Non-Consecrated Eucharist?

[quirkycanuck]

I have a question relating to the Eucharist. I should start by pointing out that I’ve only been an active participant in my faith since 2009 and have only been a Catholic at all since I was a teenager (1995). I did not receive formal religious education as I wasn’t in the Church as a child. A lot of the learning I’ve done about the richness of our faith has been my own self-directed journey.

I sing in a choir at my Church. In order to help expedite communion so we can start singing the communion song for the congregation, our director has usually gone down before mass to obtain several hosts as he is a minister of the eucharist. He then distributes the hosts at the proper time and we consume after the priest consumes.

A new member of our choir was fairly shocked at that practice recently, as she’d always understood that the host has to be on the altar in order to be consecrated and essentially what we are doing is not receiving the true eucharist.

Can I have some opinions on this subject? It’s a bit of a spiritual quandry for me.

Thanks in advance

QC

 

[Phemie]

I have a question relating to the Eucharist. I should start by pointing out that I’ve only been an active participant in my faith since 2009 and have only been a Catholic at all since I was a teenager (1995). I did not receive formal religious education as I wasn’t in the Church as a child. A lot of the learning I’ve done about the richness of our faith has been my own self-directed journey.

I sing in a choir at my Church. In order to help expedite communion so we can start singing the communion song for the congregation, our director has usually gone down before mass to obtain several hosts as he is a minister of the eucharist. He then distributes the hosts at the proper time and we consume after the priest consumes.

A new member of our choir was fairly shocked at that practice recently, as she’d always understood that the host has to be on the altar in order to be consecrated and essentially what we are doing is not receiving the true eucharist.

Can I have some opinions on this subject? It’s a bit of a spiritual quandry for me.

Thanks in advance

QC

Isn’t it more likely that your director is retrieving previously consecrated Hosts from the Tabernacle before Mass?

Even so, my personal take on this is that rather than do this, another EMHC should simply bring Communion to the choir members, if there’s no way for them to go receive.

My best experience of this is one Triduum when I was in the choir and we all took turns going to receive so that there was always someone to sing and someone at Communion. Of course we were singing in unison a capella and sitting in the front on the side, so it was relatively easy to do this.

 

[maltmom]

Has he said they are unconsecrated? What does he put them in? If they really are consecrated, what does he put them in?

Either way, I’d speak to my Priest about this. He may not be aware this is going on.

At my church there is an EMHC assigned to bring the Body up to the choir loft.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Isn’t it more likely that your director is retrieving previously consecrated Hosts from the Tabernacle before Mass?

Even so, my personal take on this is that rather than do this, another EMHC should simply bring Communion to the choir members, if there’s no way for them to go receive.

My best experience of this is one Triduum when I was in the choir and we all took turns going to receive so that there was always someone to sing and someone at Communion. Of course we were singing in unison a capella and sitting in the front on the side, so it was relatively easy to do this.

This morning at Mass,the homily was about embracing silence as a way of being closer to God,to communicate with Him.While the choir ,in fact while the entire congregation is receiving Communion,seems this would be a perfect time to apply this idea,

 

[ChibiViolet]

Whatever is really going on, I would think that they are consecrated, although if it is how you say–with the host not consecrated at the altar than it’s illicit.

 

[Reuben_J]

I have a question relating to the Eucharist. I should start by pointing out that I’ve only been an active participant in my faith since 2009 and have only been a Catholic at all since I was a teenager (1995). I did not receive formal religious education as I wasn’t in the Church as a child. A lot of the learning I’ve done about the richness of our faith has been my own self-directed journey.

I sing in a choir at my Church. In order to help expedite communion so we can start singing the communion song for the congregation, our director has usually gone down before mass to obtain several hosts as he is a minister of the eucharist. He then distributes the hosts at the proper time and we consume after the priest consumes.

A new member of our choir was fairly shocked at that practice recently, as she’d always understood that the host has to be on the altar in order to be consecrated and essentially what we are doing is not receiving the true eucharist.

Can I have some opinions on this subject? It’s a bit of a spiritual quandry for me.

Thanks in advance

QC

If your director is an EHMC, then those were certainly consecrated (hosts), perhaps a leftover from the previous mass.

Your question here is whether it is proper to receive them (the earlier hosts) in the mass and not from those that were presently consecrated by the priest? As told by you, the choir is doing that because they have to sing the Communion hymns and therefore do not have time to receive Communion. Is that correct?

I feel the practice is not proper though not entirely wrong. A host is always considered consecrated regardless of time. But the time is not entirely proper. Ideally the choir should also receive Communion together with the rest of the congregation from the same hosts. If it is due to logistic, perhaps the choir can receive Communion after the hymns during the silence. It will not take very long for the entire choir to do that. By doing what you all are doing, it makes the choir seem to be separated from the rest of the congregation. Perhaps that is something for the director to discuss with the priest.

 

[ChibiViolet]

No – if the hosts are not consecrated, then they’re bread. :sad_yes:

I said if their not consecrated at the altar.

 

[Gorgias]

I said if their not consecrated at the altar.

You mean “at the present Mass”, then, not “at the altar”? After all, if they had come from the tabernacle, then they would have been consecrated “at the altar”, but just at a previous Mass.

Does the priest go to the tabernacle and use hosts consecrated previously, for distribution at that Mass? If so, then how is what you are doing, any different than what some others at that Mass receive?

As much as possible, it’s desirable for people at a Mass to consume Eucharist consecrated at that Mass; however, it is not illicit to use hosts consecrated at a previous Mass. (On the other hand, the celebrant and any co-celebrants must consume hosts consecrated at that Mass.)

 

[Phemie]

You mean “at the present Mass”, then, not “at the altar”? After all, if they had come from the tabernacle, then they would have been consecrated “at the altar”, but just at a previous Mass.

Does the priest go to the tabernacle and use hosts consecrated previously, for distribution at that Mass? If so, then how is what you are doing, any different than what some others at that Mass receive?

As much as possible, it’s desirable for people at a Mass to consume Eucharist consecrated at that Mass; however, it is not illicit to use hosts consecrated at a previous Mass. (On the other hand, the celebrant and any co-celebrants must consume hosts consecrated at that Mass.)

I think she means that if the EMHC is bringing up unconsecrated bread to the choir loft and it is being consecrated by the priest, long-distance shall we say, then it is illicit. The priest could in fact intend to consecrate the hosts in the choir loft at the same time he consecrates those on the altar. It wouldn’t be the first time that priests have been ‘innovative’.

I would prefer to think that the EMHC has a pyx with previously consecrated hosts but I think if it was that kind of set-up the choir member wouldn’t have felt the need to come here to check.

 

[Gorgias]

I think she means that if the EMHC is bringing up unconsecrated bread to the choir loft and it is being consecrated by the priest, long-distance shall we say

That’s kind of what I’m hoping she’s not saying. However, to reach that conclusion, we’d have to know a few things that we haven’t been told: * The bread is unconsecrated, and not from the tabernacle.* The priest knows about this. * The priest intends to consecrate the bread in the choir loft at the time he’s praying the Eucharistic prayer.
Since we don’t know any of this, it’s quite a reach to presume it, don’t you think?

I would prefer to think that the EMHC has a pyx with previously consecrated hosts

quirky, what’s the scoop? Is the director bringing up hosts in a pyx – or, more to the point, does he treat them like ‘Eucharist’ when he brings them up, or does he treat them like bread that’s about to be consecrated at that Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

(On the other hand, the celebrant and any co-celebrants must consume hosts consecrated at that Mass.)

I believe that applies only to the actual host which was elevated at the consecration.

 

[TimothyH]

In our parish, the choir goes down and recieves right after the priest, deacon and altar servers.

They go back up to the choir loft and sing right after they recieve.

-Tim-

 

[Gorgias]

I believe that applies only to the actual host which was elevated at the consecration.

Actually, no. GIRM #85 only states that the celebrant must “receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass,” not that he receives from any particular one of these hosts.

 

[ChibiViolet]

You mean “at the present Mass”, then, not “at the altar”? After all, if they had come from the tabernacle, then they would have been consecrated “at the altar”, but just at a previous Mass.

Does the priest go to the tabernacle and use hosts consecrated previously, for distribution at that Mass? If so, then how is what you are doing, any different than what some others at that Mass receive?

As much as possible, it’s desirable for people at a Mass to consume Eucharist consecrated at that Mass; however, it is not illicit to use hosts consecrated at a previous Mass. (On the other hand, the celebrant and any co-celebrants must consume hosts consecrated at that Mass.)

No, I was confused…and sleep deprived…I should have looked it up, but I really didn’t feel like it and I was tired…(such a stupid excuse. Really, I sound like Obama, or rather one of those people who make excuses for him all the time…)

Anyway, I actually thought that hosts didn’t all have to be consecrated at an altar for some odd reason. I just looked it up and couldn’t find an answer…I think I was wrong though…was I?

 

[anruari]

Can people please stay on topic. The argument about music during and after communion is an interesting one, but irrelevant to the question posted by the original poster. Take that to it’s own thread.

1. QuirkyCanook:

Can you please come back to this thread and review the posts, and answer the important questions that have been raised so we can know more about the situation.

1. Where do the hosts that the choir director brings to the Choir Loft come from? is it the sacristy or the Tabernacle?
2. Does he carry them in a proper Pix (a secure, safe purpose built container, with a pure gold lining on the inside. Normally gold on the outside as well) Or a Ciborium (the bigger vessel used during mass that holds lots of hosts. again made of metal and gold plated on the inside, again with a tight fitting Lid)?
3. Does he treat them with the utmost respect and deference at all times?

If the answers to the above is “Yes” then you are almost certainly receiving properly consecrated hosts which were consecrated at a previous mass.

If the answer to no1 is that he takes them from the sacristy, then they are not the Eucharist. they are pieces of wafer. The Species of the Eucharist must be on the Altar to be consecrated.
(I have see a Sacristan put unconsecrated hosts into a Ciborium, and place that into the Tabernacle. The priest then took the Ciborium out of the tabernacle during Communion when he ran out of the Hosts consecrated at the Altar during Mass… This kind of Abuse can happen but it should be extremely rare.)

The Answer to Question 3 may be an appropriate indicator.
The Rules for an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC) bringing Holy Communion to those who cannot attend mass, are that they must go directly from the Church to the person(s) they are visiting, without stopping or attending to any other business while carrying the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord.
The same applies to Priests of Deacons who take the Eucharist from the Tabernacle for similar reasons. Removing the Eucharist form the tabernacle is the start of an uninterrupted process.
Doing this before going into the Choir Loft to direct the singing does not invalidate the Eucharist, but it is not treating it with the respect and procedures laid down. It does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the law to my mind.

I have been in many parishes and many choirs. I have seen 3 main ways for communion to be distributed to the Choir:

1. It is more normal for one EMHC or Minister of the Eucharist to be designated to go straight to the Choir Loft,
2. or for the Choir to come to the Altar while a soloist chants a song.
3. or for the Choir to receive Last, after the Hymn or Chant during Communion, and before the optional) Hymn after communion

On a point of Order:
A lay person who has been appointed to distribute Holy Communion to the Faithfull during Mass or to bring Holy Communion to those unable to get to the Chapel, is called only by their proper Title: Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
This reflects that their ministry is extra-ordinary (out of the ordinary) their presence exists only because there are not enough Ordinary (ordained) ministers.
A duly instituted Acolyte is automatically an EMHC, others are appointed under the authority of the Local Ordinary (Bishop).

The Deacon is the “Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, and in particular he is the Minister of the Precious Blood where Communion is being distributed under both species.

They are not “Ministers of the Eucharist” - Even a Deacon is not to be given this title. Only a Presbyter holds that title (Priests and Bishops). A “Minister of the Eucharist” is one who can “Confect the Eucharist”: i.e. say mass.
Please see Redemptionis Sacramentum
The above is my paraphrase of paras 154-160 of the above document from the Vatican.

 

[Evan]

I think in any case what he is doing in wrong

1. If they are bread when brought to the back, they are still bread at communion.
2. If they are consecrated, they should be consumed immediately upon being brought to the choir loft.

Even if they are bread and somehow consecrated long distance, an EMHC is to receive the hosts from the priest and then distribute them to the community, He does not take them from the alter/tabernacle himself. They are to be given to him by the priest.

In neither alternative did the Choir directory receive the hosts from the priest for distribution at the mass.

 

[Jimmygill88]

The Tabernacle will always contain consecrated hosts so host that have been taken from there before mass are the body of Christ. Why the choir have to have communion in this singular manner is the only bizzare thing about this