Assuming the priest is aware of it, but doesn’t know which hosts are consecrated and which are not, then what he will have to do is place the ciborium on the corporal and simply intend to consecrate any hosts that are not consecrated. There’s nothing conditional wrong about it. Any hosts already consecrated are unaffected, and the unconsecrated hosts consecrated.
- Status
E
e_c
Guest
Then he went to a good seminary. I’m in between formation programs at the moment, I can tell you that not all seminaries are created equal. I was at a good one, but some of my former brethren… weren’t.
Yes, that’s true. I also speculate that the sun will come up tomorrow, based on my experience. As Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun. With 1 billion + people in the Church militant, lots of stuff goes on. And I’ve seen plenty of the bad stuff… and this is something pretty easy to mess up (relatively speaking), I’ve almost seen it happen twice.
Can anyone point to a document? Thanks…
E
Elizium23
Guest
Deacons are not Eucharistic Ministers. That is a different thing from an OMHC.
Z
zab
Guest
I may be having a little difficult understanding exactly what you have written. Is it possible that what you witnessed at the main church was unconsecrated Hosts being put in an empty ciborium? Just asking. Perhaps the person that you saw adding them needs to be instructed. I agree with you that no unconsecrated hosts should ever be placed in the ciborium in the tabernacle that contains other consecrated Hosts. I disagree with your exception “…except by the Priest’s direction”. If you are the sacristan, you should do like you said and have a separate dish or ciboria on the side table containing unconsecrated hosts to be consecrated at that Mass.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
If you are a priest, then surely you know that you are speaking to one of two methods. If you prefer this method, that is your prerogative. I do not do the absolute consecration as you describe. I was formed in a different way, which is what I taught to my own students and the same formula I consistently apply when I have to confer other sacraments conditionally; I am always therefore following the same pattern for intellectual consistency…also because one is labouring under duress in these moments of ordeal.
When I was teaching liturgy and sacraments at this level…what to do when something catastrophic happens…I was not teaching in English. The basis for the documentation I was lecturing from rested with a body of literature and instructions I had gathered; the foundation for which was, De defecticus, which I supplemented with similar documents from other sources.
To keep this simple, one of the best books in English is by Father Nicholas Halligan, OP. He is quite solid as a sacramental theologian. It is entitled “The Sacraments and their Celebration”. It was originally published in the United States by Alba House and collects together a number of the issues I lectured on. I knew Father Halligan personally and held him in high regard.
These are not stories I like to tell outside of the classroom as it involves resolution to liturgical crises that really do not need to be in popular conversations. In this case I will relate Father’s answer, which is substantially my own.
This is from page 70:
If consecrated hosts should become mixed with unconsecrated ones, the priest should consecrate the latter at a subsequent Mass and before being distributed to the faithful, either by consecrating the whole amount conditionally or absolutely only those not consecrated. The same procedure is to be followed is a quantity of unconsecrated wine is added to render the Real Presence doubtful.
By God’s grace, this only happened to me, in my own experience, one time; it was at a parish I was visiting.
There was confusion as several were trying to prepare the sacred vessels, such that unconsecrated hosts were placed in the ciborium that was normally in the tabernacle but brought out momentarily for the purpose of assessing how many hosts were consecrated.
There was a luna in the tabernacle, assuring the Real Presence; the tabernacle could remain closed and people genuflect to it. I discreetly transferred the ciborium in question to a place of safekeeping that I could easily access but told no one to touch…and, during the offertory, I myself transferred it nonchalantly to the altar as the server brought forward the missal, chalice, cruets, and other items.
As we proceeded to the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), in every way I had a normal intention relative to the paten of my chalice, the contents of my chalice and a dish with hosts for communion at this Mass and the cups for the faithful receiving the Precious Blood.
For the one ciborium, with a mix of consecrated and unconsecrated hosts, I attenuated the intention it is regard and consecrated its contents sub condicione. In other words, intending that what was in it that was in fact consecrated was unaffected – but that what was in it and was NOT consecrated would be, by the epiclesis and the words of the initiative narrative, positively and definitively consecrated.
In sacramental theology, it would be a sin (and wholly inappropriate) to attempt to effect a sacramental reality that already exists. Thus it would be wrong to absolutely consecrate the entiety of the ciborium’s content. Using the conditional removes the contentious point.
This was all accomplished at the first possible interest, an hour after the unfortunate mistake that was caused by a chain of confusion and a momentary lapse by a well-intenioned person. Happily resolved in short order, it was a teaching moment for everyone with better protocols for how things were done going forward.
The alternate thesis is to absolutely consecrate what is not consecrated in the ciborium. The priest may certainly choose that option but I prefer to go, in all cases, where I have doubt by using the conditional formulation. It is not only how I was schooled academically, it was how I was trained pastorally.
The greatest care should be taken by everyone concerned so that something like this does not happen. Keeping the consecrated hosts exclusively in the tabernacle and the unconsecrated hosts exclusively in the sacristy go far to obviating confusion.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It may be that i am simply misunderstanding you in what you write. If so, I am sorry.
In the first bit underlined, I assume to that you mean that Father is adding to the ciborium hosts which he just consecrated at the Mass he celebrated…at the end of Communion. That is certainly fine and normal.
If people are coming back from distributing Communion to the sick, hosts left over in their pyxes should be returned to the tabernacle and this could be done before Mass.
Of course, unconsecrated hosts should NOT be added to the tabernacle. Once they are in the ciborium, it is impossible to tell what is consecrated and what is not. Great care must be taken in this regard.
In the second bit underlined, there is no occasion when the priest should be placing unconsecrated hosts in the tabernacle or telling others to do so. The unconsecrated hosts belong in the sacristy or on the offertory table to be brought up with the gifts.
I hope this helps.
E
e_c
Guest
Very helpful posts. Thank you.
J
judynurse
Guest
In the first case, the ciborium was empty when a visiting Priest was there for a daily Mass, and someone else had placed it into the Tabernacle, not realizing that this was improper.
In the one case, the Priest had asked me to place unconsecrated hosts into it, and put it on the side table. In the second case the unconsecrated hosts were in a smaller ciborium to be consecrated, and both times someone else simply saw them on the side table and placed them into the Tabernacle, not realizing this should not be done, as they were assisting in setting up the Altar and not completely trained. I told Father in both cases that there were unconsecrated hosts within the Tabernacle, and told him where they were located, and why they were within the Tabernacle.
I knew in both cases they should not be within the Tabernacle. In the one case, since the ciborium was empty, I followed Father’s directions and placed sufficient hosts into it to last several days, to include those which would be taken in a Pyx to the sick. I had NOT placed this ciborium with unconsecrated hosts into the Tabernacle, but got blindsided a bit by someone trying to be helpful. Fortunately, I found out prior to Mass, and warned Father.
In neither case were they mixed in the same ciborium, but in separate ones in the case where I had added unconsecrated hosts to a small ciborium, and into the main ciborium as directed by Father, in the first case and left it outside the Tabernacle since it had been empty. Someone simply placed it into the Tabernacle. Hope this clears up the comments. In both occurances, the Mass was starting within less than a minute, and there was no time for me to go to the Tabernacle and change them back. I agree that they should never be mixed. Have never seen this occur with the wine being added, but I suppose it could be.
One question, Fr. Ruggero: occasionally there is more wine than is needed for a Mass, and the Priest places the top back on the cruet and it is returned to the side table. If there is only a small amount left, it is usually disposed of. Twice we have had quite a bit left in the cruet, and saved it for the next Mass. Is the wine in the Cruet considered Consecrated when it is covered in this manner, or does it remain unconsecrated since it has been removed from the Altar and covered up?
In the one case, the Priest had asked me to place unconsecrated hosts into it, and put it on the side table. In the second case the unconsecrated hosts were in a smaller ciborium to be consecrated, and both times someone else simply saw them on the side table and placed them into the Tabernacle, not realizing this should not be done, as they were assisting in setting up the Altar and not completely trained. I told Father in both cases that there were unconsecrated hosts within the Tabernacle, and told him where they were located, and why they were within the Tabernacle.
I knew in both cases they should not be within the Tabernacle. In the one case, since the ciborium was empty, I followed Father’s directions and placed sufficient hosts into it to last several days, to include those which would be taken in a Pyx to the sick. I had NOT placed this ciborium with unconsecrated hosts into the Tabernacle, but got blindsided a bit by someone trying to be helpful. Fortunately, I found out prior to Mass, and warned Father.
In neither case were they mixed in the same ciborium, but in separate ones in the case where I had added unconsecrated hosts to a small ciborium, and into the main ciborium as directed by Father, in the first case and left it outside the Tabernacle since it had been empty. Someone simply placed it into the Tabernacle. Hope this clears up the comments. In both occurances, the Mass was starting within less than a minute, and there was no time for me to go to the Tabernacle and change them back. I agree that they should never be mixed. Have never seen this occur with the wine being added, but I suppose it could be.
One question, Fr. Ruggero: occasionally there is more wine than is needed for a Mass, and the Priest places the top back on the cruet and it is returned to the side table. If there is only a small amount left, it is usually disposed of. Twice we have had quite a bit left in the cruet, and saved it for the next Mass. Is the wine in the Cruet considered Consecrated when it is covered in this manner, or does it remain unconsecrated since it has been removed from the Altar and covered up?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I think I understand. I foresee someone may ask another question but I am not going to volunteer to go there until I am led there.
As far as the wine that is left over…I am assuming you mean that, at the offertory, when wine is being poured into the chalice to be offered to God, the priest chooses not to pour into the chalice all that is in the cruet and so he sends the cruet to the side table at that point, with some wine remaining in it.
If it is left in the cruet on the side table, which has been returned to the side table, that wine would not be consecrated. If it had been placed in the chalice, that is another matter of course. The wine in the cruet could either be disposed of or saved for the next Mass. Some places even have a small refrigerator in the sacristy with cruets always kept ready.
The more traditional way that a priest forms his intention about what he is consecrating is that he intends to consecrate what is on or above the corporal of the altar. The corporal is a square piece of sacred linen that is placed on the altar and that the paten, the chalice, and the ciboria are placed upon during the offertory. Traditionally, that practically delimits what is being consecrated…although exceptions can be made.
B
Brendan
Guest
Correct
For everyone’s understanding
Every Sacrament has a Minister.
For Baptism, the Minister is the one who pours water over the catechumen, while reciting the Trinitarian Formula.
For Ordination, it is a validly Ordained Bishop.
For Marriage, it is the couple themselves.
For the Eucharist, the Minister of the Eucharist can only be a validly Ordained Priest or Deacon. No one else can confect the Sacrament.
There is a distinct, but related ministry, that of bringing the Eucharist to the community. That is a Minister of Holy Communion. A priest, deacon or bishop is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, while a lay person may be designated as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
That role is NOT the same as being a Minister of the Eucharist (or Eucharistic Minister)
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Since deacons cannot confect the Sacrament, surely they are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not of the Eucharist.Correct
For everyone’s understanding
Every Sacrament has a Minister.
For Baptism, the Minister is the one who pours water over the catechumen, while reciting the Trinitarian Formula.
For Ordination, it is a validly Ordained Bishop.
For Marriage, it is the couple themselves.
For the Eucharist, the Minister of the Eucharist can only be a validly Ordained Priest or Deacon. No one else can confect the Sacrament.
There is a distinct, but related ministry, that of bringing the Eucharist to the community. That is a Minister of Holy Communion. A priest, deacon or bishop is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, while a lay person may be designated as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
That role is NOT the same as being a Minister of the Eucharist (or Eucharistic Minister)
B
Brendan
Guest
That is correct. see Elizium23’s post earlier in the thread. You will see that I am in agreement
See also Redemptionis Sacramentum
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
P
Phemie
Guest
I think you mean “Bishop”.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
There is a third option here:
The priest could consume all of the hosts (consecrated and unconsecrated). If it involves a small number, that would be the practical solution.
Example: at a particular parish, the pastor is in the habit of leaving a pyx with 3 consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle, to take to the sick. He makes his visit then returns the pyx (now with 2 Hosts) to the tabernacle. Later, someone else notices the “missing” host and wrongly adds an unconsecrated one to the pyx.
The priest could consume all 3 hosts, knowing that 2 are consecrated, 1 is not, but not knowing which are which.
The priest could consume all of the hosts (consecrated and unconsecrated). If it involves a small number, that would be the practical solution.
Example: at a particular parish, the pastor is in the habit of leaving a pyx with 3 consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle, to take to the sick. He makes his visit then returns the pyx (now with 2 Hosts) to the tabernacle. Later, someone else notices the “missing” host and wrongly adds an unconsecrated one to the pyx.
The priest could consume all 3 hosts, knowing that 2 are consecrated, 1 is not, but not knowing which are which.
Z
zab
Guest
If the sacristan or “someone” noticed the “missing” Host in the pyx that is kept in the tabernacle, the logical thing for that informed person who has any reason to be getting into the tabernacle would know that no unconsecrated Hosts should ever be put in the tabernacle. From the examples posted on this thread, I get the impression that a lot of sacristans and EMHC need to be better trained. I don’t know if their pastors are not ensuring that their sacristans and/or Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are getting the necessary training that is needed or whether some have missed the class or just didn’t get it. It is just difficult for me to fathom that some people with their lack of understanding would ever be allowed to be a sacristan or an EMHC. But I guess it happens. Hopefully it is a real rarity if it happens at all.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes. It’s a problem. Something like this should never happen.
I think there are multiple causes.
In the first place, pastors must be more diligent in allowing access to the tabernacle.
Yes, there is a reason why tabernacles have locks. Some people (even some priests) just don’t get it.
U
UpUpAndAway
Guest
Without going into any detail about the situation on the ground here, I just want to say that I, as a beleaguered head sacristan trying to do the right thing in all circumstances, am relieved and reassured to see a priest say this. God bless you, Father. You’re in my prayers every day.
- Status