Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[benedictgal]

We don’t know that it’s mortally sinful. Redemptionis Sacramentum considers this “grave matter,” but I don’t know that you can translate that one-for-one into “gravely sinful.” There’s probably also a difference between the level of sin involved for the priest to mandate the practice, versus for the communicant if it’s the only way to receive Holy Communion.

I think it would not be sinful for you to go to Mass in such a case. You’re not in charge of the Mass, you’re just a college student. However, you should ask to receive the Sacrament from the priest, and you should not administer the Sacrament to anyone else.

If they don’t stop – and you’re not just letting them know how you “feel,” you’re informing them of the mandatory instructions from the Holy See – then you should contact the next person up the ladder of authority. I don’t know whether this is a Catholic college, or whether this priest is a member of a religious order or what; it would depend on that. The next step up would probably be the head of Campus Ministry, the diocesan bishop, or some sort of superior in a religious order. Luckily, you can get good answers on this forum.

That’s tough to say. Fortunately, I think this practice is quite rare nowadays; I’ve never seen it. I would think that if you cannot “opt out” without it being disruptive, you should go along with it and bring it up with the priest afterward, but that’s just my opinion.

99% of the time, you don’t have to be on the lookout for errors on the priest’s part. If he makes up his own prayers, doesn’t wear the right vestments, gives a questionable homily, none of that stuff really impacts you. You just sit there, and since you can’t do anything about it, it does you no good to concern yourself with it. But what this priest is doing is asking you to directly participate in a prohibited practice. That’s highly unfortunate, and I’m sorry you got put in that position.

Something else to add is that the faithful, whether infants, college students, senior citizens or anyone else, have the right to a properly celebrated Mass. This is actually guaranteed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Since this is a grave practice that the celebrant is employing, I would not urge the OP to continue doing this. For me, I cannot, in good conscience, engage in something that violates the rubrics of the Mass. For me, that would be just as bad because it would give the appearance that I am supporting this. Silence, in this case, is not an option anymore because now the OP knows that this should not be done. Silence, in this case, would appear to be ascent to this very bad abuse.

 

[pcg2]

Well, yesterday when I went to mass I asked the priest to give the communion directly to us, and he did it, thankfully. But then he asked me if I would help him with the wine – since he was the only one there, I guess he needed help giving the precious blood. So… I helped him, and gave the precious blood to the attendees. My way of thinking was that he needed legitimate help giving out the sacrament, and so I guess I sort of got pressured into doing it. Now was this mortally sinful? Or was I doing the right thing by helping him? I wasn’t sure what to do…

 

[Cristiano]

Well, yesterday when I went to mass I asked the priest to give the communion directly to us, and he did it, thankfully. But then he asked me if I would help him with the wine – since he was the only one there, I guess he needed help giving the precious blood. So… I helped him, and gave the precious blood to the attendees. My way of thinking was that he needed legitimate help giving out the sacrament, and so I guess I sort of got pressured into doing it. Now was this mortally sinful? Or was I doing the right thing by helping him? I wasn’t sure what to do…

You did right! The priest listened to you and he commissioned you to serve as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion with the task of distributing from the chalice. Nothing wrong here.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, yesterday when I went to mass I asked the priest to give the communion directly to us, and he did it, thankfully. But then he asked me if I would help him with the wine – since he was the only one there, I guess he needed help giving the precious blood. So… I helped him, and gave the precious blood to the attendees. My way of thinking was that he needed legitimate help giving out the sacrament, and so I guess I sort of got pressured into doing it. Now was this mortally sinful? Or was I doing the right thing by helping him? I wasn’t sure what to do…

Good for you on talking to the priest! That usually solves the great majority of problems. And I know it takes courage to bring that sort of problem up, so you should feel good about yourself.

As to the cup, it is definitely not sinful for one person to help distribute it. (Again, it would be a problem to pass the cup around from person to person, but even then, as above, I don’t know whether or to what extent it would be sinful.)

At any rate, a lay person who helps the priest distribute communion is called an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC). Most (all?) dioceses have a process of training and commissioning people for this job, but I would not think it is sinful to act as one when asked by the priest. The two main things to remember are (1) do not allow even the tiniest amount of the Precious Blood to be spilled, and (2) when you give the cup to each communicant, say only, “The Blood of Christ,” and do not say anything else such as “The Precious Blood of Jesus” or “Receive the cup of Jesus’ Blood.” If the priest gave you a white napkin-like cloth (called a purificator), then after each communicant receives wipe the rim of the chalice with the purificator and rotate it a quarter turn before presenting it to the next communicant. If he did not, then don’t use a paper towel or something like that.

Also, you should receive the cup from the priest to drink from (with the words “The Blood of Christ”); you shouldn’t be expected to self-communicate, e.g., go pick it up yourself from the altar and take a drink.

Ideally, you would not be asked to serve as an EMHC without being commissioned as one. Since yesterday was an unusual case, and an absolute, absolute improvement over the previous practice, it is not a problem. If the priest asks you again, you should mention that you’re not already an EMHC and ask about training.

 

[Cristiano]

…Ideally, you would not be asked to serve as an EMHC without being commissioned as one. Since yesterday was an unusual case, and an absolute, absolute improvement over the previous practice, it is not a problem. If the priest asks you again, you should mention that you’re not already and EMHC and ask about training.

I do not think that there is a formal procedure/training for commissioning set by the Vatican. It is done by the priest in accordance with the Bishop. If the priest asks again the OP can freely say yes. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[MarkThompson]

I do not think that there is a formal procedure/training for commissioning set by the Vatican. It is done by the priest in accordance with the Bishop. If the priest asks again the OP can freely say yes. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Oh yes, that’s what I was trying to say. That’s how I understand it as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for the response.

I suffer from scrupulosity and so try to follow the “If I’m not sure if this is a sin or not, it probably isn’t and I should go ahead and do it anyways” rule. So in this case, I think I did what I was supposed to do, don’t you think? I understand what you mean about the presumption, but the thing is, I’m not even sure if I was sinning in the first place.

This is what I used to tell my students: your feelings of guilt are like a smoke detector, or a guard dog. When they’re there, you investigate whether there is a danger. Whether or not there is, though, once you’ve started the investigation you can turn off the detector or tell the dog to quit barking. Holding onto the guilt and anxiety beyond that is not a virtuous act.

I think the remedy for scrupulousness is this: Ask yourself whether you’ve investigated. If not, investigate. If you have, then make your plan to take any action warranted. In either event, as soon as you have started investigating, that blaring siren ought to be turned off. It does not help you investiate the threat of danger. It does not help you respond to it. Repentence from sin or convincing yourself that an action truly is moral is a separate act of will that the guilt feelings are as likely to impede as to help.

It is not a very good idea to ignore a smoke detector when you’ve not bothered to see whether there is a fire, though. After all, scrupulous people do sin. Their (OK, our) problem is that they think it is virtuous to respond to a smoke detector by turning up the siren and soaking every surface in sight with water. It is a real cross, but in the end it is an anxiety issue. The answer to overcoming anxiety is not to fearlessly jump into every situation. It is to learn what is a real danger, what is not, and what are and are not useful ways to respond to dangers that do arise.

That is a learning process that is going to be gradual. There are going to be honest mistakes. Just keep reminding yourself that keeping guilt within its useful boundaries will not increase the number of mistakes you make. It is a positive good to both use it and to put a leash on it.

I hope that helps.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I can’t believe this [edited] still goes on! At least your priest did the right thing.

 

[ProVobis]

I suffer from scrupulosity and so try to follow the “If I’m not sure if this is a sin or not, it probably isn’t and I should go ahead and do it anyways” rule. So in this case, I think I did what I was supposed to do, don’t you think? I understand what you mean about the presumption, but the thing is, I’m not even sure if I was sinning in the first place.

On the bright side, I hear scrupulosity makes for good accountants and computer programmers.

 

[pcg2]

Something else to add is that the faithful, whether infants, college students, senior citizens or anyone else, have the right to a properly celebrated Mass. This is actually guaranteed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Since this is a grave practice that the celebrant is employing, I would not urge the OP to continue doing this. For me, I cannot, in good conscience, engage in something that violates the rubrics of the Mass. For me, that would be just as bad because it would give the appearance that I am supporting this. Silence, in this case, is not an option anymore because now the OP knows that this should not be done. Silence, in this case, would appear to be ascent to this very bad abuse.

So let’s say I tell the priests and they still don’t stop. Are you suggesting that it is better to not go to mass in the first place than to go, knowing that this is going to happen, in order to receive the Eucharist? How would that be sinful on my part (presuming I’ve done what I can to stop it and I ask the priest to give me the Eucharist directly)?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Passing the Eucharist is very disrespectful in my humble opinion. I also think sitting around in a circle during Mass is inappropriate. Furthermore, I think house Masses should not be practiced; there are plenty of beautiful Churches available.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. When you receive this tremendous gift, you should do so in a manner that is befitting. You are receiving the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings! Frankly, I am surprised that your moral compass does not tell you that this behaviour is inappropriate.

[edited]

The Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary! It should raise your heart to heaven. You should place yourself at the foot of the Cross and humbly beg our Lord for the privilege to receive the Eucharist worthily. Passing the Eucharist around like some pass the parcel party game is not a worthy way to receive the Bread of Angels!

 

[pcg2]

Good for you on talking to the priest! That usually solves the great majority of problems. And I know it takes courage to bring that sort of problem up, so you should feel good about yourself.

As to the cup, it is definitely not sinful for one person to help distribute it. (Again, it would be a problem to pass the cup around from person to person, but even then, as above, I don’t know whether or to what extent it would be sinful.)

At any rate, a lay person who helps the priest distribute communion is called an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC). Most (all?) dioceses have a process of training and commissioning people for this job, but I would not think it is sinful to act as one when asked by the priest. The two main things to remember are (1) do not allow even the tiniest amount of the Precious Blood to be spilled, and (2) when you give the cup to each communicant, say only, “The Blood of Christ,” and do not say anything else such as “The Precious Blood of Jesus” or “Receive the cup of Jesus’ Blood.” If the priest gave you a white napkin-like cloth (called a purificator), then after each communicant receives wipe the rim of the chalice with the purificator and rotate it a quarter turn before presenting it to the next communicant. If he did not, then don’t use a paper towel or something like that.

Also, you should receive the cup from the priest to drink from (with the words “The Blood of Christ”); you shouldn’t be expected to self-communicate, e.g., go pick it up yourself from the altar and take a drink.

Ideally, you would not be asked to serve as an EMHC without being commissioned as one. Since yesterday was an unusual case, and an absolute, absolute improvement over the previous practice, it is not a problem. If the priest asks you again, you should mention that you’re not already an EMHC and ask about training.

Well, the thing is, the priest who celebrated the mass isn’t a regular priest at the center – he just occasionally celebrates mass when the two from our Catholic center can’t. And I told him while we were doing the sign of peace to not pass the Eucharist around – I didn’t exactly make it clear to him to not do it again in the future, or even explain to him why he shouldn’t be doing it. However, I plan on telling the priests at the Catholic center sometime this week that this is a grave offense, so hopefully they listen…

 

[pcg2]

Passing the Eucharist is very disrespectful in my humble opinion. I also think sitting around in a circle during Mass is inappropriate. Furthermore, I think house Masses should not be practiced; there are plenty of beautiful Churches available.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. When you receive this tremendous gift, you should do so in a manner that is befitting. You are receiving the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings! Frankly, I am surprised that your moral compass does not tell you that this behaviour is inappropriate.

[edited]

The Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary! It should raise your heart to heaven. You should place yourself at the foot of the Cross and humbly beg our Lord for the privilege to receive the Eucharist worthily. Passing the Eucharist around like some pass the parcel party game is not a worthy way to receive the Bread of Angels!

We are not in a house, we are in a chapel. Yes, you are right, my moral compass did go off, which was why I came on these forums to ask the question [edited]. But yes, I do try to make sure that I do everything I can to be respectful.

Thank you for your concern

 

[pcg2]

This is what I used to tell my students: your feelings of guilt are like a smoke detector, or a guard dog. When they’re there, you investigate whether there is a danger. Whether or not there is, though, once you’ve started the investigation you can turn off the detector or tell the dog to quit barking. Holding onto the guilt and anxiety beyond that is not a virtuous act.

I think the remedy for scrupulousness is this: Ask yourself whether you’ve investigated. If not, investigate. If you have, then make your plan to take any action warranted. In either event, as soon as you have started investigating, that blaring siren ought to be turned off. It does not help you investiate the threat of danger. It does not help you respond to it. Repentence from sin or convincing yourself that an action truly is moral is a separate act of will that the guilt feelings are as likely to impede as to help.

It is not a very good idea to ignore a smoke detector when you’ve not bothered to see whether there is a fire, though. After all, scrupulous people do sin. Their (OK, our) problem is that they think it is virtuous to respond to a smoke detector by turning up the siren and soaking every surface in sight with water. It is a real cross, but in the end it is an anxiety issue. The answer to overcoming anxiety is not to fearlessly jump into every situation. It is to learn what is a real danger, what is not, and what are and are not useful ways to respond to dangers that do arise.

That is a learning process that is going to be gradual. There are going to be honest mistakes. Just keep reminding yourself that keeping guilt within its useful boundaries will not increase the number of mistakes you make. It is a positive good to both use it and to put a leash on it.

I hope that helps.

Thank you. This is very good advice. But, let’s take for example what happened the other day at mass, when the priest asked me to administer the precious wine to the attendees. I was not sure if this was allowed; in fact, in my mind (at the time), I thought that it may have been comparable to passing around the Eucharist in a circle. I literally had a couple seconds to judge the morality of the situation – either I tell him yes, I’ll help you, or no, I won’t. I didn’t have time to “turn off the alarm.” I had to make a decision while the alarm was still going off. And I decided to help him anyways and still receive the Eucharist, even though I wasn’t sure if I was sinning or not… which, by the way, is still causing me anxiety right now because I am STILL not sure whether I mortally sinned or not! I went to a confirmation mass yesterday and the whole mass all I could think about was scruple over whether I had mortally sinned and whether I should receive… I decided that I wasn’t sure, so I received anyways, which now makes me think that I may have committed sacrilege. I wish the world was as simple as the way you described for someone suffering from scrupulosity, but things aren’t always that black and white

 

[Dempsey1919]

As far as touching the Eucharist goes, we both know that it is not sinful to touch it – it is allowed to receive in your hand.

Yes…you are right, it isn’t sinful to receive the Eucharist in the hand. But is it the best, most reverent way to receive? Remember that Communion in the Hand began as an abuse that was gradually, albeit reluctantly accepted. The long-standing tradition in the Roman rite was to receive the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling. This remains the usual way of reception. Pope Benedict also promotes and encourages this method of reception at all of his Masses.

Here is a recent photograph:



If you like Communion in the hand, by all means, continue to receive in this way. My point in this post is that you should consider receiving on the tongue. I personally believe it is the best way for a Roman rite Catholic to receive the Eucharist, but that’s just my opinion. Do some research; perhaps you will also come to share my view.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes…you are right, it isn’t sinful to receive the Eucharist in the hand.

It’s conditionally allowed:

(d) Conditions in the indult:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

 

[catharina]

Although I don’t live under a rock,
I admit I have NEVER heard of a “practice”
that involves passing the Holy Eucharist around a group.

I’m stunned.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thank you. This is very good advice. But, let’s take for example what happened the other day at mass, when the priest asked me to administer the precious wine to the attendees. I was not sure if this was allowed; in fact, in my mind (at the time), I thought that it may have been comparable to passing around the Eucharist in a circle. I literally had a couple seconds to judge the morality of the situation – either I tell him yes, I’ll help you, or no, I won’t. I didn’t have time to “turn off the alarm.” I had to make a decision while the alarm was still going off. And I decided to help him anyways and still receive the Eucharist, even though I wasn’t sure if I was sinning or not… which, by the way, is still causing me anxiety right now because I am STILL not sure whether I mortally sinned or not! I went to a confirmation mass yesterday and the whole mass all I could think about was scruple over whether I had mortally sinned and whether I should receive… I decided that I wasn’t sure, so I received anyways, which now makes me think that I may have committed sacrilege. I wish the world was as simple as the way you described for someone suffering from scrupulosity, but things aren’t always that black and white

Don’t beat yourself up about the alarm business. That is permission to turn the alarm off, not a chiding for not having turned it off! Your internal chiding mechanism is what needs turning off. The first thing you can give yourself permission to do, then is to let the business of turning off the alarm be a work in progress. If your watch dog is always noisier than my dog, that is OK. It is something you work on. The poor dog loves you, it is doing its best, after all. Let’s go easy on the poor thing.

Even people without a particular problem with scruples face the problem of making moral choices in real time. The answer is that you do the best you can. If you look back and see that you did very badly and you knew it, then get thee to confession. Otherwise, confess on a regular schedule, as advised by a regular confessor, and not more often.

OK, first off, if you did not know for a fact you were doing something gravely sinful, you didn’t commit a mortal sin. You have to know, and do it anyway. Having said that, it is possible to sin mortally and then to rationalize around about it. This is where scruples are a real pain, because of course you and I both know that one can rationalize and have scruples, just like you can be a hypochondriac who actually does have diabetes and needs to watch her blood sugar.

Let’s use the diabetes analogy, then. What to do? Set up a schedule ahead of time for checking your blood sugar, something your doctor (confessor) advises. Have a check list for convincing yourself when you have and have not committed a big no-no that actually does need urgent intervention. Learn to rely on that. If you do what your confessor says with regards to receiving the Eucharist when you have worries, you will be OK. Until he gives you advice that is objectively wrong, you can stick with doing what he says. If he gives advice that is objectively wrong, find another confessor and repeat. You will be OK.

With sin, this means having a kind of methodical way of examining your conscience. For mortal sins: Was this a grave matter? Did I actually know that? Was my choice free, or was it coerced? If the matter wasn’t grave, you didn’t know, OR there was coersion, it isn’t a mortal sin. It might have grave consequences, but it doesn’t have the eternal consequences attached to a mortal sin.

Unlike your blood sugar, your culpability really does depend on whether you are trying your best. In spite of your best efforts, you are going to mess up sometimes. As the saying goes, saints aren’t people who never fall. They’re people who fall and get back up. If you are willing to get up every time, then God will take care of the rest.

 

[mariakatherine]

Is the OP part of the Neocatechumenal Movement? For years, this movement was engaging in this ilicit practice. In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI issued instruction to have this practice stopped, quoting Redemptionis Sacramentum. Here is what his instructions stated:

This was back in 2005 and the period of transition ended in 2007. Thus, the normal means of receiving Holy Communion was to have been employed since then.

Thus, as others have indicated, this is a serious liturgical abuse and needs to be stopped.

Hmmm… where did you get this information? That “illicit practice” never was employed in Neocatechumenal liturgies. There is/was absolutely no self-communication, passing around the Body and Blood in a circle or any such abuse present in these liturgies.

 

[Corki]

Hmmm… where did you get this information? That “illicit practice” never was employed in Neocatechumenal liturgies. There is/was absolutely no self-communication, passing around the Body and Blood in a circle or any such abuse present in these liturgies.

I thought it was common knowledge about the Neocatechumenal Way.

In the Neocatechumenal Way, communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine that is passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44140?eng=y