As the ordinary minister of Holy Communion, the priest is supposed to distribute the Body of Christ. The Precious Blood is supposed to be distributed by the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the event that the ordinary minister is not available.The other day our priest handed the Host to two extraordinary ministers and then he and some one else went over to the side and distributed the cup. Is this right? Does it say anywhere in the G.I.R.M. that the priest should distribute the Host? Thanks.
Further down the line, RS notes that:
- The distribution of Holy Communion
[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant’s Communion.172 It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.173
[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258
I don’t know if this sufficiently answers your question. Let me, however, give you an example of when a priest administers under the form of the Precious Blood. When a friend of mine was conferred the rank of monsignor, there was a plethora of priests present for the Mass. All of them distributed communion, either from the ciborria or the chalice. My friend administered the Precious Blood. During our diocese’s first diaconate ordination, the priests and deacons likewise followed similar practice.[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
And yet, there is something suspicious about his actions. In distributing the Host, a minister must physically touch the Sacred Species. In distributing the Chalice, a minister is only touching the Sacred Vessel, not what it contains.I don’t know if I’m reading it right or not, but it says the priest should administer communion. The cup is part of communion. It dosen’t say specificly it must be the Host.
What did your priest say when you asked him why he did this?The other day our priest handed the Host to two extraordinary ministers and then he and some one else went over to the side and distributed the cup. Is this right? Does it say anywhere in the G.I.R.M. that the priest should distribute the Host? Thanks.
I don’t think that the original intent for allowing EMHC’s was to “speed up the Communion line.” Cardinal Arinze addressed this particular issue during a Q & A session (published by Adoremus):At all weekend Masses, we have 7 EMHC’s. Are they are needed? in some cases probably not, but it does speed up the Communion line though. For Easter and Christmas, we usually add an additional 2 to 3 ministers.
Persons planning a wedding: Can they just pick anyone to be a Eucharistic minister at their wedding Mass, even if they’re not approved?
Well, the question of Eucharistic minister – you mean the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, that is, those who will help the priest and the deacon when the priest and the deacon are not [sufficient] to give Holy Communion to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds who are receiving Communion. That’s what we mean by Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Which means that if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion, nobody else should dare to come near the altar and touch the sacred vessel to distribute Communion, because they were not ordained for that.
It’s very important to stress that, because some people do not understand the whole point of these Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Some people think that it is a power struggle for lay people to prove that what the priest can do, so can they. Which means if there are not many people to receive Communion – suppose there are three priests or two priests and one deacon and 100 people to receive Communion – then there is no need for even one single Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
However, I noticed in this country many people insist on receiving under two forms – that means, the form of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. If the bishop has approved it, that’s all right. But it means it demands a lot of care because it is so easy to spill the Precious Blood.
It is so easy, and, as you mentioned earlier, in these days of disease, some people are worried if there are up to 50 people drinking from the same cup. Some people are hesitant.
Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the Precious Blood and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.
Even though the person asked about weddings, the same principal applies to regular Sunday Mass.So the full answer to the question is, if the communicants are not too many and the ordinary ministers – that means priests and deacons – are enough; the question of Extraordinary Ministers does not arise. Therefore, there is no question of choosing them.
Unfortunately, “necessity” has been loosely interpreted in many parishes.
- The distribution of Holy Communion
[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant’s Communion.172 It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.173
One can certainly interpret Redemptionis Sacramentum to mean that speed is not necessarily a justification for having 7 EMCH’s. Here is what it says:What ever the original intent, my parish has stated the reason for 7 EMHC’s is speed. Do I agree with that?, No!, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Right now we have a very liberal priest, and this is the way he likes it.
I am curious, is the number of faithful so great that you need 7 EMHCs to distribute Holy Communion?[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
In my old parish in Austin, we only used three for certain Masses because we were in the 230-250 range. Using seven though, doesn’t make sense. Now, I should add that we also distributed Holy Communion under both species.At the 3 weekend Masses, we average 230-250 people each. Very large for my town here in Tennessee.
Even on days when slightly more then 200 are in attendence, we still use that many EMCH’s.
Even with more people than that (read - Christmas) we only use 3, one to help Fr with distribution of the Hosts and one on each side with the chalices. I estimate that at any given Sunday Mass only about 10% of communicants receive under both species.At the 3 weekend Masses, we average 230-250 people each. Very large for my town here in Tennessee.
Even on days when slightly more then 200 are in attendence, we still use that many EMCH’s.
- When Communion is distributed under both kinds:
a. the chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is
present, by a priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another
extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or by a member of the
faithful who, in case of necessity, has been entrusted with this duty for a
single occasion;
To a certain extent, the passage from RS does address the OP’s problem because, as it is indicated in RS:Returning to the OP, the passages quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum don’t seem to address your question. Your suspicion that the priest should distribute the hosts rather than the wine seems to be confirmed by the GIRM, which states,
That phrase pretty much says it all, although, the GIRM is more specific, as you noted. Nonetheless, it is the priest’s responsibility, unless he is ill or there is some sort of grave condition.172 It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion
And yet as someone pointed out above, the Precious Blood is also communion so you haven’t answered the OP’s question.That phrase pretty much says it all, although, the GIRM is more specific, as you noted. Nonetheless, it is the priest’s responsibility, unless he is ill or there is some sort of grave condition.
I think in this instance, Communion is understood as the Sacred Host, although, technically, it does involve both Sacred Species. Even though the reception via the chalice is proper, a majority of the Masses only distribute under one species. RS also makes a distinction regarding reception from the chalice (cup):And yet as someone pointed out above, the Precious Blood is also communion so you haven’t answered the OP’s question.
If this was the only time he ministered the chalice, I’d assume he had a good reason for it. If he did it regularly I’d ask him why. (In my case it would be genuine curiosity.)
[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188
Now, the passage in my earlier posts refers solely to Communion under the species of the Sacred Host. RS has a separate and distinct section devoted to Communion under both kinds, as the quote above indicates. Therefore, the first section that I quoted in my earlier posts is germaine to the discussion. You need to read the sections carefully in order to get the complete picture.[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
Yes, the OP literally asked if the priest should distribute the host. Answer according to RS: Yes.To a certain extent, the passage from RS does address the OP’s problem because, as it is indicated in RS: