Handling of vessels after Communion

[Elzee]

Can someone explain to me what needs to be done after Communion with the remaining consecrated hosts and wine? This is what happnens in our parish,and someone told me it is incorrect.

There are usually 3 glass ‘chalices’ used during communion, including the one the Priest uses at the altar (it is no different than the rest). After Communion, each EM drinks the remaining consecrated wine in his/her chalice in the sanctuary, with their backs to the congregation (Our priest is a recovering alcoholic - don’t know if this matters). They do not wipe out the chalices. They are taken to the sacristy. Don’t know what happens there. The hosts are gathered into one ciborium (is that the right word - gold, flat, 'bow’l with a lid), and a EM walks it over the tabernacle, places it in the tabernacle, genuflects and locks it while our priest sits in his chair in the sanctuary. A friend of mine said several things are wrong here: the use of glass goblets as opposed to unbreakable material, the goblets not being wiped out (but maybe they do this in the sacristy?) and the congregation using the same goblet as the priest (I can’t bring myself to call them chalices since they look like a big wine glasses you could buy in a department store)? Thank you!

 

[urquhart]

The chalices should not be made of glass. They should be purified after use by rinsing with water and wiping with a corporal. This is supposed to be done by the priest.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Elzee:

Can someone explain to me what needs to be done after Communion with the remaining consecrated hosts and wine? This is what happnens in our parish,and someone told me it is incorrect.

There are usually 3 glass ‘chalices’ used during communion, including the one the Priest uses at the altar (it is no different than the rest). After Communion, each EM drinks the remaining consecrated wine in his/her chalice in the sanctuary, with their backs to the congregation (Our priest is a recovering alcoholic - don’t know if this matters). They do not wipe out the chalices. They are taken to the sacristy. Don’t know what happens there. The hosts are gathered into one ciborium (is that the right word - gold, flat, 'bow’l with a lid), and a EM walks it over the tabernacle, places it in the tabernacle, genuflects and locks it while our priest sits in his chair in the sanctuary. A friend of mine said several things are wrong here: the use of glass goblets as opposed to unbreakable material, the goblets not being wiped out (but maybe they do this in the sacristy?) and the congregation using the same goblet as the priest (I can’t bring myself to call them chalices since they look like a big wine glasses you could buy in a department store)? Thank you!

Glass would not be acceptable, but fine crystal would be in some cases. For example, a Waterford crystal chalice would be appropriate in Dublin, Ireland.

An EMHC needs to continue to offer the chalice to others until the Blood of Christ is consumed – they cannot just drink the remains themselves.

They are correct in NOT wiping out the chalices. The chalices need to be purged with water first. Getting the Precious Blood on a purificator (small towel) should be avoided when possible.

The congregation can use the same chalice as the celebrant – but the GIRM states that a larger chalice for the celebrant’s use is appropriate.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Okay, some of the answers were right and some wrong.

Rome has said that it is perfectly permissible for the EMHCs to consume the remaining Precious Blood in their chalice. So, this is correct. The chalices should be “purified” in the sacristy so again what is happening in your parish is correct. There is no reason the chalice the priest uses cannot be shared with the people.

Now, glass is not acceptable because it is “easily broken” which overrides the “precious material” descriptor (the justification for using Waterford crystal).

I hope this helps.

Deacon Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Let me walk through your post line by line and comment:

There are usually 3 glass ‘chalices’ used during communion, including the one the Priest uses at the altar (it is no different than the rest).

Chalices are not to be of material that will break easily and the priests chalice should if possible be a bit larger than the others.

After Communion, each EM drinks the remaining consecrated wine in his/her chalice in the sanctuary, with their backs to the congregation (Our priest is a recovering alcoholic - don’t know if this matters).

Correct and for this reason EMHC can assist the priest in this.

They do not wipe out the chalices. They are taken to the sacristy.

They should be filled with a little water and that water consumed before being wiped out and take to the back.

Don’t know what happens there. The hosts are gathered into one ciborium (is that the right word - gold, flat, 'bow’l with a lid), and a EM walks it over the tabernacle, places it in the tabernacle, genuflects and locks it while our priest sits in his chair in the sanctuary.

It s the priest or Deacon who should return the ciborium to the teberncale, unless he is unable to physically do this.

 

[Elzee]

Thanks everyone. When our Deacon is at Mass, he returns the ciborium to the tabernacle now that I think about it. But when he is not, our priest never does and an EM does it - our priest is in his early 50’s and physically able. I wonder why.
He also varies between distirbuting the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ - I thought the priest was always supposed to distribute the hosts, for some reason (we always have both at our Masses.

I attended a Mass at our cathedral a few weeks ago where the Bishop used a gold chalice, placed the ‘square’ thing on top of it and the white veil cloth - I haven’t seen this since joining my parish many years ago - it had been so long that I forgot this was even done. Is this required? What is the reason? Thank you!

 

[Trelow]

Elzee:

I attended a Mass at our cathedral a few weeks ago where the Bishop used a gold chalice, placed the ‘square’ thing on top of it and the white veil cloth - I haven’t seen this since joining my parish many years ago - it had been so long that I forgot this was even done. Is this required? What is the reason? Thank you!

To keep the bugs out.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Deacon Ed:

Okay, some of the answers were right and some wrong.

Rome has said that it is perfectly permissible for the EMHCs to consume the remaining Precious Blood in their chalice. So, this is correct. The chalices should be “purified” in the sacristy so again what is happening in your parish is correct. There is no reason the chalice the priest uses cannot be shared with the people.

Now, glass is not acceptable because it is “easily broken” which overrides the “precious material” descriptor (the justification for using Waterford crystal).

I hope this helps.

Deacon Ed

You’re (name removed by moderator)ut is not accurate.

EMsHC can most certainly offer the chalice to one another (other EMsHC) until all the Precious Blood is consumed, but they cannot self-communicate.

However, if you want to get technical, the EMsHC cannot consume any remaining Precious Blood – the indult which allows that in the USA ran out in March of this year. Clerics must consume any remaining Precious Blood.

Finally, I don’t see anything in RS that overrides the latest GIRM with respect to “easily broken” sacred vessels.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Elzee:

Thanks everyone. When our Deacon is at Mass, he returns the ciborium to the tabernacle now that I think about it. But when he is not, our priest never does and an EM does it - our priest is in his early 50’s and physically able. I wonder why.
He also varies between distirbuting the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ - I thought the priest was always supposed to distribute the hosts, for some reason (we always have both at our Masses.

I attended a Mass at our cathedral a few weeks ago where the Bishop used a gold chalice, placed the ‘square’ thing on top of it and the white veil cloth - I haven’t seen this since joining my parish many years ago - it had been so long that I forgot this was even done. Is this required? What is the reason? Thank you!

‘square’ thing = pall

 

[Elzee]

If the indult ran out in March…what about priests that are alcoholics (as in our case). I thought this would be an exception.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Elzee:

If the indult ran out in March…what about priests that are alcoholics (as in our case). I thought this would be an exception.

The indult ran out on March 28, 2005. I’m gonna guess that very few parish priests are even aware this indult has expired. I would further guess that many wouldn’t change their practices even if they were aware of the current situation.

There has never been anything forthcoming from the Church that suggests this indult is extended for alcoholic priests.

 

[Elzee]

Where can I go to learn about changes in indults? Is there an on-line source?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Pariah Pirana:

You’re (name removed by moderator)ut is not accurate.

EMsHC can most certainly offer the chalice to one another (other EMsHC) until all the Precious Blood is consumed, but they cannot self-communicate.

You are correct that they cannot self-communicate – but once the priest has given them the chalice it is no longer “self communication.” According to the GIRM (which lays down the “law” for the Mass):

US Norms for Two Kinds 52. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.” When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop.

Thus, your assertion is incorrect.

However, if you want to get technical, the EMsHC cannot consume any remaining Precious Blood – the indult which allows that in the USA ran out in March of this year. Clerics must consume any remaining Precious Blood.

Actually, it was allowed to expire because Rome said no indult was needed for what is obvious. Here is the salient portion of the statement from the USCCB:

As a part of the practical norms, the Bishops of the United States requested indults by which extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion would be permitted to assist with the distribution of the Precious Blood to other chalices at the Lamb of God, the purification of sacred vessels and the consumption of what remains of the Precious Blood after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Two of the three requests were approved by the Congregation. First, the Congregation published a separate decree by which “the diocesan Bishop may grant to priest celebrants the faculty for extraordinary ministers to assist with the purification of sacred vessels after the distribution of Communion at Mass when this is necessary” i.e., for a serious pastoral reason (March 22, 2002, Prot. 1383/01/L). This indult extends for a period of three years, ad experimentum, and was made effective by a decree signed by Bishop Gregory, dated March 22, 2002. The complete text of this decree may be found on the USCCB website.

With respect to the second request, Cardinal Medina, Prefect of CDWDS, noted that neither an indult nor even the permission of the diocesan bishop is required for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to help the priest celebrant to consume what may remain of the Precious Blood after the distribution of Holy Communion. “Rather,” he wrote, “given the grave and overriding need to safeguard the Precious Blood, ministers of Holy Communion or other communicants may consume what remains of the Precious Blood in a dignified and reverent manner.”

So, again your assertion is incorrect.

Finally, I don’t see anything in RS that overrides the latest GIRM with respect to “easily broken” sacred vessels.

I think you misread what I wrote. I said that glass chalices, because they are easily broken, are not to be used and the dignity of the word (such as Waterford crystal) does not override this.

Deacon Ed

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Deacon Ed:

You are correct that they cannot self-communicate – but once the priest has given them the chalice it is no longer “self communication.” According to the GIRM (which lays down the “law” for the Mass):Thus, your assertion is incorrect.
Actually, it was allowed to expire because Rome said no indult was needed for what is obvious. Here is the salient portion of the statement from the USCCB:So, again your assertion is incorrect.

I think you misread what I wrote. I said that glass chalices, because they are easily broken, are not to be used and the dignity of the word (such as Waterford crystal) does not override this.

Deacon Ed

Sadly you’re mistaken on all counts. This dosen’t appear to be anything new, however…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Pariah Pirana:

Sadly you’re mistaken on all counts. This dosen’t appear to be anything new, however…

Let’s see, I cite pertinent documents from the USCCB and from Rome, but I’m “mistaken on all counts” – and you claim this as a simple assertion with no support. Hmmm… There’s an old Latin saying that seems to apply here: *Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. *And then I see you have resorted to an ad hominem – that really strengthens your case, doesn’t it?

Deacon Ed

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Deacon Ed:

Let’s see, I cite pertinent documents from the USCCB and from Rome, but I’m “mistaken on all counts” – and you claim this as a simple assertion with no support. Hmmm… There’s an old Latin saying that seems to apply here: *Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. *And then I see you have resorted to an ad hominem – that really strengthens your case, doesn’t it?

Deacon Ed

This is certainly not the first time you have offered spurious information on these forums. Get as upset as you like but that dosen’t change anything.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Pariah Pirana:

This is certainly not the first time you have offered spurious information on these forums. Get as upset as you like but that dosen’t change anything.

Since the information I gave is from the appropriate authorities, and since you offer nothing to support your claim, it seems that your claim is without merit.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Pariah Pirana:

The indult ran out on March 28, 2005. I’m gonna guess that very few parish priests are even aware this indult has expired. I would further guess that many wouldn’t change their practices even if they were aware of the current situation

BTW, the indult that “ran out” (on March 22, 2005) was for the EMHC’s to purify the sacred vessels, not for consuming the Precious Blood (which, as Rome noted, doesn’t require an indult).

Deacon Ed