Do you have a priest to administer the chalice?

[Armor_of_Light]

I don’t know if I have ever noticed a priest or deacon administer the precious blood. We only have one priest at my current parish, and I probably never paid much attention in the past. How 'bout you? Are you fortunate to have a priest or deacon for the chalice?

 

[Ophelia23]

That is interesting. In my parish, the deacon is always dispensing the Eucharist along with the priest, and the extraordinary ministers are holding the chalice. I’ve personally always wondered if it was a requirement or just a suggestion that the deacon hold the chalice.

 

[R_C]

I don’t know if I have ever noticed a priest or deacon administer the precious blood. We only have one priest at my current parish, and I probably never paid much attention in the past. How 'bout you? Are you fortunate to have a priest or deacon for the chalice?

No, we always have lay ministers It would be proper for priests who are not concelebrating or for deacons to be present for this purpose, so that lay ministers would barely touch the Sacred Vessels unless it is a case of true necessity.

If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

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.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches: the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful.

I find that this is very well stated in this petition meant to be sent to bishops:

Observation 1: The habitual use of extraordinary ministers at Masses in the United States is in fact a violation of the norms set forth in “On certain questions.” In most parishes across this country are even scheduled weeks ahead of time.

Observation 2: The majority of these Masses are not attended by “a great number of the faithful” and thus this term is being arbitrarily extended in violation of the norms of the Holy Father set forth in “On Certain Questions…”.

Observation 3: In point of fact, aside from being viewed as supplementary and provisional, extraordinary ministers are being utilized in such a way that they believe that their ministry involves a fuller participation in the Eucharistic celebration, in violation of the norms set forth by the Holy Father in “Redemptionis Sacramentum.”

And in light of the above observations we submit the following petition:

Petition: Considering the constant violations of the norms set forth above, we humbly ask you [bishops and priests] to implement the provisions set forth in the Norms for the United states, namely that Holy Communion normally be distributed only by the ordinary minister, under one species [the Host], or by intinction in those parishes and communities where the faithful wish to receive under both species.

 

[Marie5890]

I don’t know if I have ever noticed a priest or deacon administer the precious blood. We only have one priest at my current parish, and I probably never paid much attention in the past. How 'bout you? Are you fortunate to have a priest or deacon for the chalice?

Our deacon does, as the deacon is the ordinary minister of the chalice.

 

[KCT]

EM’s where I’m from.

Actually, the bishop asked that during flu season, parishes refrain from distributing the Precious Blood. I was hoping that even after flu season, we’d continue with distributing the Host only. We’ll see…

 

[Brendan]

In our parish, the Eucharist is offered Indicted by the priest. That is the normative way in our parish of offering both species. That is done at the communion rail by our pastor and our associate pastor.

The deacon will go out of the sanctuary with the species of bread alone to offer communion to the elderly and infirm who cannot go up to receive.

 

[pnewton]

It is usually a lay person who administers the chalice at my parish.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It is usually a lay person who administers the chalice at my parish.

Same here…we only have one priest…and right now one transistional deacon.,I prefer that he handles the Body rather then an EMHC. Anyway that is how it is set up for us MC’s as we assign all the EMHC’s.

 

[DaveBj]

At our daily Masses there are two priests (the Hispanic priest concelebrates), so the cup ministers are the deacon and one layman. On Sunday mornings the single priest, the deacon, and two laymen distribute the Hosts, and four lay EMsHC handle the cups.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

My parish does not offer the cup. Our pastor has said that there is too much risk of spillage since things are crowded enough at communion (we are a large parish). He also does not want to use any more EMHCs than we do now - usually 4 per Sunday Mass, plus 4 clergy.

 

[Phemie]

We only have one priest and no deacon so the Cup is offered by the EMHCs (one at the Saturday evening Mass and two at the Sunday morning Mass) and the Host by the priest alone.

 

[Lapey]

That is interesting. In my parish, the deacon is always dispensing the Eucharist along with the priest, and the extraordinary ministers are holding the chalice. I’ve personally always wondered if it was a requirement or just a suggestion that the deacon hold the chalice.

That bolded statement of yours and many here is a very problematic statement. I am sure this is not what you mean but the way you have it worded the Precious Blood is not truly the Eucharist, only the Sacred Body. We have to be careful of how we speak of the sacred species, both species are fully the Eucharistic Jesus; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The GIRM states it quite well that the proper minister of the Precious Blood is the deacon. In our diocesan Masses here in my diocese it is a priority which is held very strict, priests distribute the Body and deacons the Blood, even though priests sit while the deacons distribute this is how it should be done.

Canon law does not mandate this; it simply states that the ordinary ministers of the Holy Communion are, bishops, priests, and deacons.

GIRM # 182. After the Priest’s Communion, the Deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the Priest himself and then assists the Priest in distributing Communion to the people. If Communion is given under both kinds, the Deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; and, when the distribution is over, standing at the altar, he immediately and reverently consumes all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted, if the case requires, by other Deacons and Priests.

Keep in mind, this does not prohibit a deacon from distributing the Sacred Body. Also most important, both species, bread and wine, are in fact the full real presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. One species is not more than the other.

Canon Law #910 §1. The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

 

[R_C]

That bolded statement of yours and many here is a very problematic statement. I am sure this is not what you mean but the way you have it worded the Precious Blood is not truly the Eucharist, only the Sacred Body. We have to be careful of how we speak of the sacred species, both species are fully the Eucharistic Jesus; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

It is often the case that we refer to the consecrated host as the Eucharist Obviously the Eucharist refers to both the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and in general, to the Mass itself (Sacrament of the Eucharist). Some saints refer to the consecrated host as the Blessed Sacrament (a term we usually employ to refer to the exposition of the consecrated host in a monstrance).

 

[JackieMom]

Our priest, deacon and two EMHC’s distribute the body, four EMHCs distribute the blood. At the most popular Mass, it’s 6 each.

I would say a good 60% of parishioners do not recieve the blood.

 

[centurionguard]

In my parish out of ten EMHC’s traditionally used in the Sunday liturgy, four EMHC’s carry Chalices with the Blood of Christ and two each are positioned at the far opposing sides of north and south aisles. As traditionally with the majority of Catholic Church archetecture the Sanctuary faces East with the Priest along with an EMHC at his flank distributing Holy Communion on the floor just below the raised sanctuary steps.

However; my parish priest from time to time will take the station of carrying the Chalice instead at the far side aisle of either the north or south side of the Church and allow two EMHC’s distribute Holy Communion in the front center aisle. He does this frequently for some reason I’m at a loss of understanding. Most Catholic Faithful coming up to receive the Holy Eucharist in the center aisle are accustom to seeing a priest distributing the Eucharist. Different at any rate.

In Fraternal Peace
Chris

 

[Ophelia23]

That bolded statement of yours and many here is a very problematic statement. I am sure this is not what you mean but the way you have it worded the Precious Blood is not truly the Eucharist, only the Sacred Body. We have to be careful of how we speak of the sacred species, both species are fully the Eucharistic Jesus; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

I am fully aware that both the body and the bloody are fully the Eucharistic Jesus; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. But still, thank you.

 

[Spudbynight]

We don’t receive under both kinds in our parish.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

No, the priests and deacons (we usually have a 2nd priest in addition to the celebrant come and help distribute the Eucharist, and sometimes a 2nd deacon; he’s not actually assigned at our parish, but is employed by our parish as Director of Liturgy, so he’s always there on Sundays for most of the Masses (we have 6), and he comes out and helps too) distribute the Hosts. The Celebrant and assisting deacon in the center aisle, and the “helper” priest and deacon each on the left and right aisles (we have 3 “stations” for Communion. Our church is big-seats 1200 people). EMHCs do all the Chalices.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[R_C]

We don’t receive under both kinds in our parish.

Well, it’s not necessary to do so - and also because there is a major risk of profanation of the Sacred Blood, since you can’t pick it up if it falls by mistake, and even one small drop would make the angelic hosts cry of sorrow.

In the United States, Communion under both species (in which the communicant receives the Host and then drinks from the Chalice) is allowed for pastoral reasons - whatever that means - and some churches take advantage of that concession. But let’s not think that’s the case everywhere: the universal practice is to receive the consecrated host.

There is an exception within the tradition, though: in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ is immersed in the Blood, and both are served to the faithful on a golden spoon. This minimizes the danger of spilling the Precious Blood (which is largely absorbed into the Body). After the liturgical reform of the Roman Rite, a similar practice has been revived in the West: intinction, in which the Host is dipped in the Chalice before being given to the communicant.