You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PJM
Guest
=ProVobis;13476306]Unconsecrated Hosts are by definition invalid. There seems to be some deception here.
What does DeDefectibus say about one species not being validly consecrated?
I admit to not being a theoligian; BUTThere would have been no doubt receiving the Precious Blood would have been valid but why add something invalid to it? Would you add unconsecrated Hosts to consecrated Hosts because you were running out?
Boththe Consecrated Host & the COnsecrated Wine are the Complete Christ BY THEM SELVES.
So by using Consecrated Wine to dip the host in; does it not too become the COMPLETE CHRIST?
God Bless you,
Patrick
E
exnihilo
Guest
Valiantly struggling is not using unconsecreated bread to convey communion. What the priest did is no different from dipping a Nilla Wafer or Ritz cracker into the Precious Blood. The most charitable explanation is a lack of wits.*Frankly, if the priest doesn’t have the wits to figure out how to consecrate enough Hosts or Precious Blood for Communion, *
It just isn’t becoming of a Priest to talk this way about another Priest who could be valiantly struggling with a parish situation that is unpredictable. Without a tabernacle, what would he do with a whole lot of consecrated hosts. How is he so certain the Priest doesn’t have any wits?
Provobis, I’m sure there has to be loads of references to correct procedures that don’t come with contemptful opinions about a fellow Priest. Anyway, I believe I registered a legitimate objection to the post. Signing off.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And the point of dipping an unconsecrated/invalid host in consecrated wine would be what? What would you gain? Furthermore aren’t you diluting the wine with the moisture from the host possibly making that invalid too? Does it take a chemist to point that out? As I said, all I see is deception here and possibly a precedent set that would be detrimental to one’s faith if not the congregation’s.So by using Consecrated Wine to dip the host in; does it not too become the COMPLETE CHRIST?
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
Actually, the Church has reallyexplicitly commented on such a practice:Of particular note is the citation of Redemptionis Sacramentum 104:
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.
So I stand corrected. The Church has explicitly commented on such a practice and it is forbidden.
From Redemptoris Sacramentum:
[96.] **The practice is reprobated whereby either unconsecrated hosts or other edible or inedible things are distributed during the celebration of Holy Mass **or beforehand after the manner of Communion, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books. For such a practice in no way accords with the tradition of the Roman Rite, and carries with it the danger of causing confusion among Christ’s faithful concerning the Eucharistic doctrine of the Church.
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
Absolutely no. A non consecrated host only becomes Jesus’ Body, blood, soul, and divinity by being consecrated by a validly ordained priest.I admit to not being a theoligian; BUT
Boththe Consecrated Host & the COnsecrated Wine are the Complete Christ BY THEM SELVES.
So by using Consecrated Wine to dip the host in; does it not too become the COMPLETE CHRIST?
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PrayPsalm51
Guest
The OP notes it was a Mass for the whole school community–blessing the wreaths of each classroom. It seems like it should have been relatively easy to know how many hosts to have ready. It seems the priest tried but should have known better than to use unconsecrated hosts. I think I read somehwere that there is a way to use an abbreviated format to consecrate in a situation like this. Any experts know this?A while ago, an institutional Mass (meaning to say, the whole school community) was held in my school for the Blessing of the Advent Wreaths of every class. During communion, the Sacred Hosts ran out. He told one of the EMHCs to get the Sacred hosts from the nearby Church and another EMHC to retrieve the remaining sacred hosts in our chapel, thus two servers went to escort the EHMC with a lighted candle. Still the Sacred hosts ran out after that, so the priest told one of the EHMCs to get unconsecrated hosts and intinct it in the chalice with the Blood of Christ and give it as communion. Was the decision of the priest prudent?
P
Phemie
Guest
RS 96 relates somewhat, but article 104 specifically addresses the question of intinction with unconsecrated bread. Joe 5859 quoted it in post number 10.Actually, the Church has reallyexplicitly commented on such a practice:
From Redemptoris Sacramentum:
P
Phemie
Guest
Canon 927 forbids that in the strongest terms – “not even in times of extreme necessity”.The OP notes it was a Mass for the whole school community–blessing the wreaths of each classroom. It seems like it should have been relatively easy to know how many hosts to have ready. It seems the priest tried but should have known better than to use unconsecrated hosts. I think I read somehwere that there is a way to use an abbreviated format to consecrate in a situation like this. Any experts know this?
P
paperwight66
Guest
Perhaps the idea behind dipping the altar-bread into the chalice was simply to make the Precious Blood ‘go further’? Dipping would use up less than what would be taken per sip.this is not licit. The priest should have simply allowed people to receive the Precious Blood alone. You should not dip unconsecrated hosts into the Precious Blood.
On other words, it was an attempt by the priest not to deprive the students of Holy Communion, a pastoral decision taken hastily with the best intentions.
Don’t we give people credit for good intentions any more? (And before posters start reminders about spiritual communions, perhaps the priest knew that his students weren’t familiar with that or wouldn’t understand that they could do this instead of receiving from the chalices in front of them).
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I make no assumptions on the priest’s intentions. You offer a very reasonable explanation for what may have transpired.Perhaps the idea behind dipping the altar-bread into the chalice was simply to make the Precious Blood ‘go further’? Dipping would use up less than what would be taken per sip.
On other words, it was an attempt by the priest not to deprive the students of Holy Communion, a pastoral decision taken hastily with the best intentions.
Don’t we give people credit for good intentions any more? (And before posters start reminders about spiritual communions, perhaps the priest knew that his students weren’t familiar with that or wouldn’t understand that they could do this instead of receiving from the chalices in front of them).
That said, being as we are removed from the specifics, we can only state what the Church rules in such matters: the practice is not allowed. The priest’s culpability in the matter is not something I can know, nor is it something I need to know or want to know.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Let’s not get started on good intentions. That goes hand-in-hand with “the end justifies the means” argument.Don’t we give people credit for good intentions any more?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Or hand in hand with charity towards others.Let’s not get started on good intentions. That goes hand-in-hand with “the end justifies the means” argument.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The Poles use unconsecrated bread in their communion exchanges during Christmas. There is no effort made in deceiving anyone of the Real Presence. What could be more charitable than that?Or hand in hand with charity towards others.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Same thing could be accomplished by diluting the Precious Blood with water, no? But what would that do to the validity of the Real Presence?Perhaps the idea behind dipping the altar-bread into the chalice was simply to make the Precious Blood ‘go further’? Dipping would use up less than what would be taken per sip.
P
paperwight66
Guest
If you are seriously asking, I’m afraid I don’t know, Logically, the amount of water added would have to be less than what would make the contents lose the appearance of wine, which would be easier to gauge wth red wine than with the almost-white wine used inour parish.Same thing could be accomplished by diluting the Precious Blood with water, no? But what would that do to the validity of the Real Presence?
But is it a rhetorical question? You are not suggesting that Precious Blood gets diluted from having an unconsecrated Host dipped in?
P
ProVobis
Guest
As I said before, it shouldn’t take a chemist to tell us that moisture from the host, if nothing else, gets introduced into the wine before it gets consumed. We also know that the Precious Blood does lose its validity at some point. This is not a suggestion. Where or when exactly does wine lose its “appearance,” I haven’t the slightest idea. Light bends at a different angle for a liquid, for one thing. So until we get a ruling, I think it’s wise for me not to say anything more on validity, except that I doubt we’ll ever get a ruling because, as others have pointed out, the Church is essentially telling us “Just don’t do it.” That means it’s illegal and therefore a sacrilege to knowingly receive under these conditions, thus negating any possible sacramental graces IMO.If you are seriously asking, I’m afraid I don’t know, Logically, the amount of water added would have to be less than what would make the contents lose the appearance of wine, which would be easier to gauge wth red wine than with the almost-white wine used inour parish.
But is it a rhetorical question? You are not suggesting that Precious Blood gets diluted from having an unconsecrated Host dipped in?
.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.