Patens

[jfmarm81]

Hello. I remember, back when I was an alter boy, we used patens during Communion. Granted, I am not old (only turning 30 this year), so it hasn’t been that long ago, but it seems like the use of patens has gone away. I have not seen patens used at any parish I have attended in recent years. Why has the use of patens gone away? And more importantly, should these parishes be using them? Thanks for any replies.

 

[grasscutter]

I’m in Canada (west coast). Patens are always used. So, perhaps, it’s a regional thing.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: “[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[footnote 180: Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 118.]”

The footnote refers to the direction to have a communion-plate on the credence table at the beginning of Mass.

Part of the problem is that the instructions for using the communion-plate are unclear. Before the 2002 GIRM there were clear instructions in the 1975 GIRM:
“117. He then takes the paten or a ciborium and goes to the communicants. If communion is given only under the form of bread, he raises the eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen and, holding the communion plate under their chin receive the sacrament.”

Clearly the communicants hold the communion-plate under their chin. Despite this instruction it was not often followed. If the communion-plate was used (my impression is) that it was more likely to be held by an altar server than by the communicant.

This paragraph was replaced in 2002 GIRM with:
“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.”

In the 2002 GIRM the communion-plate is only referred to in n. 118 and n. 287:

“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

So, again, no mention of an altar server holding the communion-plate, only the communicant.

So if a priest is to follow these instructions considerable training and instruction is necessary. The process would be something like:

1. Person coming to communion indicates to altar server holding the communion-plate if they wish to receive in the hand or on the tongue.
2. If in the hand, the communion-plate is not used.
3. If on the tongue, the communicant holds communion-plate beneath their chin. The communion-plate is then given back to the altar server to hold the communion-plate.

 

[Spirithound]

Hello. I remember, back when I was an alter boy, we used patens during Communion. Granted, I am not old (only turning 30 this year), so it hasn’t been that long ago, but it seems like the use of patens has gone away. I have not seen patens used at any parish I have attended in recent years. Why has the use of patens gone away? And more importantly, should these parishes be using them? Thanks for any replies.

What do you mean by a paten? How was it used? Has it been replaced with anything?

 

[TheMc]

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: “[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[footnote 180: Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 118.]”

The footnote refers to the direction to have a communion-plate on the credence table at the beginning of Mass.

Part of the problem is that the instructions for using the communion-plate are unclear. Before the 2002 GIRM there were clear instructions in the 1975 GIRM:
“117. He then takes the paten or a ciborium and goes to the communicants. If communion is given only under the form of bread, he raises the eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen and, holding the communion plate under their chin receive the sacrament.”

Clearly the communicants hold the communion-plate under their chin. Despite this instruction it was not often followed. If the communion-plate was used (my impression is) that it was more likely to be held by an altar server than by the communicant.

This paragraph was replaced in 2002 GIRM with:
“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.”

In the 2002 GIRM the communion-plate is only referred to in n. 118 and n. 287:

“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

So, again, no mention of an altar server holding the communion-plate, only the communicant.

So if a priest is to follow these instructions considerable training and instruction is necessary. The process would be something like:

1. Person coming to communion indicates to altar server holding the communion-plate if they wish to receive in the hand or on the tongue.
2. If in the hand, the communion-plate is not used.
3. If on the tongue, the communicant holds communion-plate beneath their chin. The communion-plate is then given back to the altar server to hold the communion-plate.

I wonder if this is a mistranslation, such as happened in GIRM 299. It seems like odd instructions.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Or everyone could just go back to kneeling and receiving on the tongue. No confusion on how to use the paten that way!

 

[MarkThompson]

I wonder if this is a mistranslation, such as happened in GIRM 299. It seems like odd instructions.

If you are referring to no. 287, the translation is correct. The Latin begins:
Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem . . . .
which is, literally:
If Communion of the chalice is done by intinction, the communicant, holding (tenens) a paten under the mouth, approaches the priest . . . .
But note that this refers only to Communion via intinction, where there is a risk of dripping, and not in general to CITH vs. COTT. So John Lilburne’s threefold confusion does not really present itself.

 

[lizaanne]

Hello. I remember, back when I was an alter boy, we used patens during Communion. Granted, I am not old (only turning 30 this year), so it hasn’t been that long ago, but it seems like the use of patens has gone away. I have not seen patens used at any parish I have attended in recent years. Why has the use of patens gone away? And more importantly, should these parishes be using them? Thanks for any replies.

My opinion? Some parishes and priests have forgotten that the Eucharist is indeed the Creator of the Universe - Jesus Christ - the Second Person of the Trinity. Body…Blood…Soul…Divinity.

If they understood this, they would know how important it is to ensure that the Sacred Species is protected from falling the ground.

The local parishes we go to (including our own) all use patens.

Turning the sacrifice of the Mass into a “communal meal” reduces the Eucharist to an entree. If this is the case, they who cares if “it” falls to the ground.

~Liza

 

[drakenoboe]

I’ve only been to one Catholic Church (out of 4) that use a paten. But that church only uses it for the really old priest.

 

[Timothysis]

If they understood this, they would know how important it is to ensure that the Sacred Species is protected from falling the ground.

At my church, they use patens and the host still occasionally falls to the ground when a mishap occurs, and this is kneeling at a communion rail.

Nothing is perfect.

 

[lizaanne]

At my church, they use patens and the host still occasionally falls to the ground when a mishap occurs, and this is kneeling at a communion rail.

Nothing is perfect.

I do not recall in my post stating that the use of patens is “perfect”. But it is a darn sight better than using NOTHING.

~Liza

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Most of the parishes in my area have returned to using patens.

 

[Timothysis]

I do not recall in my post stating that the use of patens is “perfect”. But it is a darn sight better than using NOTHING.

~Liza

No reason to get huffy.

And I didn’t say to use “NOTHING.”

 

[Timothysis]

Turning the sacrifice of the Mass into a “communal meal” reduces the Eucharist to an entree. If this is the case, they who cares if “it” falls to the ground.

Somehow I missed this little gem. This is what the Church teaches about the Mass:

"Hence, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

1. A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
2. a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19).
   3)** a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ.** (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1."

So who is it who is "turning the sacrifice of the Mass into a “communal meal?”

 

[BrushedByAngels]

I posted about the same exact thing last month. I was under the impression it was no big deal to most people if our precious host falls on the ground to be trampled on which to me is very sad

I have only seen the local Anglican Catholic church use the patens and communion rail. Unfortunately, our local Roman Catholic churches do not. I’m thinking of asking our Priest in charge about bring the patens back. To me it shows more caution (and reverence) to our Lord.

I also prefer the communion rail because it is more reverent in my opinion, but thats another topic…

 

[FSSPOblate]

Doesn’t E.W.T.N, who celebrates the Ordinary Form, use the paten? We use the paten at our parish, but that is because we celebrate the Extraordinary Form(F.S.S.P).

I think that the G.I.R.M mentions the use of the paten during at least more than one occasion.

To state my personal opinion, I think the paten should be used whenever and wherever possible. This does not only protect the Sacred Host, but it also imbibes another form reverence and holiness attached to this Sacrament.

B.T.W, I’ve only read the original post.

 

[Digitonomy]

If you are referring to no. 287, the translation is correct. The Latin begins:
Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem . . . .
which is, literally:
If Communion of the chalice is done by intinction, the communicant, holding (tenens) a paten under the mouth, approaches the priest . . . .

Is tenens a gerund as in the English, or simply a present tense as with “approaches”? And can we exclude the possibility that the antecedent or subject of this particular verb could be someone other than the communicant?

I am speculating that perhaps the Latin was written poorly and imprecisely (though correctly in the strict sense). If true, we can’t fault the translator for doing the best with what he had, but the translation may still convey incorrectly the intention of the original author. Hopefully MarkThompson or someone else comfortable with the Latin can provide feedback on this idea.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

They were reintroduced in our parish about six years ago or so.

 

[MarkThompson]

Is tenens a gerund as in the English, or simply a present tense as with “approaches”? And can we exclude the possibility that the antecedent or subject of this particular verb could be someone other than the communicant?

It is not the present tense (that would be tenet). In Latin tenens is the form called the present participle, and indicates action begun in the past and continuing in the present.

Sometimes the present participle is mistakenly called the gerund, but the gerund properly speaking would be tenendi (or tenendo or tenendum). It is not overly common, and would show up in constructions like causa patinam tenendi (= “for the sake of holding a paten”) or venit ad tenendum (= “he came to hold”).

I am speculating that perhaps the Latin was written poorly and imprecisely (though correctly in the strict sense). If true, we can’t fault the translator for doing the best with what he had, but the translation may still convey incorrectly the intention of the original author. Hopefully MarkThompson or someone else comfortable with the Latin can provide feedback on this idea.

I’ll readily confess that I’m no Cicero, but to me there is nothing remotely confusing about the way the Latin is written. That’s not to say the instruction itself makes great sense (so he approaches, i.e. walks forward, while holding the paten? then where did he get the paten? can’t someone else hold it?), only that the Latin (and correspondingly the English) is not linguistically confusing. I will reiterate, though, that no. 287 of the GIRM applies only when Communion is given by intinction.

I suppose it is worth noting here that the vocabulary of the GIRM makes a distinction between the priest’s paten (patena), which he confects the Eucharist on, and what we can call the people’s paten or Communion-plate (patina), which is just used to keep particles from falling. So Redemtpionis Sacramentum uses the latter noun in no. 93, when it says that “Patina pro Communione fidelium oportet retineatur, ad vitandum periculum ut hostia sacra vel quoddam eius fragmentum cadat” (“The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling”).

Hope this helps.

 

[MarkThompson]

[Sorry, double post]