No Eucharist

[Guillaumus]

Today I went to Mass with my family in the local parish church. Our choir was absent today because they had to go sing “somewhere else”. No problem, there were singing booklets and almost everybody in the church took one. But unfortunantly the priest didn’t give time to sing, he just did what needed to be done. Okay, no real problem there.

But then… The consecration… When the lector went to get the hosts out of the tabernacle the door of the tabernacle “refused” to open. A few people tried to open it, but it didn’t work. (The lock was broken.)

So, no communion today. Quite disappointing. The other lector went to the sacristy and fetched a jar with unblessed hostes and presented it to the priest during “the struggle to open the tabernacle”, but the priest refused to use them.

Should the priest have simply blessed the unblessed hosts in order to be able to give communion?

Should he have broke the large host he did had into tiny little pieces in order to be able to give everybody a little piece?

 

[ZDHayden]

There is no law that I know of that says the Blessed Sacrament needs to be distributed at all. A Mass is valid if it follows the Missal, especially in regards to the Consecration.

It is a mistake, I think, to assume that the laity have a right to the Blessed Sacrament every single Sunday. Assuming that, I think, lessens the ideological potency of the Eucharist. It is no longer our highest privilege, the height of our faith, but rather a basic “right” from which anyone, even those in mortal sin, can draw. My opinions, of course. I hope if I have stepped out of line with Church teaching, I shall be corrected.

 

[Seatuck]

Today I went to Mass with my family in the local parish church. Our choir was absent today because they had to go sing “somewhere else”. No problem, there were singing booklets and almost everybody in the church took one. But unfortunantly the priest didn’t give time to sing, he just did what needed to be done. Okay, no real problem there.

But then… The consecration… When the lector went to get the hosts out of the tabernacle the door of the tabernacle “refused” to open. A few people tried to open it, but it didn’t work. (The lock was broken.)

So, no communion today. Quite disappointing. The other lector went to the sacristy and fetched a jar with unblessed hostes and presented it to the priest during “the struggle to open the tabernacle”, but the priest refused to use them.

Should the priest have simply blessed the unblessed hosts in order to be able to give communion?

Should he have broke the large host he did had into tiny little pieces in order to be able to give everybody a little piece?

The Priest should have consecrated the Eucharist as part of the Mass and not relied on the reserved consecrated hosts This was a major blunder on the part of the priest. There shouldn’t be a need for reserved hosts at any Mass. But no, the priest may not bless the hosts after the Eucharistic prayer is finished. He should have consecrated enough at that Mass that they could have been broken in half or thirds and distributed.

 

[Spirithound]

So, no communion today. Quite disappointing. The other lector went to the sacristy and fetched a jar with unblessed hostes and presented it to the priest during “the struggle to open the tabernacle”, but the priest refused to use them.

Should the priest have simply blessed the unblessed hosts in order to be able to give communion?

Should he have broke the large host he did had into tiny little pieces in order to be able to give everybody a little piece?

Was this a regular Sunday Mass? At most of the Masses I have been to, unconsecrated hosts are brought in at the offertory for the priest to use in that Mass’s Eucharist. But, if this was not the plan, and he did intend to use the large number of consecrated Hosts left in the tabernacle, this could explain your situation. But by the time the priest goes to the tabernacle to retrieve the reserved Hosts, the consecration of that Mass is already passed. It is too late to consecrate more. It would be a grievous sin for him to do that.

Breaking the large Host into smaller pieces could have served some of the parish, but perhaps not all of it?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The laity does not need to receive communion at Mass. If the priest had already completed the consecration, he cannot go back and do it again. If there were a sufficient number of reserved consecrated hosts, he did not necessarily need to consecrate more during the Mass.

I do hope the Tabernacle at the church can be repaired!

 

[paperwight66]

Hmmm, if I were the sacristan i’d be sure to check the lock well before Mass starting, from now on. Actually, that wouldn’t be a bad idea for every church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Priest should have consecrated the Eucharist as part of the Mass and not relied on the reserved consecrated hosts This was a major blunder on the part of the priest. There shouldn’t be a need for reserved hosts at any Mass. But no, the priest may not bless the hosts after the Eucharistic prayer is finished. He should have consecrated enough at that Mass that they could have been broken in half or thirds and distributed.

Actually, the reserved hosts should not be kept for a certain amount of time. Those hosts could have been there for quite a bit either from previous Masses of the same day, or from the previous week. Its probably the priest just wanting to make sure all the hosts are distributed so they won’t go bad. There’s probably a lot of hosts in the tabernacle that they won’t consume all of it in the course of the week.

 

[MusicMan]

The priest should have fractured the consecrated hosts he had and then distributed them.

 

[puzzleannie]

Today I
So, no communion today. Quite disappointing. The other lector went to the sacristy and fetched a jar with unblessed hostes and presented it to the priest during “the struggle to open the tabernacle”, but the priest refused to use them.

?

the priest was absolutely correct, it simply cannot be done. we had a thread on this topic a week or so ago and people posted all the relevant canon law info if you need it.

 

[Seatuck]

Actually, the reserved hosts should not be kept for a certain amount of time. Those hosts could have been there for quite a bit either from previous Masses of the same day, or from the previous week. Its probably the priest just wanting to make sure all the hosts are distributed so they won’t go bad. There’s probably a lot of hosts in the tabernacle that they won’t consume all of it in the course of the week.

As a rule there shouldn’t be so many consecrated hosts kept in the tabernacle. Care is to be taken not to consecrate too many. We don’t know what the practice is at this church but the practice where consecrated hosts are routinely brought out from the tabernacle at communion time is not correct.

89.] “So that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the Sacrifice being celebrated”,[174] it is preferable that the faithful be able to receive hosts consecrated in the same Mass.[175]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV

I realize it is difficult for the sacristan or priest to judge how many people will be presenting themselves for communion . However in our OP we are told there wasn’t enough to break up what was consecrated at that Mass as is the expected practice.

 

[quiet52]

As a rule there shouldn’t be so many consecrated hosts kept in the tabernacle. Care is to be taken not to consecrate too many. We don’t know what the practice is at this church but the practice where consecrated hosts are routinely brought out from the tabernacle at communion time is not correct…QUOTE]

It is sometimes impossible to estimate the congregation size for some Masses, especially for Saturday and Sunday late morning and afternoon Masses. It depends on what else might be going on that day in the larger community - usually sports, or Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. There might be 100+ fewer people than a previous Sunday, which means there will be many more reserved hosts in the tabernacle than is necessary for hospital patients and homebound. For practical reasons, our priests retrieve and distribute the previously consecrated hosts in the tabernacle.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a rule there shouldn’t be so many consecrated hosts kept in the tabernacle. Care is to be taken not to consecrate too many. We don’t know what the practice is at this church but the practice where consecrated hosts are routinely brought out from the tabernacle at communion time is not correct.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV

I realize it is difficult for the sacristan or priest to judge how many people will be presenting themselves for communion . However in our OP we are told there wasn’t enough to break up what was consecrated at that Mass as is the expected practice.

Well, priests cannot anticipate how many people would come to Sunday Mass. They can’t always presume the usual crowd because for whatever reason there just may be more people coming on a particular Sunday. I’m sure priests knows how to do this.

 

[MusicMan]

Alas, the problem really comes down to the faithful having access to far more knowledge of the rubrics and mindset of the Church than ever before, and our unwillingness to trust our priests over our knowledge.

There must be some Sacrament reserved for emergencies. How much is up to the priest.

When there is too many consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle, something must be done, so the priest uses them at Mass.

The priest never knows exactly how many hosts to consecrate at Mass because he never knows exactly how many people will be there. So, there must be the option for some wiggle room. Thus, if he consecrates too many, the remaining go into the tabernacle. If he doesn’t consecrate enough, then some must come from the tabernacle, unless he’s off by only a handful, in which case he or a deacon may fracture hosts.

And, in all of these situations, someone has a bit of knowledge of the rubrics and questions the priest’s actions.

 

[OraLabora]

The title should be changed. There was a Eucharist, even though the faithful did not receive communion.

 

[TheMc]

So, no communion today. Quite disappointing. The other lector went to the sacristy and fetched a jar with unblessed hostes and presented it to the priest during “the struggle to open the tabernacle”, but the priest refused to use them.

Good! We don’t go to church to receive bread.

Should the priest have simply blessed the unblessed hosts in order to be able to give communion?

No, he shouldn’t have.

Should he have broke the large host he did had into tiny little pieces in order to be able to give everybody a little piece?

The laity is not required to receive. Only the celebrant and concelebrants.