EMHC Question about Consuming Remaining Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter NonNisiTe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cor_ad_Cor said:
40.png
Telstar:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the remaining Precious Blood had to be consumed by the Priest , and not by the EMHC. :confused:
Click to expand...
You’re wrong. 😀 There’s no rule about who has to consume the remainder of the Precious Blood, but it’s ideal to have the same minister that’s been attending that chalice empty it. The priest (or deacon or instituted acolyte) must be the one to purify the vessels.
Click to expand...
You’re wrong, too. 😀 There are rules. The GIRM prescribes that the priest celebrant, or the deacon, or the instituted acolyte may consume the remaining Precious Blood. The document Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, at #52, identifies that the EMHC who distributed from the chalice may consume the remainder of the Precious Blood, if the diocesan bishop permits it.

EIther way, though, the priest, deacon, or instituted acolyte purifies (but not an EMHC).
 
Telstar said:
The truth is
Click to expand...
The truth is you’re at odds with Holy Mother Church. I’m sorry the deacon seems to have an over abundance of lax folks at his parish (which I doubt the veracity of those claims), but I see a tremendous reverence and respect for the Eucharist by people who receive in the various manners permitted, and they do so mostly without judgement. I’m not going to scoff or make fun of you; I pity you. There seems to be a profound lack of joy and peace when a discussion about the Eucharist - our most wonderful celebration this side of heaven - turns your thoughts to “heartbreak” over what you falsely label an abuse while you disparage clergy and bemoan what the Church has provided for and decided on these matters.

Peace to you. You’ll be in my prayers.
 
Flagged as off-topic for the thread.
If you want to have the 400,000th “Communion in the hand” discussion, you should start a new thread.
 
The Church gives us the rules. We should be obedient to our religious superiors. If the Bishop allows it, it’s ok. Done and done. No matter what our personal feelings.

We were given a Magisterium for a reason. To have leadership in religious matters. If we all try to decide ourselves and make our own rules, that’s when we start developing Protestantism.
 
Telstar said:
Because, Communion in the hand, which in turn lead to allowing EMHCs, is a liturgical abuse that was introduced by a handful of “clerics” in Belgium during the confusion that occurred following Vatican II. A lot of Priests and Bishops misread the documents of Vat II and decided that they could impose changes that were never intended to happen. This was just one of them, that eventually spread all over the world.
Click to expand...
The Holy See along with the Bishops, were given authority to “bind and loose.” During the Middle Ages at the council of Trent the Catholic Church practiced its authority by restricting the precious blood to be received by laity due to a widespread misconception that both consecrated host and precious blood had to be consumed to receive Jesus entirely.

In the same way, the church practices the right to allow communion in the hand.
 
The church never changes the substance and essence of a sacrament, rather, the church only changes how a sacrament is administered…

Ex. See how confession has changed in how it was administered. From public confession, now to screen window private confession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top