Communion from sick priest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TeilhardRocks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TeilhardRocks

Guest
Today at mass Father said since he caught the cold going around the parish/school and he was sure God did not want everyone else to get sick so he would hold out the paten and we should take our own host.

Considering that Father and the other ministers all use hand sanitizer just before distributing communion it seems like the germ risk would be minimal. With everyone reaching in to take a host odds are many inadvertently touched other hosts. Wouldn’t this just spread a greater assortment of germs?

There are many small children carried up in parents’ arms then the parent receives on the tongue. sometime the child is sleeping. sometimes the child is very much NOT sleeping. Today’s procedure made it very difficult for some of the parents to receive communion while holding a child. One child who was “restless” came close to kicking the paten out of Father’s hands when he held it out.

The whole thing seemed odd and strangely sad. I know it can be difficult to find a fill in Priest especially on short notice and especially on a Sunday. But isn’t there some sort of additional backup available? At minimum shouldn’t Father be allowed to leave distribution of communion to other ministers if he is sick?
 
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 160 states:

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.

This prohibition is repeated in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 94.
 
As has been stated above, laity are never allowed to take the Precious body themselves or pass it one to another. In this situation, it would be licit for the priest to simply leave distribution to EMHCs

Redemptionis Sacramentum Paragraph 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. 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.
 
WT1 said:
He should have just left distribution to a Eucharistic minister.
Click to expand...
The priest is a Eucharistic Minister, along with the deacon.

I assume you meant he should have left it to a layperson trained to do so, which would be known as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The difference in terms is significant, and care should be taken to use the proper one.

This is one of the few situations where use of an EMHC actually makes sense.
 
Generic_Name said:
The priest is a Eucharistic Minister, along with the deacon.

I assume you meant he should have left it to a layperson trained to do so, which would be known as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The difference in terms is significant, and care should be taken to use the proper one.

This is one of the few situations where use of an EMHC actually makes sense.
Click to expand...
Deacons aren’t Eucharistic Ministers. They are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. They lack the power to consecrate the Eucharist.
 
WT1 said:
He should have just left distribution to a Eucharistic minister.
Click to expand...
As it has been noted I should have written “extrodinary minister” and I apologize for using an incorrect term.
 
I would think that MANY more germs would be spread by everyone taking the host themselves.

Hand sanitizer used by the priest would have been fine, or if he was actively coughing, and did not want to risk coughing all over the hosts, refraining from distributing the hosts entirely would have been preferable ( from a germ standpoint).
 
That sounds highly irregular and against canon law, as others have already posted. I would mention this privately to your Bishop. His intentions might have been good, but this is totally incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top