Ceremonial are in sync.

Hope this helps.

Fr. Glenn*

You got a quicker response than mine to the USCCB. My concern is this. Why is the GIRM silent on what the deacon is to do during the section marked “Mass with a Deacon”? When I looked at the GIRM reference for the deacon, it did not have a footnote. It’s not that I am disputing what your diocesan director of worship wrote in the letter; rather, it just seems like there is something missing.

As soon as I get my response, I will post it. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Lapey]

You got a quicker response than mine to the USCCB. My concern is this. Why is the GIRM silent on what the deacon is to do during the section marked “Mass with a Deacon”? When I looked at the GIRM reference for the deacon, it did not have a footnote. It’s not that I am disputing what your diocesan director of worship wrote in the letter; rather, it just seems like there is something missing.

As soon as I get my response, I will post it. Thank you for sharing this.

That sounds great…I asked that question too. Maybe because it is covered within the rubrics such as the Ceremonial of Bishops, not sure though.

I did follow up with a question about EMHCs and acolytes, so if I get that I’ll pass it on.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

It will be interesting to see your response from the USCCB. I would tend to agree that “something is missing,” and it wouldn’t be the first time that someone didn’t think through the implications of things left unsaid (another example being the “Peters problem,” wherin canon law expert Dr. Peters insists that the canons require married permanent deacon to refrain from relations with their wives, despite other numerous experts who apply a more common sense interpretation to the apparent omission of more specific clarifications).

At some level, it just seems bizarre that a deacon, a cleric in Holy Orders and who is designated an Ordinaty Minister of Holy Communion, who is authorized to conduct benediction and bless with the monstrance, cannot perform the simple actions of retrieving and returning ciboria from and to the tabernacle in the setting of Mass with a priest.

 

[benedictgal]

That sounds great…I asked that question too. Maybe because it is covered within the rubrics such as the Ceremonial of Bishops, not sure though.

I did follow up with a question about EMHCs and acolytes, so if I get that I’ll pass it on.

With regard to the question on the EMHCs, I think that the rubric is clear, even in the Ceremonial for Bishops, that this is not something that is within their scope. If they can’t purify the vessels, then, they can’t go up to the Tabernacle, at least that is my understanding of it.

What I have learned, especially when it comes to legislative documents, is to look at footnotes and such. They do help a lot.