Odd Q: Can the laity reserve the host

  • Thread starter Thread starter sgx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luger said:
Yes it can but then the entire monstrance must be reserved. I have seen in some churches there they have what amounts to a gorgeous and secure “cabinet” (it’s a tabernacle) attached to the rear wall of the sanctuary. To expose the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance all they had to do was unlock the “cabinet” and open its doors. Sublime.
Click to expand...
OK, in that sense yes. But obviously when exposed, the Blessed Sacrament must not be unaccompanied.
 
Is there an exception made for some one that is physically unable to attend mass on frequent basis, such as living in a remote location, or being imprisoned in an internment camp? I seem to recall a priest having to hide the host during world war II. Would such a situation apply to the laity?
 
Califman831 said:
Is there an exception made for some one that is physically unable to attend mass on frequent basis, such as living in a remote location, or being imprisoned in an internment camp? I seem to recall a priest having to hide the host during world war II. Would such a situation apply to the laity?
Click to expand...
I believe you are thinking of St. Maximillian Kolbe and his efforts to bring everyone the Eucharist while in an internment camp. Not a common experience.

However, I do volunteer at a local Federal prison in our community, and our parish conducts the Mass weekly there. The Eucharist of course is not reserved within the prison.

If someone is physically unable to attend because of illness or infirmaty, that is where EMHC’s come in, and bring the Eucharist to them.

To be honest, I have never heard of anyone anywhere that is in such a remote location that some attempt could not be made to receive the Eucharist at least once per year.
 
Joan_M said:
This is not what the question is about. It is about a lay person having permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament reserved in their home. This is not permitted. It may be that some family has a private chapel with a tabernacle and permission to reserve the Holy Eucharist, but this would entail a priest saying Mass there at least once each fortnight (I believe this is the required time period), since the Host reserved would be consumed and a new one reserved, so that the Host does not become moldy …

Such permissions are not lightly given.
Click to expand...
Ah. Thanks for setting me straight.

DaveBj
 
bmadamsberry said:
But you are talking about carrying, not reserving. As I quoted from Canon Law, with the bishops permission, a “pious house” may reserve the Blessed Sacrament in an oratory or chapel, as long as a priest celebrates Mass there twice a month.
Click to expand...
The canon is still referring to a religious community of some kind (not necessarily a canonical one). “Pious house” does not mean a private home where pious people live. Likewise, the words “oratory” and “chapel” are specific places that have to be blessed by the bishop and dedicated to only that purpose. A private home does not satisfy the requirements of the canon.
 
bmadamsberry said:
But you are talking about carrying, not reserving. As I quoted from Canon Law, with the bishops permission, a “pious house” may reserve the Blessed Sacrament in an oratory or chapel, as long as a priest celebrates Mass there twice a month.
Click to expand...
Actually Benedictgal was spot-on in providing the quote, but I think the bold-type was misplaced. I think the bold should have been:

it is forbidden to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a place that is not subject in a secure way to the authority of the diocesan Bishop,
 
bmadamsberry said:
The issue, though, is if it is okay to have the Blessed Sacrament exposed at one’s house. From the Canon Law already cited, it shows that it is okay as long as four conditions are met:
  1. The approval of the Bishop is given
  2. It is a pious house
  3. It is within a chapel or oratory
  4. Mass is celebrated twice a month there
As far as carrying it to the house, this would not need to be done. If Mass is celebrated there, one of the Hosts would be used for the Monstrance. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Mass needs to be celebrated there, so that the Host used in the Monstrance wouldn’t become moldy, etc.

Therefore, while your citation is ligitamate, benedictgal, it does not seem to apply to this case.
Click to expand...
The reason why that doesn’t apply is because all of the following terms
pious house
chapel
oratory
are not words which are applied to private homes. I don’t mean “private property” but I mean places which are used as private residences, or what we might call a “family home.”

The only way this would apply would be if there is a chapel located on someone’s private property and the bishop has dedicated that building (or room) as a chapel. We all know that this was done in the past for certain families, but it is not done anymore except in very unusual circumstances.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The reason why that doesn’t apply is because all of the following terms
pious house
chapel
oratory
are not words which are applied to private homes. I don’t mean “private property” but I mean places which are used as private residences, or what we might call a “family home.”

The only way this would apply would be if there is a chapel located on someone’s private property and the bishop has dedicated that building (or room) as a chapel. We all know that this was done in the past for certain families, but it is not done anymore except in very unusual circumstances.
Click to expand...
Not that unusual, actually. I know of a few people, some in the US and one in Scotland, who have the sacrament reserved at their house with permission of the bishop. One reason is because they often have seminarians, priests on vacation, and visiting priests stay with them. The priests then have an area to celebrate Mass (and seminarians have a place to pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament). One reason why it might seem so rare is simply because few people ask or are willing to take the time and spend the money on a chapel.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The canon is still referring to a religious community of some kind (not necessarily a canonical one). “Pious house” does not mean a private home where pious people live. Likewise, the words “oratory” and “chapel” are specific places that have to be blessed by the bishop and dedicated to only that purpose. A private home does not satisfy the requirements of the canon.
Click to expand...
It can be a private home. I agree that oratory and chapel are specific places that have to be blessed by a bishop and dedicated to only that purpose. A private home does satisfy the requirements of that canon, because there are chapels and oratories blessed by bishops that house the Blessed Sacrament at private homes.
One example would be the home of Sir Walter Scott. Private home (still sort of is, though no one lives there). It has (present tense) a chapel at which Mass is celebrated and the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.
 
bmadamsberry said:
It can be a private home. I agree that oratory and chapel are specific places that have to be blessed by a bishop and dedicated to only that purpose. A private home does satisfy the requirements of that canon, because there are chapels and oratories blessed by bishops that house the Blessed Sacrament at private homes.
One example would be the home of Sir Walter Scott. Private home (still sort of is, though no one lives there). It has (present tense) a chapel at which Mass is celebrated and the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sources for this or is it merelly speculation? Again, I stand by what I have written. What you list are extreme circumstances and not merely every day occurances. I do not believe that on its own, a private house is sufficient.
 
bmadamsberry said:
It can be a private home. I agree that oratory and chapel are specific places that have to be blessed by a bishop and dedicated to only that purpose. A private home does satisfy the requirements of that canon, because there are chapels and oratories blessed by bishops that house the Blessed Sacrament at private homes.
One example would be the home of Sir Walter Scott. Private home (still sort of is, though no one lives there). It has (present tense) a chapel at which Mass is celebrated and the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.
Click to expand...
Yes, and all of these examples are extremely rare circumstances–they don’t help with answering the OP’s question because you’re implying that a person can just pickup the phone, call the bishop, and that’s it. This sort of thing just is not done in the “average” home and it’s a serious abuse when it is done without the express permission of the bishop and when the bishop does not have control over that location. See Redemptionis Sacramentum which has already been quoted.

The answer to the OP’s question is: No.
 
benedictgal said:
Do you have any sources for this or is it merelly speculation? Again, I stand by what I have written. What you list are extreme circumstances and not merely every day occurances. I do not believe that on its own, a private house is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I’ve been to the home, seen it, and been to the chapel. Source enough?
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yes, and all of these examples are extremely rare circumstances–they don’t help with answering the OP’s question because you’re implying that a person can just pickup the phone, call the bishop, and that’s it. This sort of thing just is not done in the “average” home and it’s a serious abuse when it is done without the express permission of the bishop and when the bishop does not have control over that location. See Redemptionis Sacramentum which has already been quoted.

The answer to the OP’s question is: No.
Click to expand...
I have never said that all a person has to do is just pickup the phone, call the bishop, and that’s it. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

I also have not said that it is an easy thing to do, nor that it is average. I also have not said that one can or should do it without the bishop’s permission. Please see what I have posted previous, and please don’t say what I am saying when, in fact, it is not what I am saying.
 
bmadamsberry said:
I’ve been to the home, seen it, and been to the chapel. Source enough?
Click to expand...
No. It isn’t source enough.

You are presenting this example and trying to use it to “prove” that people can just take the Eucharist home and keep the Body of Christ reserved in such a way that this is a simple and common occurance. Again, your examples do not help with the OPs question because you’re giving extreme examples without providing the specific circumstances, and trying to make it look as if the bishop just casually says “sure, if you want a tabernacle at your house, go right ahead.”
 
benedictgal said:
Just because such exists, that does not necessarily make it licit.
Click to expand...
The fact that a bishop has celebrated Mass there, the fact that it does not break any of the Canon rules, and the fact that I have not read anything contrary to the chapel being used leads me to say that it is licit.
 
bmadamsberry said:
I have never said that all a person has to do is just pickup the phone, call the bishop, and that’s it. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

I also have not said that it is an easy thing to do, nor that it is average. I also have not said that one can or should do it without the bishop’s permission. Please see what I have posted previous, and please don’t say what I am saying when, in fact, it is not what I am saying.
Click to expand...
However, bmadamsberry, that is what you are implying, and, with all due respect, this is giving folks the wrong idea. The average private home is not the place for the reservation of the Holy Eucharist. Again, please re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum.
 
bmadamsberry said:
The fact that a bishop has celebrated Mass there, the fact that it does not break any of the Canon rules, and the fact that I have not read anything contrary to the chapel being used leads me to say that it is licit.
Click to expand...
And your source for all of this? Is there a website or some other bona fide means to support this contention?
 
FrDavid96 said:
No. It isn’t source enough.

You are presenting this example and trying to use it to “prove” that people can just take the Eucharist home and keep the Body of Christ reserved in such a way that this is a simple and common occurance. Again, your examples do not help with the OPs question because you’re giving extreme examples without providing the specific circumstances, and trying to make it look as if the bishop just casually says “sure, if you want a tabernacle at your house, go right ahead.”
Click to expand...
Again with the words in my mouth that I have NEVER said. Some people call that bearing a false witness.
I have not said that someone can take the Eucharist home. Nope. They cannot. Nor have I said that it is common, nor have I said that it is simple. It cost a lot of money (it has to be a worthy chapel, complete with an altar that Mass must be celebrated at 2x a month, a tabernacle that fits within the Code, security system of some kind to protect the Host, etc.).
You are taking what I have written as saying that I all that has to happen is a "bishop just casually says “sure, if you want a tabernacle at your house, go right ahead”. That is not, if you read carefully, what I have been supporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top