Communion without enough extraordinary ministers?

[FrDavid96]

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.

.

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.

Congregation for Divine Worship

October 13, 1984

Protocol Number CD 1297/78

 

[thomas_jd]

Sorry, I miss read it!

We all do that!

 

[Godfollower]

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?

In light of the above post, I choose to believe that the priest thought he had an EMHC at the Mass, discovered after the consecration that he did not, asked for a volunteer, found none, and was stuck giving Communion under both species with only one minister of any type available, then did the best he could think to do under the circumstances. Perhaps he could’ve done better by offering each communicant first the Body, then the Blood; but so be it. It isn’t the end of the world, and I give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for your question of could-just-anyone-do-it, Redemptionis Sacramentum offers as follows:

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.

[Redemptionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter VII) ¶¶ 154-55 (March 25, 2004) (emphasis added).

 

[MarkThompson]

.

Congregation for Divine Worship

October 13, 1984

Protocol Number CD 1297/78

I think the real point is, that although it may or may not have been necessary to be granted such an indult under the 1917 Code and/or other documents that were then in force, no indult is required now, since the law itself grants full power to bishops to permit Communion under both species.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think the real point is, that although it may or may not have been necessary to be granted such an indult under the 1917 Code and/or other documents that were then in force, no indult is required now, since the law itself grants full power to bishops to permit Communion under both species.

It was the indult that changed what was then the GIRM.

The old GIRM had 19 different times when Communion under both species could be given. I’ve looked through the older sacramentaries, and there’s a definite progression where each printing contains more times when this is allowed. The latest version has 19 numbered items including “weekday Masses” then a paragraph saying “Sunday Masses” (so, 20 total).

It always read very strange to me. I often wondered to myself why bother? Why say that something is only permitted under certain circumstances, then conclude by saying, in effect, that this can be done anytime. It never quite made sense until I recently started to look at the history and noticed that the list just kept growing over the years. So that explains the long list. It was 4 then it was 10 then it was 20. All of these additions were a result of the US bishops conference asking for more adaptations. I have this memory that one version of the GIRM in a past Sacramentary even had the final time as “at any Mass.” Again, why bother with a list if the last item will only conclude with “anytime.”??

From what I can gather now, most of those permissions for adaptations have been either rescinded or not-renewed.

It seems to me that the Church is trying to send a message that both species should be reserved to special times. That’s the conclusion that certain bishops have arrived at, based on what we’ve already seen discussed here on these threads (and yes, I have checked the dioceses websites directly for confirmation).

The difference is that at the present time (at least until the new Missal is official), or perhaps until some time in the recent past, the new norms are that the bishop’s permission is required. That’s completely different from what we saw in the past where it could be done at any Mass at all, without even consulting with the bishop (granted, that he could still regulate it). I think that the Church is trying to tell the bishops not to give that permission too indiscriminately. Again, that seems to be the expressed opinion of a few bishops, so it’s not just wild speculation on my part.

In brief, in the past, it was up to the individual priest to do this on his own, based on the permission in the GIRM. Now however, the priest can only do it if the bishop specifically permits it. That’s the difference between then and now.

 

[JimG]

The obvious solution is to offer communion only under one species.