Communion at Mass from Tabernacle

[nagyszakall]

In most parishes I know, communion at the Sunday Masses is given from the tabernacle with previously consecrated hosts (beside the ones consecrated at that mass, of course), as a common practice.
How is it in your parish, or the parishes you know?

 

[Another_Mary]

Our church is so small that the large priest host plus those put in thr ciborium and brought up with the gifts are usually sufficient. At times there are visitors and he uses hosts from the tabernacle.

 

[Elizium23]

Well, I voted the third option, because you asked about Sunday Masses, but for daily Masses the situation is different. I think that at Sunday Masses they intentionally consecrate more hosts than needed, and then during the week, there is an attempt made to consume the remaining supply. But depending on attendance, we may consecrate one full ciborium at daily Mass, and yet bring a second ciborium out from the tabernacle to distribute. When doing this, there are usually hosts left over to reserve.

But for Sunday Masses, one ciborium is brought up in the Offertory, and multiple ciboria are arranged on the altar from the credence table; we consecrate four ciboria and we use 2-3 EMHCs to distribute them, and we reserve the rest.

 

[nagyszakall]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The voting also confirms my impression that there are a lot of parishes where no formidable attempt is made to distribute communion only from hosts consecrated at the same Mass.

I asked for Sunday, because that’s when most average Catholics go to church, and also because in many parishes (at least the ones I know), weekday attendance is much more insignificant, making it real easy to consecrate just as many hosts as there are people there. I have even seen a practice in some places, where people, as they come to weekday Mass, if they intend to receive communion place a host in a ciborium placed near the entrance. But you can’t do that on Sundays in most places.

The tabernacle is meant for reserving the Eucharist for the sick and for adoration, not really for the convenience of Sunday communion. However, I know only of two parishes where they actually make an effort not to give “leftovers” on the regular Sunday liturgy.

 

[curlycool89]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The voting also confirms my impression that there are a lot of parishes where no formidable attempt is made to distribute communion only from hosts consecrated at the same Mass.

There is nothing wrong or illicit about using the hosts from the tabernacle, nor is there any preference for using hosts consecrated at the same Mass. There is absolutely no difference between hosts just consecrated and hosts previously consecrated, all of them contain the whole Jesus. Jesus from yesterday from the tabernacle is just as good as Jesus from today.

The tabernacle is meant for reserving the Eucharist for the sick and for adoration, not really for the convenience of Sunday communion. However, I know only of two parishes where they actually make an effort not to give “leftovers” on the regular Sunday liturgy.

In your own opinion maybe. So far as I’m aware, the Church does not say anything like that. The Church does say that extra hosts are to be reserved in the tabernacle, and logic dictates that you eventually have to clear them out because storage space is not unlimited.

Trying to guess how many hosts are needed is just that, guesswork. When a single parish has several Masses during the day, you’re not going to get the same amount of people every weekend. Personally, on Sunday I tend to go to whichever Mass during the day fits into what I’m doing; sometimes it’s morning, sometimes it’s noon, and sometimes it’s evening when I go. There’s no requirement to go at the same time every single weekend or even to attend the same parish, the requirement is only to go to a Catholic Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is nothing wrong or illicit about using the hosts from the tabernacle, nor is there any preference for using hosts consecrated at the same Mass. There is absolutely no difference between hosts just consecrated and hosts previously consecrated, all of them contain the whole Jesus. Jesus from yesterday from the tabernacle is just as good as Jesus from today.

Actually, somewhere in the GIRM, the OF Missal prefers hosts distributed at Mass to be those consecrated at that Mass. It places no absolute obligation, but the text tells a preference.

 

[Elizium23]

[89.]
“So that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the Sacrifice being celebrated”,[174] it is preferable that the faithful be able to receive hosts consecrated in the same Mass.[175]

General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

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 cases where this is foreseen, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.[72]

 

[curlycool89]

Actually, somewhere in the GIRM, the OF Missal prefers hosts distributed at Mass to be those consecrated at that Mass. It places no absolute obligation, but the text tells a preference.

And again, as we’ve discussed before, the word “preferable” is the GIRM and other documents is really a meaningless phrase (nothing more then a suggestion really). If something is allowed as an option (and unless there’s restrictions), then it is allowed regardless of preference-hierarchy.

I know people like the symbology, but it really comes down to a practical matter. At most Masses, an excess number of hosts are consecrated (and people have compared the practice of putting an unconsecrated hosts into a ciborium yourself as you enter as an “attendance counter”, so that’s obviously not a popular option either) and the tabernacle just gets fuller and fuller. So the right thing to do is use the hosts from the tabernacle so as to not have it overflow, or even worse have to start disposing of excess hosts (in a licit manner I mean). So, in some Masses (often weekdays) you only consecrate a few hosts and most people receive those from the tabernacle. You can’t tell the difference when you’re receiving (heck, if you mix the new and older hosts together the priest can’t even tell), it’s the same Jesus.

 

[marytk]

It is very hard to predict attendance at a Mass. We think about the weather (Or for us for the
Saturday PM if the Michigan game starts late afternoon the attendance is USUALLY lower.) But it is a guess even if an educated one. Yes it is preferred. I think that means we don’t purposely over fill on Sunday so there is enough for the week.

 

[nagyszakall]

the word “preferable” is the GIRM and other documents is really a meaningless phrase

That’s a rather curious way to look at it. Wonder why they put it in if it’s really meaningless.

I rather think that “preferable” as opposed to “mandatory” is used, because, depending on the circumstances of the celebration, it may be needed at times to use previously consecrated hosts, but that doesn’t mean that parishes shouldn’t make a conscious effort to do what is preferred.

It is as if I said that I do nothing illicit by receiving communion only once a year (which is the minimum mandatory). And it would be true. Yet I should strive to receive communion frequently, and yes, it would be sad if I did not make an effort to be properly disposed to receive communion every week, even though I wouldn’t break any rules.

What I lamented is exactly that (and I said it was just my impression), that many parishes do not make the effort to distribute communion in the manner which is preferred (not mandatory) by the Church according to the pertaining documents.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And again, as we’ve discussed before, the word “preferable” is the GIRM and other documents is really a meaningless phrase (nothing more then a suggestion really). If something is allowed as an option (and unless there’s restrictions), then it is allowed regardless of preference-hierarchy.

I know people like the symbology, but it really comes down to a practical matter. At most Masses, an excess number of hosts are consecrated (and people have compared the practice of putting an unconsecrated hosts into a ciborium yourself as you enter as an “attendance counter”, so that’s obviously not a popular option either) and the tabernacle just gets fuller and fuller. So the right thing to do is use the hosts from the tabernacle so as to not have it overflow, or even worse have to start disposing of excess hosts (in a licit manner I mean). So, in some Masses (often weekdays) you only consecrate a few hosts and most people receive those from the tabernacle. You can’t tell the difference when you’re receiving (heck, if you mix the new and older hosts together the priest can’t even tell), it’s the same Jesus.

Actually, I agree with you. It is a nice to have, I guess, but it really is not particularly important. I see this on the level of importance as some of the people receiving part of the same Host as the priest, like the kind of Masses where you have a priest using one of those giant Hosts that breaks into a hundred mini hosts and leaves a thousand crumbs everywhere. Kind of nice, I guess, but it can get into the realm of “participation scrupulosity.”

 

[curlycool89]

Actually, I agree with you. It is a nice to have, I guess, but it really is not particularly important. I see this on the level of importance as some of the people receiving part of the same Host as the priest, like the kind of Masses where you have a priest using one of those giant Hosts that breaks into a hundred mini hosts and leaves a thousand crumbs everywhere. Kind of nice, I guess, but it can get into the realm of “participation scrupulosity.”

I think that’s the best way to put it: it’d be nice to do, and the symbology is nice, but in the end you’re still receiving Jesus. And Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever; I think that’s the important part to remember.

 

[nagyszakall]

It is a nice to have, I guess, but it really is not particularly important.

You misinterpret the word “preferable”. It means neither “nice” nor “not important”. It simply means that if you have the choice you should prefer the preferable. It is understood that you might not always have the choice, of course.

 

[nagyszakall]

I think that’s the best way to put it: it’d be nice to do, and the symbology is nice, but in the end you’re still receiving Jesus. And Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever; I think that’s the important part to remember.

Of course, if you weren’t “receiving Jesus”, it would be a question of validity of the sacrament, which is extremely serious. There are many aspects of the celebration of sacraments that do not affect validity, yet they should not be considered unimportant. If it were “either - or, do whatever you like”, they wouldn’t have included it in the GIRM. Preferable means you should choose it when you can and not worry about it when you cannot, without compromising other aspects of the sacrament.

 

[arkwright]

At all Masses it is urged that the faithful receive a Host consecrated at that Mass .

In his encyclical letter Mediator Dei of 1947 Pope Pius XII wrote : " Our predecessor , Benedict XIV , wishing to emphasize and throw light upon the truth that the faithful by receiving the Holy Eucharist become partakers of the divine sacrifice itself , praises the devotion of those , whom attending Mass , not only elicit a desire to receive Holy Communion but also want to be nourished by hosts consecrated during the Mass.

"They should be commended who , when present at Mass , receive hosts consecrated at the same Mass . "

In Sacrosanctum Concilium the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council say : " Hearty endorsement is given to that closer form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful , after the priest’s communion , receive the Lord’s body under elements consecrated at that very sacrifice . "

 

[novusCatholic]

Our parish priests prefer that communion be given with hosts that have been consecrated during the same Mass, but we also use consecrated hosts from the Tabernacle. We make our best guess for attendence when counting out hosts before Mass and try to not let the ciborium become too full. But, better to have too much than to run out!

 

[novusCatholic]

In our parish, a lot of people don’t show up until the last 5 or 10 minutes. So, you don’t really have a good count until Mass actually begins. Our hosts and wine are kept on a table in the back of the church. We might try to hurry and add or take away hosts if there seems to be a significant difference in the attendence versus the guess.

 

[curlycool89]

Of course, if you weren’t “receiving Jesus”, it would be a question of validity of the sacrament, which is extremely serious. There are many aspects of the celebration of sacraments that do not affect validity, yet they should not be considered unimportant. If it were “either - or, do whatever you like”, they wouldn’t have included it in the GIRM. Preferable means you should choose it when you can and not worry about it when you cannot, without compromising other aspects of the sacrament.

I think you’re reading in a meaning that does not match the accepted practice.

There are also “preferences” for Latin and Gregorian Chant, and nobody in the Vatican seems really concerned that almost no one follows those. There is also a “preference” to use the Graduale Romanum and even less parishes use that.

The point is that “preferable” is not a “must”, not only is it not a command but it can be virtually ignored for pretty much any reason (it doesn’t even need to be a grave reason, because otherwise it would say “except for a grave reason”).

 

[Phemie]

Going to the Tabernacle for the reserved Blessed Sacrament should be something that is done only when it becomes obvious that the number of people waiting to receive Communion exceeds the number of Hosts remaining in the ciboria of the people distributing Communion. We should not be seeing an EMHC or priest routinely going to the Tabernacle at the Fraction Rite to retrieve previously consecrated Hosts.

This can easily be prevented by having a container of hosts on the credence table from which the priest can add to the ciborium before the Consecration if he thinks it doesn’t contain enough for the people that are there.

In our parish, at the Saturday evening Mass, we rarely have more than 50 people. Most often it’s ~25. There is no reason to have a ciborium with 100 hosts in it taken up at the Offertory Procession.

During the week, there are no more than 10 people at Mass. Easy enough, if you consecrate 15 hosts, to give a few people two when they receive, thus ensuring that you are not having to reserve any after Communion.

 

[novusCatholic]

BYOH - Bring Your Own Host?

A couple of earlier posts mentioned the practice of people placing a host in a paten or ciborium as they enter the church. I like that idea. The count would be much closer, and you could just add some for a cushion so that you don’t run out (which would be bad). Then no one would have to be stressed trying to get an accurate attendance count as Mass is beginning.

I’m a newer Catholic, and I’m only aware of how our parish counts hosts. I understand why it could be an issue.

I do know that I’d rather spend the preperatory moments before Mass praying rather than polling the crowd…