Ecclesia supplet - the Church Supplies

[scaron]

I am not sure I understand this doctrine and I have a question pertaining to a situation I once saw at Mass.

In our church, an EMHC checks the tabernacle before Mass, and places a ciborium (or two, depending on how much reserved Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle) on the credence table - this is in addition to the ciborium that goes to the back of church to be brought up with the gifts.

Now I am a bug about the rule that a ciborium with unconsecrated hosts should never have a top on it - that is only proper for ciboria containing the Blessed Sacrament. And I hammer that point to my altar servers during training, so there is no mix-up.

Well, this week, an EMHC came out with a covered ciborium and left it on the credence table, the server did not check to see if it was empty (we sometimes have empty ciboria there to provide vessels for the Blessed Sacrament for each EMHC working the Mass). Turns out it was full. But because it had a top on it, the server did not bring it to the altar for the consecration. When the EMHC came up to distribute communion, he popped the top off of it, picked it up from the credence table, and began distributing it as Holy Communion!

Then, of course, at the end of Communion, the unconsecrated hosts in that ciborium were mixed with the Blessed Sacrament from other ciboria and returned to the Tabernacle.

Well, after mass, I informed the priest and the EMHC what had happened. I thought the priest would immediately go and re-consecrate the reserved Blessed Sacrament, ensuring everything was consecrated and that there was no unconsecrated hosts mixed in. He said it was not necessary, and that the “Church would provide”. I further asked about all the people who had been to “communion” on the side of the church where the EMHC distributed from that ciborium - Father assured me that they had in fact received Our Lord.

Can anybody help me here? I know of no way unconsecrated host, sitting in a covered ciborium 30 feet from the altar could be said to be consecrated. What is the rule? I always thought that any bread that was valid matter would have to at least be on the altar (on the altar cloth?) to be validly consecrated …

 

[frommi]

I don’t believe it has to be on the altar…think of large masses at St. Peter’s square…it would take a day and a half to distribute the vessels to the ordinary ministers.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am not sure I understand this doctrine and I have a question pertaining to a situation I once saw at Mass.

In our church, an EMHC checks the tabernacle before Mass, and places a ciborium (or two, depending on how much reserved Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle) on the credence table - this is in addition to the ciborium that goes to the back of church to be brought up with the gifts.

Now I am a bug about the rule that a ciborium with unconsecrated hosts should never have a top on it - that is only proper for ciboria containing the Blessed Sacrament. And I hammer that point to my altar servers during training, so there is no mix-up.

Well, this week, an EMHC came out with a covered ciborium and left it on the credence table, the server did not check to see if it was empty (we sometimes have empty ciboria there to provide vessels for the Blessed Sacrament for each EMHC working the Mass). Turns out it was full. But because it had a top on it, the server did not bring it to the altar for the consecration. When the EMHC came up to distribute communion, he popped the top off of it, picked it up from the credence table, and began distributing it as Holy Communion!

Then, of course, at the end of Communion, the unconsecrated hosts in that ciborium were mixed with the Blessed Sacrament from other ciboria and returned to the Tabernacle.

Well, after mass, I informed the priest and the EMHC what had happened. I thought the priest would immediately go and re-consecrate the reserved Blessed Sacrament, ensuring everything was consecrated and that there was no unconsecrated hosts mixed in. He said it was not necessary, and that the “Church would provide”. I further asked about all the people who had been to “communion” on the side of the church where the EMHC distributed from that ciborium - Father assured me that they had in fact received Our Lord.

Can anybody help me here? I know of no way unconsecrated host, sitting in a covered ciborium 30 feet from the altar could be said to be consecrated. What is the rule? I always thought that any bread that was valid matter would have to at least be on the altar (on the altar cloth?) to be validly consecrated …

Hosts should be on the Corporal if they are to be Consecrated, under normal circumstances. In extraordinary circumstances like if 90,000 Hosts need to be consecrated they can be on or near the altar. This requires that the priest celebrating Mass knows their location and full intends to Consecrate them. I would doubt that this priest knew that the ciboria was there and intended to Consecrate them, since he didn’t seem to know until you told him. He should have prepared to celebrate the next Mass and include in his Consecration those that were not Consecrated by bringing them out and setting them on the altar at the next Mass during the Eucharistic prayer.

 

[scaron]

Hosts should be on the Corporal if they are to be Consecrated, under normal circumstances. In extraordinary circumstances like if 90,000 Hosts need to be consecrated they can be on or near the altar. This requires that the priest celebrating Mass knows their location and full intends to Consecrate them. I would doubt that this priest knew that the ciboria was there and intended to Consecrate them, since he didn’t seem to know until you told him. He should have prepared to celebrate the next Mass and include in his Consecration those that were not Consecrated by bringing them out and setting them on the altar at the next Mass during the Eucharistic prayer.

Yes, this is just what I thought. Tho I did not realize “Intent to consecrate” was part of the Form of the consecration.

Thanks for your insight.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Now I am a bug about the rule that a ciborium with unconsecrated hosts should never have a top on it - that is only proper for ciboria containing the Blessed Sacrament. And I hammer that point to my altar servers during training, so there is no mix-up.

Is that your rule? Or a liturgical rule that I am unaware of? (I’ve never heard it before)

(In fact, I’m pretty sure the ciboria in my parish are always lidded, otherwise the lids would need be elsewhere handy when it came time to repose the Blessed Sacrament)

tee

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes, this is just what I thought. Tho I did not realize “Intent to consecrate” was part of the Form of the consecration.

One example I have heard of ecclesia supplet is when a priest does not believe in transsubstantiation, but nonetheless intends to do what the church has prescribed. Likewise, in an emergency an atheist may baptise someone, so long as he follows the proper form, matter, and intent.

With regard to the “intent to consecrate”, my understanding is that a priest could theoretically choose not to consecrate one of two chalices of wine, even though both are present next to each other on the altar. Similarly, an instructor once described an older priest who apparently had a mild mental health issue gesturing dismissively behind him during the consecrations, as if to say “no, I’m not consecrating those hosts back there.”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, this is just what I thought. Tho I did not realize “Intent to consecrate” was part of the Form of the consecration.

Thanks for your insight.

The opposite is true also. If a priest notices that something is wrong with one of several Chalices. He can move it off the corporal and intend to not include it in the Consecration. This is why having all the Hosts and Chalices to be Consecrated under normal circumstances on the Corporal is important. So that there is NO question or confusion.

 

[kleary]

One example I have heard of ecclesia supplet is when a priest does not believe in transsubstantiation, but nonetheless intends to do what the church has prescribed. Likewise, in an emergency an atheist may baptise someone, so long as he follows the proper form, matter, and intent.

With regard to the “intent to consecrate”, my understanding is that a priest could theoretically choose not to consecrate one of two chalices of wine, even though both are present next to each other on the altar. Similarly, an instructor once described an older priest who apparently had a mild mental health issue gesturing dismissively behind him during the consecrations, as if to say “no, I’m not consecrating those hosts back there.”

Please provide the Church document that states a priest who does not believe in Transubstantiation is able to validly consecrate. It is my understanding that a priest MUST believe in Transubstantiation and MUST intent to offer the Divine Victim to the Blessed Trinity in order for the Mass offered by the priest to be valid.

And the issue with “uncovered” cibiroa is also foreign to me- as all is covered where I come from all the time.

Ken

 

[Digitonomy]

Please provide the Church document that states a priest who does not believe in Transubstantiation is able to validly consecrate. It is my understanding that a priest MUST believe in Transubstantiation and MUST intent to offer the Divine Victim to the Blessed Trinity in order for the Mass offered by the priest to be valid.

I must first off report that in digging around on the web, a few sites note that ecclesia supplet, as spelled out in Canon 144, seems to be limited to the Church supplying jurisdiction to priests (or to laymen in my baptism example) to perform sacraments.

However, if you have proper form, matter, and intent, you have a valid consecration. That the celebrant has grave doubts, even amounting to lack of belief, should not affect his ability to confect the Eucharist if he intends to do what the Church intends. You don’t need to believe you’re doing something, to actually be doing it. But in this case, you do need to intend to do it.

I’m afraid I couldn’t find any especially solid sources in doing a quick web search, but I have heard it from several different sources on different occasions.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Please provide the Church document that states a priest who does not believe in Transubstantiation is able to validly consecrate. It is my understanding that a priest MUST believe in Transubstantiation and MUST intent to offer the Divine Victim to the Blessed Trinity in order for the Mass offered by the priest to be valid.

And the issue with “uncovered” cibiroa is also foreign to me- as all is covered where I come from all the time.

Ken

The only thing I’m aware of is that they must be uncovered as well as the Chalice if covered by a Pall, must also be uncovered at the Consecration. The priest must be able to see what he is Consecrating.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I must first off report that in digging around on the web, a few sites note that ecclesia supplet, as spelled out in Canon 144, seems to be limited to the Church supplying jurisdiction to priests (or to laymen in my baptism example) to perform sacraments.

Yes, this was recently treated at the In the Light of the Law blog: We need to be careful with the notion of “Ecclesia supplet”

And: I concur with Br. Rich SFO: Uncover for the consecration.

tee

 

[Chatter163]

There is no rule whatsoever that a ciborium containing unconsecrated hosts must be uncovered. In fact, based on the Church’s own histpry and practice, I would argue the precise opposite. I have always seen unconsecrated ciboria covered, and they should always be covered, for the simple reason that it prevents dust and other stray objects from falling in. That is the reason that ciboria have covers and chalices have palls.

The true sign of consecrated hosts was the ciborium veil, which, sadly, is no longer an absolute requirement, though many parishes still use them. An unveiled ciborium, like an unveiled tabernacle, meant that Our Lord was not present.

Moreover, I cannot understand how an EMHC would pick up a ciborium from a credence table and think that it was already consecrated. But given this bizarre “covered/uncovered ciborium” rule, I guess that anything is possible. This is proof of why sticking to the Church’s own history and practice, rather than inventing new rules, is advisable.

 

[m134e5]

I am not sure I understand this doctrine and I have a question pertaining to a situation I once saw at Mass.

In our church, an EMHC checks the tabernacle before Mass, and places a ciborium (or two, depending on how much reserved Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle) on the credence table - this is in addition to the ciborium that goes to the back of church to be brought up with the gifts.

Now I am a bug about the rule that a ciborium with unconsecrated hosts should never have a top on it - that is only proper for ciboria containing the Blessed Sacrament. And I hammer that point to my altar servers during training, so there is no mix-up.

Well, this week, an EMHC came out with a covered ciborium and left it on the credence table, the server did not check to see if it was empty (we sometimes have empty ciboria there to provide vessels for the Blessed Sacrament for each EMHC working the Mass). Turns out it was full. But because it had a top on it, the server did not bring it to the altar for the consecration. When the EMHC came up to distribute communion, he popped the top off of it, picked it up from the credence table, and began distributing it as Holy Communion!

Then, of course, at the end of Communion, the unconsecrated hosts in that ciborium were mixed with the Blessed Sacrament from other ciboria and returned to the Tabernacle.

Well, after mass, I informed the priest and the EMHC what had happened. I thought the priest would immediately go and re-consecrate the reserved Blessed Sacrament, ensuring everything was consecrated and that there was no unconsecrated hosts mixed in. He said it was not necessary, and that the “Church would provide”. I further asked about all the people who had been to “communion” on the side of the church where the EMHC distributed from that ciborium - Father assured me that they had in fact received Our Lord.

Can anybody help me here? I know of no way unconsecrated host, sitting in a covered ciborium 30 feet from the altar could be said to be consecrated. What is the rule? I always thought that any bread that was valid matter would have to at least be on the altar (on the altar cloth?) to be validly consecrated …

There is no way to distinguish a consecrated host from one that isn’t. Consecrated hosts in ciboria belong either in the tabernacle, on the altar, or in the hands of someone distributing communion. Unconsecrated hosts do not belong ANYWHERE in the church but in a bag in the sacristy, until it is close to time for Mass- then they should go in a ciborium on a credence table. What are people going to think (or *should *think) if they find hosts just lying around somewhere? I’m sorry, but it seems the EMHC was being careless.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

There is no way to distinguish a consecrated host from one that isn’t. Consecrated hosts in ciboria belong either in the tabernacle, on the altar, or in the hands of someone distributing communion. Unconsecrated hosts do not belong ANYWHERE in the church but in a bag in the sacristy, until it is close to time for Mass- then they should go in a ciborium on a credence table. What are people going to think (or *should *think) if they find hosts just lying around somewhere? I’m sorry, but it seems the EMHC was being careless.

When we gave everyone an unconsecrated host during the communion practice in RCIA we made sure that we only had the number we need and that they are either consummed or given back if someone did not want to consume it. We took great care that no host was left anywhere even in a trash can.