Communion without enough extraordinary ministers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jess2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jess2011

Guest
I was at Mass today in a chapel with a small group of people, and there was no one to hold the chalice during Communion. So, the priest left it on the edge of the altar so people could drink from it themselves. I’d never seen this done before and just wondered if it’s okay to do that or not?
 
No, it is not OK to do so.

He could have communed each person under each species or only under one. Self-communication is not allowed.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Or given Communion via intinction
Click to expand...
That is hard to do without the proper vessels, unless everyone was coming right up to the altar to receive.

Best for him to have just offered communion under one species in this situation. It sounds like there were few enough at the Mass, that the priest wouldn’t have consecrated tons of wine.

OP, ask the priest about it at the next chance you get. “Father, I always understood that we weren’t to give ourselves communion. I was concerned about that at daily Mass the other day. Shouldn’t we just not receive the Blood of Christ if there isn’t an EMHC there?”
 
Communion by intinction is allowed, but only if the priest does the intinction. This means that the communicant receives on the tongue. It is really only feasible with the proper vessels designed for the purpose (it looks a bit like a cup in a large saucer).

In the situation the OP describes, the priest wouldn’t have enough hands to hold the ciborium and the chalice, and dip the host and offer it without dripping.

If there isn’t an EMHC (or another ordinary minister) to offer the cup, communion should only be offered under one species. The priest could have picked someone to help me for just that Mass. He could have offered both to each communicant, but one at a time. (Distribute the host, put the ciborium down, offer the cup, etc).

If for some reason he had consecrated a large amount of wine, he could have asked some to receive just the blood. Or he (I think) could have asked a few to help him finish what was in the chalice at the end of Mass.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
Communion by intinction is allowed, but only if the priest does the intinction. This means that the communicant receives on the tongue. It is really only feasible with the proper vessels designed for the purpose (it looks a bit like a cup in a large saucer).

In the situation the OP describes, the priest wouldn’t have enough hands to hold the ciborium and the chalice, and dip the host and offer it without dripping.

If there isn’t an EMHC (or another ordinary minister) to offer the cup, communion should only be offered under one species. The priest could have picked someone to help me for just that Mass. He could have offered both to each communicant, but one at a time. (Distribute the host, put the ciborium down, offer the cup, etc).

If for some reason he had consecrated a large amount of wine, he could have asked some to receive just the blood. Or he (I think) could have asked a few to help him finish what was in the chalice at the end of Mass.
Click to expand...
He can always get one lay person to hold the ciborium and stand beside him to get the Host, then intinct it in the chalice he is holding.
 
ConstantineTG said:
He can always get one lay person to hold the ciborium and stand beside him to get the Host, then intinct it in the chalice he is holding.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it’s still potentially messy. I have never received by intinction without a paten.

If he’s going to get someone to help him, he could have authorized that person to act as an EMHC for that Mass only.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
Yes, but it’s still potentially messy. I have never received by intinction without a paten.

If he’s going to get someone to help him, he could have authorized that person to act as an EMHC for that Mass only.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a priest do it the way I described, but unfortunately in an illicit way (the hosts were not consecrated as he ran out). But if it can be done the way I described with unconsecrated bread, it can certainly be done with the Precious Body of Christ (which is the right way)
 
Mrs_Sally said:
If he’s going to get someone to help him, he could have authorized that person to act as an EMHC for that Mass only.
Click to expand...
He asked if anyone would like to help, but no one volunteered, so I guess that’s why he let it happen the way it did. If someone who wasn’t an EMHC had volunteered, could they just do it even though they’d had no training then?
 
jess2011 said:
He asked if anyone would like to help, but no one volunteered, so I guess that’s why he let it happen the way it did. If someone who wasn’t an EMHC had volunteered, could they just do it even though they’d had no training then?
Click to expand...
Yes. A priest may, on the spot, appoint an EMHC just for that specific Mass.
 
Phemie said:
But because of the new GIRM, the Bishop needs no indult to allow Communion under both species in his own diocese. This bishop exercised his prerogative and opted to stop it, he wasn’t forced to do so because this indult (that no one had ever heard about) had run out.
Click to expand...
A indult is a exception to Canon Law. I have seen no citations or proof that there ever was
a indult. You are certainly correct that none is needed currently, nor have we seen proof that there ever was one. I hope someone that has the prior Canon Law<1984> can answer this question for us.
 
I went to an one OF Mass. The priest was the only minister of Communion with an altar server holding the tray thing as he gave to each communicant. He only gave out the hosts only. We had about 100 or so people. It did not take that long at all.

Another time when I went to a daily Mass, the priest gave out the hosts. He had 2 ministers for the cup. I am sure the cup may have not been given if 2 trained ministers weren’t available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top