Priest receiving communion

[choy]

i thought priests cannot attend mass as lay people? therefore they should concelebrate?

we have a retired priest, the old (both literally and figuritavely) pastor of our parish. when he comes he’s always sitting in the sanctuary. he isn’t officially concelebrating i think, because he doesn’t perform any duties with the priest or read (publicly) any of the prayers, but he sits in the sanctuary and during consecration he stands by the altar and receives at the same time as our main celebrant. he doesn’t distribute communion (he’s over 90) as well

 

[choy]

So, do all parishes have Communion under both species at every Mass? I doubt that is the case, so why should it be the case in a prison?

the priest still would need wine in prison if he’s to celebrate mass. otherwise it will just be a communion service and there’s no consecration and he will bring consecrated hosts

in our parish the Precious Blood is offered during weekday masses when there’s less people. but not on weekends, except Easter Vigil. just because of the amount of people at mass, and the amount of wine that needs to be consecrated. the problem here if the priest consecrates too much wine and would have to consume all of it if not many people partake

 

[FrDavid96]

i thought priests cannot attend mass as lay people? therefore they should concelebrate?

we have a retired priest, the old (both literally and figuritavely) pastor of our parish. when he comes he’s always sitting in the sanctuary. he isn’t officially concelebrating i think, because he doesn’t perform any duties with the priest or read (publicly) any of the prayers, but he sits in the sanctuary and during consecration he stands by the altar and receives at the same time as our main celebrant. he doesn’t distribute communion (he’s over 90) as well

A priest should concelebrate, or at least be in the sanctuary (if he’s not able, like the retired priest)*. However this isn’t a strict rule as such–it’s not prohibited for him to participate as a layman, but it is improper.

• If he’s participating in the consecration though, he is concelebrating.

 

[choy]

A priest should concelebrate, or at least be in the sanctuary (if he’s not able, like the retired priest)*. However this isn’t a strict rule as such–it’s not prohibited for him to participate as a layman, but it is improper.

• If he’s participating in the consecration though, he is concelebrating.

i see
perhaps he just has a reduced role because of his age
although during our former pastor’s final mass in the parish, the elder priest did participate with some of the prayers

 

[tee_eff_em]

just popped into my head

we know that the priest must receive both species of the Eucharist

can he receive via intinction instead of drinking from the cup?

just curious. i’ve never seen it happen (at least as far as i can remember)

A priest of my acquaintance has done so on occasion and under exceptional circumstances. Each time he would explain to the congregation:

• 
  *]He had a cold, and did not want to pass germs via the chalice.
  *]As the celebrant, he was obligated to receive both species.
  ]As a priest, he is permitted to perform the intinction, but none of us were ever to do so under any circumstances.
  
  (* Unless one should eventually become ordained, and find himself celebrating Mass with a cold.)
  
  tee

 

[Angel_Bradford]

just popped into my head

we know that the priest must receive both species of the Eucharist

can he receive via intinction instead of drinking from the cup?

just curious. i’ve never seen it happen (at least as far as i can remember)

I have only seen this once and that was last year when the priest was battling a nasty cold or the start of the Flu, and he did not want to “share” his germs by drinking from the chalice.

 

[ZxM]

^ive never been to a mass where the priest didnt have his own seperate chalice.

ive always seen at least 3 used, 2 for the laity and one for the priest himself.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Joan:

It is NOT required that the faithful receive under both forms, but that is encouraged whenever possible.

The Lord is complete in either the form of the Bread or of the Wine. Under the beliefs of the Catholic Church, at the moment of consecration Jesus is present in both the forms, and one can receive either, or both and will have met any requirement for the taking of Communion.

In many Churches, people say: “The Blood of Christ” when giving the Chalice. They should say, “The Body of Christ”, because he is present in his entirety in both the Bread and in the Wine.

The Church has gone back and forth on the issue of the laity receiving under both forms. At times, it has encouraged one practice or the other. But in either practice, the faithful are receiving the entire and complete Body of Christ.

Communion wine is significantly stronger than common wine is (it is normally 18% alcohol or 36 proof). That is more than adequate to destroy most common germs and viruses that might be passed by using a common cup. Of course, if you know that you have a contagious disease, you should refrain from taking the cup.

But other than that, unless there is a medical reason not to (such as alcoholism), one should partake of both species whenever possible.

 

[Holly3278]

I am a Roman/Latin rite Catholic and I have only ever seen a priest receive from both species before. I have never seen a priest receive by intinction.

 

[tee_eff_em]

In many Churches, people say: “The Blood of Christ” when giving the Chalice. They should say, “The Body of Christ”, because he is present in his entirety in both the Bread and in the Wine.

While this may be theologically true, it is liturgically mistaken. Ministers are quite correct to say “The Blood of Christ” when proffering the chalice. The GIRM:

1. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says,* Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ)*, the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

1. 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.

Communion wine is significantly stronger than common wine is (it is normally 18% alcohol or 36 proof). That is more than adequate to destroy most common germs and viruses that might be passed by using a common cup. Of course, if you know that you have a contagious disease, you should refrain from taking the cup.

Which is it: Is sacramental wine sufficient to kill most common germs? Or am I infected with super germs, requiring me to refrain?

But other than that, unless there is a medical reason not to (such as alcoholism),

one should partake of both species whenever possible

.

If one so chooses. Again, the GIRM:

1. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,
   …
   Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.

No reason (medical nor otherwise) required.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’d meant to address this yesterday, but forgot until I read something on a related subject this morning. Apologies.

Communion wine is significantly stronger than common wine is (it is normally 18% alcohol or 36 proof). That is more than adequate to destroy most common germs and viruses that might be passed by using a common cup.

My understanding is that 18% was at one time (and may still be) the maximum alcoholic content permitted for sacramental wine. I do not make a habit of poking through my parish’s sacristy stores, but my recollection is that I have typically seen content more along the lines of 8%-12% (16-24 proof) – I could be mistaken.

In any case, according to Wikipedia, you want alcohol concentrations upwards of 70% to achieve effective disinfection.

If Wikipedia is too unreliable for your tastes, feel free to produce the “reliable” source of your choice (and subject to my vetting ), but I’ll bet you a dollar it says essentially the same thing.

tee

 

[Angel_Bradford]

^ive never been to a mass where the priest didnt have his own seperate chalice.

ive always seen at least 3 used, 2 for the laity and one for the priest himself.

This was a Mass where not many people were there, so everyone drank from the chalice.