Can a EMHC retrieve the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle?

[Lapey]

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.I ageree with you here 100%, but this is the orriginal question by the OP, so I asked.

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

Along with the footnotes, as the priest pointed out to us, also look at the section heading. The section “Mass without a deacon” many parts do not govern “mass with a deacon.” Simple mistake, but very true none the less.

 

[Lapey]

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).Yes…this one realy gets my goat! I’ve been told several times that the covenant with my wife has been made null and void because or odination, just silly.

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.

Well said here!

 

[Orleans_Attny]

This is not allowed. Under the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, only the Priest can go to the Tabernacle during Mass. Furthermore, the EMHCs are not supposed to be at the altar until after the celebrant communicates.

Interesting to me that you say this with such authority. What about masses performed in chapels where there is no tabernacle near the alter? In multi-use chapels, the tabernacle usually resides in a side chapel that’s reserved for Catholic use. This is almost always an entirely different room from the main chapel. So, is the priest then to leave the alter, and the main chapel, so that he can fetch the consecrated host from the tabernacle? Or should he merely pick up the consecrated hosts before the mass begins?

Pax,
OA

 

[Jakub]

This topic was previously discussed, 12 pages…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=522581

Enjoy

 

[GwenL]

Nobody has addressed the exception that I asked about. One of our priests has only one leg. Often he must go for a week or more without his prosthetic. He is on crutches. The sanctuary is not wheelchair accessible (he doesn’t have one anyway).

Benedictgal, by your interpretation, is he not allowed to celebrate Mass? It is physically impossible for him to carry the ciborium to & from the tabernacle. We have no deacon for daily Mass. Father asks the altar server to retrieve and repose the ciborium. Are you really saying that this is a liturgical abuse?

 

[paperwight66]

Nobody has addressed the exception that I asked about. One of our priests has only one leg. Often he must go for a week or more without his prosthetic. He is on crutches. The sanctuary is not wheelchair accessible (he doesn’t have one anyway).

Benedictgal, by your interpretation, is he not allowed to celebrate Mass? It is physically impossible for him to carry the ciborium to & from the tabernacle. We have no deacon for daily Mass. Father asks the altar server to retrieve and repose the ciborium. Are you really saying that this is a liturgical abuse?

There’s a similar situation in our parish. Several of the priests have the usual sight problems that go with ageing. One in particular has completely lost the sight in one eye due to shingles destroying the optic nerve, and the other eye is deteriorating.

The steps up to the tabernacle are white marble, so that they merge into each other, and there is no handrail. Going up isn’t too difficult, but coming down again with the ciborium takes a steady hand and feet and reasonable eyesight.

If all the priests were stopped saying Mass because they could not go to the tabernacle, we would have no Masses.

Yes, I suppose the steps could be altered in some way and a rail put up - i don’t know, to be honest, as it’s a very old church and there’s probably restrictions. But why disfigure the church, when there’s other people available to do this task which takes only seconds and is probably not noticed by most of the congregation?

 

[zab]

This topic was previously discussed, 12 pages…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=522581

Enjoy

Jakub provided a quote by Fr. Edward McNamara from A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7474430&postcount=168

*Likewise, after Communion is completed, No. 163 specifies: “[A]s for any consecrated hosts that are left, he (the priest himself) either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.” If a deacon or other priests are present they may also return the hosts to the tabernacle.
*

 

[zab]

Nobody has addressed the exception that I asked about. One of our priests has only one leg. Often he must go for a week or more without his prosthetic. He is on crutches. The sanctuary is not wheelchair accessible (he doesn’t have one anyway).

Benedictgal, by your interpretation, is he not allowed to celebrate Mass? It is physically impossible for him to carry the ciborium to & from the tabernacle. We have no deacon for daily Mass. Father asks the altar server to retrieve and repose the ciborium. Are you really saying that this is a liturgical abuse?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7474430&postcount=168
I think it is interesting that the answer to this question is not a definite no exceptions. Rather, “This is not the normal practice.”

*A further point mentioned in your question refers to the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist going to the tabernacle to retrieve and repose the hosts. This is not the normal practice during Mass. *

 

[Lapey]

*Gary,

I quickly looked through the GIRM2002 to seek an answer to your question. Under the duties of the acolyte (##187-193) is mention of the acolyte’s ability to assist with the purification of the vessels. #192 states that he may assist with carrying the vessels to the credence table. But nowhere does it say that the acolyte may bring the remaining fragments of the consecrated hosts back to the the tabernacle. #163 (Mass without a Deacon) states only that the priest returns the consecrated hosts to the tabernacle. In #183 (Mass with a Deacon) the deacon is permitted to do so. Again the acolyte is not mentioned there.

Therefore it appears that only an ordained minister, not even the acolyte and not a lay minister, may take the unconsumed consecrated hosts to the tabernacle.

Regarding getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle before Communion begins, you’ll notice that GIRM2002 never mentions this. Why? Because it presumes that parishes are following the directive in #85 that “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.”

In other words no one should be getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle for the purpose of distributing Holy Communion from them. If you miscalculate and run out, then certainly an ordained minister may go to the tabernacle and get some of the reserved species to finish distribution. However, this should not be planned. The plan should be that those present receive from what is consecrated at that particular Mass.

Hope this helps.

Fr.Glenn*

This is the response I just recieved from my diosecan director of worship. Seems quite clear, ordained yes, non ordained, no.

 

[benedictgal]

*Gary,

I quickly looked through the GIRM2002 to seek an answer to your question. Under the duties of the acolyte (##187-193) is mention of the acolyte’s ability to assist with the purification of the vessels. #192 states that he may assist with carrying the vessels to the credence table. But nowhere does it say that the acolyte may bring the remaining fragments of the consecrated hosts back to the the tabernacle. #163 (Mass without a Deacon) states only that the priest returns the consecrated hosts to the tabernacle. In #183 (Mass with a Deacon) the deacon is permitted to do so. Again the acolyte is not mentioned there.

Therefore it appears that only an ordained minister, not even the acolyte and not a lay minister, may take the unconsumed consecrated hosts to the tabernacle.

Regarding getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle before Communion begins, you’ll notice that GIRM2002 never mentions this. Why? Because it presumes that parishes are following the directive in #85 that “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.”

In other words no one should be getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle for the purpose of distributing Holy Communion from them. If you miscalculate and run out, then certainly an ordained minister may go to the tabernacle and get some of the reserved species to finish distribution. However, this should not be planned. The plan should be that those present receive from what is consecrated at that particular Mass.

Hope this helps.

Fr.Glenn*

This is the response I just recieved from my diosecan director of worship. Seems quite clear, ordained yes, non ordained, no.

I’ll be calling the secretary over at the USCCB tomorrow. While we all agree that neither an instituted alcolyte nor an EMHC should approach the Tabernacle and that the same should not really be approached by the ordained prior to Holy Communion, I am still wondering about the absence of the reference to the deacon in the Mass wtih a Deacon, since there is no specific mention that he is to do this.

Now, when I did speak to the USCCB earlier this month, I was told that we are now operating under the revised, permanent version of the GIRM. You can find it here:

new.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/

I was actually hoping to get an answer from them by today because we are having a liturgical committee meeting and this was one of the issues raised.

I apologize for not having written sooner. We are getting ready for annual audit and my Boston Terrier had a near-fatal emergency. She is fine. Momma is a nervous wreck.

 

[zab]

Gary,

I quickly looked through the GIRM2002 to seek an answer to your question. Under the duties of the acolyte (##187-193) is mention of the acolyte’s ability to assist with the purification of the vessels. #192 states that he may assist with carrying the vessels to the credence table. But nowhere does it say that the acolyte may bring the remaining fragments of the consecrated hosts back to the the tabernacle. #163 (Mass without a Deacon) states only that the priest returns the consecrated hosts to the tabernacle. In #183 (Mass with a Deacon) the deacon is permitted to do so. Again the acolyte is not mentioned there.

Therefore it appears that only an ordained minister, not even the acolyte and not a lay minister, may take the unconsumed consecrated hosts to the tabernacle.

*Regarding getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle before Communion begins, you’ll notice that GIRM2002 never mentions this. Why? Because it presumes that parishes are following the directive in #85 that “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.” *

In other words no one should be getting consecrated hosts from the tabernacle for the purpose of distributing Holy Communion from them. If you miscalculate and run out, then certainly an ordained minister may go to the tabernacle and get some of the reserved species to finish distribution. However, this should not be planned. The plan should be that those present receive from what is consecrated at that particular Mass.

Hope this helps.

Fr.Glenn

This is the response I just recieved from my diosecan director of worship. Seems quite clear, ordained yes, non ordained, no.

*A sufficient number of hosts should be reserved in the tabernacle to assure that none ever be deprived of Communion due to miscalculation. **And it will be sometimes necessary to use the tabernacle in order to renew the reserved hosts. *****Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, **

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

So…no one brought up the case of disabled priest or when the tabernacle is not in the santuary. Expecially in cases where you have one priest…no deacon.

I find it difficult to think that my daily parish is doing it wrong…as they are as traditional as you can get in this neck of the woods.

 

[Newbie2]

I’ll be calling the secretary over at the USCCB tomorrow. While we all agree that neither an instituted alcolyte nor an EMHC should approach the Tabernacle and that the same should not really be approached by the ordained prior to Holy Communion, I am still wondering about the absence of the reference to the deacon in the Mass wtih a Deacon, since there is no specific mention that he is to do this.

Now, when I did speak to the USCCB earlier this month, I was told that we are now operating under the revised, permanent version of the GIRM. You can find it here:

new.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/

I was actually hoping to get an answer from them by today because we are having a liturgical committee meeting and this was one of the issues raised.

I apologize for not having written sooner. We are getting ready for annual audit and my Boston Terrier had a near-fatal emergency. She is fine. Momma is a nervous wreck.

No, we all do not agree. Perhaps under normal circumstances we might agree on that, but as a blanket statement, no, for the following reason:

So…no one brought up the case of disabled priest or when the tabernacle is not in the santuary. Expecially in cases where you have one priest…no deacon.

I find it difficult to think that my daily parish is doing it wrong…as they are as traditional as you can get in this neck of the woods.

 

[Lapey]

So…no one brought up the case of disabled priest or when the tabernacle is not in the santuary. Expecially in cases where you have one priest…no deacon.

I find it difficult to think that my daily parish is doing it wrong…as they are as traditional as you can get in this neck of the woods.

I am sorry; I thought this was addressed in an earlier post. I’d have to go back though all the post. I don’t have a document to site; however, these situations are the exceptions to my understanding. If the priest cannot physically do this job, then he can depute someone to carry out this role. He can even sit at his chair and have someone distribute communion and he not participate, if he is physically unable to do so.

We have several retired priests who help out. One has Parkinson’s and can’t stand for more than a couple of minutes, so he sits through the entire mass.

My issue is with priests who just won’t go to the tabernacle, because they don’t want to. I was told this was “stupid of them to make this law” recently. It’s quite sad really.

I’ll have to go back into the documents to get the note on this.

 

[benedictgal]

I am sorry; I thought this was addressed in an earlier post. I’d have to go back though all the post. I don’t have a document to site; however, these situations are the exceptions to my understanding. If the priest cannot physically do this job, then he can depute someone to carry out this role. He can even sit at his chair and have someone distribute communion and he not participate, if he is physically unable to do so.

We have several retired priests who help out. One has Parkinson’s and can’t stand for more than a couple of minutes, so he sits through the entire mass.

My issue is with priests who just won’t go to the tabernacle, because they don’t want to. I was told this was “stupid of them to make this law” recently. It’s quite sad really.

I’ll have to go back into the documents to get the note on this.

Redemptionis Sacramentum does cover some of this:

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

I think that this would cover the question raised by Annabelle Marie.

 

[paperwight66]

I
My issue is with priests who just won’t go to the tabernacle, because they don’t want to. I was told this was “stupid of them to make this law” recently. It’s quite sad really.

.

Exactly. We can wave documents around all we wish, but if the priest says he wants things done differently, that’s the end of it in the real world.

I sometimes get the impression that there are those on here who believe that the clergy don’t know what is in the documents, so only need to be shown the right clause for them to say, ‘Gosh! Thanks! I really had no idea! I’ll do it the way you say it should be done from now on’.

Yes, right…

 

[zab]

Lapey;8236349
My issue is with priests who just won’t go to the tabernacle, because they don’t want to. I was told this was “stupid of them to make this law” recently. It’s quite sad really.

I’m just curious of the age of this priest. I am noticing that the younger priests seem to be much more traditional than they were 20 years ago.

 

[stephraim]

Exactly. We can wave documents around all we wish, but if the priest says he wants things done differently, that’s the end of it in the real world.

That’s very true.

I sometimes get the impression that there are those on here who believe that the clergy don’t know what is in the documents, so only need to be shown the right clause for them to say, ‘Gosh! Thanks! I really had no idea! I’ll do it the way you say it should be done from now on’.

Yes, right…

Well, my own pastor has admitted that he didn’t even know about Redemptionis Sacramentum, and when I showed him, he changed certain practices. So, I’ve experienced first-hand that what you say actually can be true.

 

[Lapey]

Exactly. We can wave documents around all we wish, but if the priest says he wants things done differently, that’s the end of it in the real world.

I sometimes get the impression that there are those on here who believe that the clergy don’t know what is in the documents, so only need to be shown the right clause for them to say, ‘Gosh! Thanks! I really had no idea! I’ll do it the way you say it should be done from now on’.

Yes, right…

Well, these situations must be brought to light. The priest I am thinking of in my comments is elderly, but in physical shape that he very well can and should perfom this duty when I am not there, he just won’t. That doesn’t mean that he has the right to make that change. In fact he does not have the right to disobey the documents, not the pickel; what does a person do.

This is what I would do, meet with the priest face to face. Go into the meeting well prepared. Use the documents to back up your statements, also if there any letters to the affect. Expect him to get agry or defensive, but make sure he knows your intent is the betterment of the worship and the souls in the pews, not your recognition. If and when this approach fails, let him know you have been forced to go to the diocesan office of worship and the bishop.

Most importantly, expect a backlash from your fellow parishoners, because you are amoung the few who actually see a problem.

The thing we cannot do is condone or participate in the wrong doing.