EMHC consuming a host after communion

[tafan2]

The other night at mass, I noticed one of the EMHC did something I don’t understand. Immediately after giving communion to the last person in line, he reached into the ciborium and took a host and are it. After words he went and gave the ciborium to the priest at the altar just as the other EMHC were doing. Why would he have consumed another host at that time?

 

[tafan2]

I can’t answer that, as I was not paying attention to him. If so, that still would seem strange. It was the vigil mass on New Year’s Eve and almost an hour long before communion (I would guess) so it seems unlikely his fast was not satisfied before communion. So why? And I’d does seem like self communicating.

 

[Phemie]

He may have been consuming the last Host in his ciborium, in the same way that some EMHCs are asked to consume the Precious Blood remaining in the chalice after they’ve ministered to the congregation.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Maybe something had happened to it. Perhaps it had fallen and he consumed it before handing the ciborium back to the priest?

 

[tafan2]

I thought of that. But the priest was combining remaining hosts in the ciboriums at the altar, why would one being left be a special case?

 

[tafan2]

That is a possibility. I had not thought of that and it does make sense. Thanks

 

[TomH1]

I don’t think these kinds of questions are helpful or fruitful. In saying that I’m most definitely not being ‘holier-than-thou’. I started a thread some days ago in a similar vein and paid dearly for it. It’s a mistake I shan’t repeat.

You were at the Mass in question but don’t know why the EMHC consumed a host out of the ciborium. We most definitely can’t know and a possible number of scenarios have been suggested. One may be right; they could all be wrong.

If you do want to know you could ask the EMHC or the priest who said the Mass. This is something I’d approach with great caution as they’re very likely to see it as a criticism however you phrase it and no matter your intent.

Perhaps of your charity you should assume the EMHC did nothing wrong and for your own peace simply let it go.

 

[Crocus]

Perhaps of your charity you should assume the EMHC did nothing wrong and for your own peace simply let it go.

This is a good practice of mortification, with precedence. St Rose of Lima is said to have denied herself, simple curiosity, as a penance.

 

[TomH1]

St Rose of Lima is said to have denied herself, simple curiosity, as a penance.

First class advice but it needs to be applied in the right circumstances. It most definitely needs applying when something really is not our business. On the other hand I am a scientist and curiosity is essential to that field. So, as with any advice we must apply it most wisely.

 

[Crocus]

On the other hand I am a scientist and curiosity is essential to that field. So, as with any advice we must apply it most wisely.

Well, ya. Thanks for the fine work you do btw.
Also, I must say I have inherited an inordinate amount of curiosity myself, on mother’s side, so I am very familiar with the challenges of discernment.

 

[tafan2]

First of all, I tried to word my question without any indication I was being critical of the action beyond saying I did not understand why.
Second of all, the parish in question is not one I normally attend so I do not know the priest or the EMHC. I would not ask such a question unless I had a good relationship with them.

I suppose I should have been clear I was not being critical.

 

[TomH1]

First of all, I tried to word my question without any indication I was being critical of the action beyond saying I did not understand why.

I suppose I should have been clear I was not being critical.

I don’t think you were being critical. It was not my intent to imply you were. What I was trying express was simply this. You were there and didn’t know why it happened so there’s no way people who weren’t there can know. That was my point about this kind of question not bearing fruit. Even if someone hit on the right answer you couldn’t know it was the right one. So basically the question gets you know where. I simply suggesting such questions aren’t good for your own piece of mind.

Second of all, the parish in question is not one I normally attend so I do not know the priest or the EMHC. I would not ask such a question unless I had a good relationship with them.

I fully understand why you wouldn’t want to ask them. Even if they were my regular parish it’s not a question I’d be comfortable asking. However, you ask people why they did something the conditioned response often seems to be they take it you’re criticising.

It was just may suggestion that we see these things we note them, accept you’ll probably never know why it happened and move on from it.

Now to go to another extreme if this EMHC had started flinging hosts out of the cinborium across the church I hope you would have intervened, possibly with the help of others, and informed the priest immediately.

 

[tafan2]

That was my point about this kind of question not bearing fruit.

It did bare fruit for me, I learned something new. Perhaps the answer is not exact, but I bet it is close. Better than I could come up with. My peace of mind is just fine, as are the pieces .

God bless.

 

[jvickers]

We (in my Parish) don’t consume the last host in the ciborium, just the last of the Precious Blood. Even if the host was broken, the EMHC would not consume that. This would be done by the Priest or Deacon. I’ve never heard of a circumstance where the EMHC would consume the last host, only a host that fell to the floor and had not been soiled. Good theory, though.

 

[TomH1]

It did bare fruit for me, I learned something new.

You cannot know if it did bear fruit. The point I have tried to make is this. If you do not know the answer to a question and you are offered several answers you cannot know which is the correct one. If you knew which of the answers were correct you would have had no need to initially pose the question.

 

[Diaconia]

Let it be.

It could have fallen on the floor, or been a broken piece.

Consuming in that way is not considered another communion, nor is it self-communicating.

Deacon Christopher