can you help me to find where it says....

[BigRedpg51]

No. It is not. According to the GIRM, this is what falls under the bishop’s purview:

The GIRM clearly states that only clergy can do this, not EMHCs. By the way, the correct term for laity assisting with the distribution of Holy Communion is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The priest and bishop are Eucharistic Ministers because only they can confect the Sacrament. A deacon, along with the bishop and the priest, is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion by virture of Holy Orders.

Dear Benedictgal,

I’m sorry if you misunderstood what I wrote. I said that the decision is left up to the local ordinary (the bishop), and whatever he decides is passed on in the EMHC’s training.

By the way, thank you for correcting me in the terminology. When I was a EMHC…about 15 years ago…we were called Eucharistic Ministers or Special Ministers to the Eucharist. I wasn’t sure of the current terminology.

God bless you!
John (a fellow Benedictine Oblate)

 

[benedictgal]

Dear Benedictgal,

I’m sorry if you misunderstood what I wrote. I said that the decision is left up to the local ordinary (the bishop), and whatever he decides is passed on in the EMHC’s training.

By the way, thank you for correcting me in the terminology. When I was a EMHC…about 15 years ago…we were called Eucharistic Ministers or Special Ministers to the Eucharist. I wasn’t sure of the current terminology.

God bless you!
John (a fellow Benedictine Oblate)

I am a little confused with what you wrote. As I read your post, you make it seem as though it’s the bishop’s call to make as to who goes to the Tabernacle. However, the GIRM only gives him limited authority as to what he can do regarding the Mass. According to the GIRM, the clergy are the ones who return the ciborrium to the Tabernacle, not the EMHCs. This information should, I agree with you, be told to the EMHCs so as to avoid confusion as to who does what.

 

[BigRedpg51]

"387. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful. "

Benedictgal, now I’m a bit confused. Where in the above quote from the GIRM does it explicitly state that only clergy have permission to return the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle after the distribution of Holy Communion? From what I can see, it only states that the bishop has the duty to administrate how those “…serving the priest at the altar…” do their duty. I don’t see any restriction forbidding anyone other than clergy from performing this function. Am I missing something here?

 

[benedictgal]

"387. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful. "

Benedictgal, now I’m a bit confused. Where in the above quote from the GIRM does it explicitly state that only clergy have permission to return the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle after the distribution of Holy Communion? From what I can see, it only states that the bishop has the duty to administrate how those “…serving the priest at the altar…” do their duty. I don’t see any restriction forbidding anyone other than clergy from performing this function. Am I missing something here?

I posted this in answer to the point that you raised about the issue of returning the hosts to the Tabernacle being someething that the bishop can determine. The above quote from the GIRM treats what he can and cannot determine. The issue of returning the ciborrium to the Tabernacle is covered here:

1. 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.

Thus, the GIRM specifically states that this duty falls to the priest, not to an EMHC, to do.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I posted this in answer to the point that you raised about the issue of returning the hosts to the Tabernacle being someething that the bishop can determine. The above quote from the GIRM treats what he can and cannot determine. The issue of returning the ciborrium to the Tabernacle is covered here:

Thus, the GIRM specifically states that this duty falls to the priest, not to an EMHC, to do.

A strict reading of #163 as posted would seem to mean that even deacons are not allowed to return the Eucharist to the tabernacle. Is this a correct interpretation? Similarly, I have seen Masses where the deacon consumes, or assists in consuming, the remaining Precious Blood. Also apparently not correct per 163?

 

[benedictgal]

A strict reading of #163 as posted would seem to mean that even deacons are not allowed to return the Eucharist to the tabernacle. Is this a correct interpretation? Similarly, I have seen Masses where the deacon consumes, or assists in consuming, the remaining Precious Blood. Also apparently not correct per 163?

This was from the Masses without a deacon. When the deacon is there, the rubrics state this:

1. 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.

Oddly enough, the GIRM, as far as I can tell, is silent as to whether or not it falls to the deacon to place the ciborrium back into the tabernacle.

 

[sulkow82]

Oddly enough, the GIRM, as far as I can tell, is silent as to whether or not it falls to the deacon to place the ciborrium back into the tabernacle.

I, personally, believe that on issues where the GIRM is silent, the prudence of the Bishop is the deciding factor. I wonder if the silence was intentional on this issue.

sulkow82 SFO

 

[benedictgal]

I, personally, believe that on issues where the GIRM is silent, the prudence of the Bishop is the deciding factor. I wonder if the silence was intentional on this issue.

sulkow82 SFO

Again, with all due respect, I refer you to the portion of the GIRM that states where the bishop is to act and where he has leeway. This was a few posts ago.

 

[TaterSoup]

The local ordinary has authority to define the ritual norm for this particular practice within his diocese. You may try the diocesan web site or the director of liturgy in your diocese and parish for clarification, or personally write your Bishop or Pastor and respectfully ask for clarification. This is the Eucharist and arbitrary practice and procedures do not apply.

 

[distracted]

thanks. but i am looking more where it says that laity are not allowed to do such, only a pirest and a deacon are allowed to do this.

in my parish the women are the ones who are taking the Host back to the Tabernacle. i heard priest on EWTN saying this is not permited. but i cannot find where the Church says laity and specially women are not allowed to do this.

so if a woman is a Euch Minister she can’t consume the small amt of consecrated wine thats left?

 

[benedictgal]

The local ordinary has authority to define the ritual norm for this particular practice within his diocese. You may try the diocesan web site or the director of liturgy in your diocese and parish for clarification, or personally write your Bishop or Pastor and respectfully ask for clarification. This is the Eucharist and arbitrary practice and procedures do not apply.

Actually, having served on our diocesan liturgical committee, I have had experience with this issue. The GIRM clearly states that the priest is to be the one to place the consecrated hosts back into the tabernacle, not an EMHC. This is not something that falls under what the bishop can change. The bishop has authority only in what is defined in the GIRM. If he wants EMHCs to be the ones to do this, he would have to propose this change to the GIRM to the national episcopal conference. Such a proposal would then be put before a vote and would need to receive a 2/3 approval of the Latin-rite bishops of the conference in order for it to be sent to Rome for the recogntio. Once Rome receives it, the Holy See can either grant the recognitio or deny it.

Given the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has already rescinded the indult to permit EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels, the norm for just who can go to the tabernacle during Mass is not like to change.

 

[benedictgal]

so if a woman is a Euch Minister she can’t consume the small amt of consecrated wine thats left?

A woman cannot be a Eucharistic Minister because that is reserved only for the bishop and priest as only they can confect the Eucharist.

In Masses with a deacon, the deacon consumes whatever remains of the Precious Blood. In Masses without a deacon, the GIRM calls for the priest to do so.

 

[zab]

so if a woman is a Euch Minister she can’t consume the small amt of consecrated wine thats left?

1. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.” (54) **When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop.
   **

 

[wisdomseeker]

A woman cannot be a Eucharistic Minister because that is reserved only for the bishop and priest as only they can confect the Eucharist.

In Masses with a deacon, the deacon consumes whatever remains of the Precious Blood. In Masses without a deacon, the GIRM calls for the priest to do so.

I dont know where my priest got his authority from because the women drinks the remaining wine or sometimes the man does. the woman is the one gathering the remain Host into the Symborium then she places it in the Tabernacle in my parish.

 

[zab]

I dont know where my priest got his authority from because the women drinks the remaining wine or sometimes the man does. the woman is the one gathering the remain Host into the Symborium then she places it in the Tabernacle in my parish.

What benedictgal is trying to get across is that we should use the correct terminology. Neither women nor lay men nor religious brothers can be Eucharistic Ministers. However, they can be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[nortex]

Sounds to me like we’re a bunch of “pharisees”, following the letter of the law and not it’s spirit.

“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them” Matthew 23

Does it really matter whom really transports the ciborium? I think not.

 

[zab]

Sounds to me like we’re a bunch of “pharisees”, following the letter of the law and not it’s spirit.

“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them” Matthew 23

Does it really matter whom really transports the ciborium? I think not.

“The Spirit of Vatican II” has been the battle cry of those instigating liturgical abuses that have gone on for many years. There is a reason why we have instruction on the way things should be done. And that instruction should be followed.

 

[nortex]

You follow the letter of the law and I’ll follow the spirit. I bet we both get to heaven.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Just a few points of clarification and reference:
Zab’s reference is correct and is from the USCCB’s Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

It is well known amongst liturgists that the GIRM and Rubrics and the like, for the most part say what is to be done. They do not envision every opportunity for someone to do something against the rubrics and explicitly say that it cannot be done.

BenedictGal is correct in everything that she has said. If she was wrong, trust me, I would readily correct her, respectfully!

Paperwight however is incorrect in stating that anything a lay man is allowed to do the same applies for lay women. Lay women may not become instituted lectors or acolytes. If the local bishop says no, lay women are not permitted to be altar servers. Technically, a bishop could say that no lay woman could carry out a ministry inside of the Sactuary during liturgical celebrations.

I do not wish to start an agrument at all. Simply healthy dialouge. Nortex, could you please explain to me how asking a priest to take diligent care of the Eucharistic elements which is his ministry imparts an “insupportable burden” as scripture says? One must remember the difference between the Pharisees and the Catholic Church. WE were institued by Christ, Himself, in person and He gave the Church authority. We are all called to obedience to God and to HIS Church. I sincerely ask you to start commenting on wdtprs.com. Explain your views and people will gladly explain their views and the reasons behind them. If someone starts acting unfriendly, simply write FR.Z!!! and I’m sure things will be handled in a more pastoral manner.

God bless!

 

[sulkow82]

Sounds to me like we’re a bunch of “pharisees”, following the letter of the law and not it’s spirit.

“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them” Matthew 23

Does it really matter whom really transports the ciborium? I think not.

Part of the problem is some parishes do a great effort in truly following what V-II was looking to institute. Others use “spirit of V-II” as a battle cry to change so much that they are left with neither the letter nor the spirit of the Council. The Council was about encouraging people to take a greater participation in the Mass. It was not about letting people run amok with changes. In the Church today, we have a very uneven situation between those two (2) extremes.

sulkow82 SFO