Required to distribute the Precious Blood

[James0235]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

And, because of this, he decided at this particular Mass to have a “Eucharistic Minister” (his term here. not mine term or the Catholic Church’s term) distribute the body while he distributed the blood.

Now, I consider myself pretty well read in the documents of Vatican II. But, I can’t seem to recall ever reading this or even anything that he could have misinterpreted to mean this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

(Note: I am taking no issue with the fact that he distributed the precious blood instead of the hosts)

James

 

[FrDavid96]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

Someone made that up. Happens a lot with Vatican II documents.

 

[benedictgal]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

And, because of this, he decided at this particular Mass to have a “Eucharistic Minister” (his term here. not mine term or the Catholic Church’s term) distribute the body while he distributed the blood.

Now, I consider myself pretty well read in the documents of Vatican II. But, I can’t seem to recall ever reading this or even anything that he could have misinterpreted to mean this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

(Note: I am taking no issue with the fact that he distributed the precious blood instead of the hosts)

James

Perhaps, since, with all due respect, he does not realize that he is the Eucharistic Minister, he is misreading what the documents say. Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:

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

[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.

For the Chrism Mass, the priests of the diocese assist the bishop with the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. The documents envisioned this; not what was described in the OP. Unfortunately, this also happened when I was visiting a parish in San Antonio.

Now, here is what it says regarding Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and the celebrant’s duty:

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[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

[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.

The priest may not think that RS is a document of the Second Vatican Council; however, RS is necessary because it clarifies misconceptions that arose because of someone’s faulty interpretation of the documents.

 

[FrDavid96]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.
…

James

James,
Here is what Vatican II actually said in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same Sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
The part about the Council of Trent refers to: Session XXI, July 16, 1562. Doctrine on Communion under Both Species, chap. 1-3: Condlium Tridentinum.

Now, let’s see what Trent (referenced in Vatican II) had to say on the matter:

Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species.

Unfortunately, this is another example of someone saying that Vatican II said the exact opposite of what Vatican II actually said.

 

[japhy]

The possibility of Communion under both kinds is found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, as Fr. David pointed out. The list of occasions during which Communion under both kinds is permitted started out small (at Vatican II) and slowly (?) grew larger and larger.

I have three posts (here and here (briefer version of previous post) and here) that go over the history of the concession of the Chalice since Vatican II.

Long story short: Vatican II did not envision Communion under both kinds being a regular or “normal” occurrence. There was a set list of a dozen or so circumstances in the late 60’s / early 70’s. In 1975, the US adaptation of the GIRM included “weekday Masses” to the list of occasions at which the Chalice could be conceded. In 1978, the US Bishops extended this to all holy days of obligation (Sundays included). Nowadays, the Bishop can even let parish pastors decided when to concede the Chalice.

The current situation seems entirely opposite the original intention (which was held for a decade or so) that “Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.”

The problem is that many US Bishops don’t understand this. That is how Communion under both kinds being permitted at EVERY MASS EVERY DAY in the US got started. Bishops in 1978 believed they had the right to do so, and permitted it (my bishop REQUIRES it!), despite Inaestimabile Donum in 1980 which said, in part: “With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed … Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.” (n. 12) The permission of Communion under both kinds on weekday and Sunday Masses does not fit that description. It was not until 1984 that Rome officially permitted Communion under both kinds in the US (and this is now reflected in the Latin GIRM).

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

And, because of this, he decided at this particular Mass to have a “Eucharistic Minister” (his term here. not mine term or the Catholic Church’s term) distribute the body while he distributed the blood.

Now, I consider myself pretty well read in the documents of Vatican II. But, I can’t seem to recall ever reading this or even anything that he could have misinterpreted to mean this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

(Note: I am taking no issue with the fact that he distributed the precious blood instead of the hosts)

James

A priest should distribute the Precious Blood when and if an extra concelebrant or non-celebrating priest is available. If no priest is available a Deacon should, and if no Deacon is available an EMHC should. IF on one is available the Precious Blood should not be distributed to the laity. Only the main celebrating priest is required to receive under both forms.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“284. 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;”

So difficult to understand the priest’s idea.

 

[japhy]

… the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

I totally misread that the first time.

In other words, a priest must devote equal time to administering Communion under the form of bread and to administering Communion under the form of wine.

That is a new one. I’ve never heard anything like that before. Points for creativity.

 

[FrDavid96]

I totally misread that the first time.

In other words, a priest must devote equal time to administering Communion under the form of bread and to administering Communion under the form of wine.

That is a new one. I’ve never heard anything like that before. Points for creativity.

The problem with those kind of points is that the scoring system works like golf.

 

[FrDavid96]

Very recently a priest made the comment at the beginning of communion that the documents of Vatican II require a priest to personally distribute the precious blood just as often as he distributes the hosts. For every time he distributes the hosts he must distribute the precious blood.

And, because of this, he decided at this particular Mass to have a “Eucharistic Minister” (his term here. not mine term or the Catholic Church’s term) distribute the body while he distributed the blood.

Now, I consider myself pretty well read in the documents of Vatican II. But, I can’t seem to recall ever reading this or even anything that he could have misinterpreted to mean this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

(Note: I am taking no issue with the fact that he distributed the precious blood instead of the hosts)

James

James,
I would suggest that you approach the priest and ask him to show you just where it says that in the Vatican II documents. Take a copy of the book along with you, as I highly suspect that his responses will go like this, and in this order:

1. I don’t have the book with me.
2. I don’t know the exact reference, there’s a lot of material there.
3. Well, you see, those words actually mean…
4. I’m talking about the spirit of Vatican II, not necessarily the words.

I would be most curios to know what would happen if you did this.

 

[James0235]

It is just as I thought. There is no document that could possibly be misinterpreted to mean that the priest must personally distribute the Precious Blood just as often as he distributes the hosts.

James,
I would suggest that you approach the priest and ask him to show you just where it says that in the Vatican II documents. Take a copy of the book along with you, as I highly suspect that his responses will go like this, and in this order:

1. I don’t have the book with me.
2. I don’t know the exact reference, there’s a lot of material there.
3. Well, you see, those words actually mean…
4. I’m talking about the spirit of Vatican II, not necessarily the words.

I would be most curios to know what would happen if you did this.

Father,
Thank you for the advice. But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I will most likely not be seeing this priest again. Otherwise, I would gladly do this. Asking questions such as these is the reason my pastor dislikes me so much

James

 

[James0235]

I totally misread that the first time.

In other words, a priest must devote equal time to administering Communion under the form of bread and to administering Communion under the form of wine.

That is a new one. I’ve never heard anything like that before. Points for creativity.

He gets more points for creativity:

He made everyone stand in line for the Precious Blood - even if they did not intend to receive. Those who were not receiving were instructed to take the chalice from him with both hands and then hand it back to him. He said that to not stand in line for the Precious Blood was a sign of disrespect.

Of course, I am sure that he did not see his making up his own Offertory Prayers, or his rewriting of Eucharist Prayer III, or his hour long homily (yes, you read that right) on a variety of topics that had nothing to do with the Readings as being disrespectful at all.

James

 

[benedictgal]

He gets more points for creativity:

He made everyone stand in line for the Precious Blood - even if they did not intend to receive. Those who were not receiving were instructed to take the chalice from him with both hands and then hand it back to him. He said that to not stand in line for the Precious Blood was a sign of disrespect.

Of course, I am sure that he did not see his making up his own Offertory Prayers, or his rewriting of Eucharist Prayer III, or his hour long homily (yes, you read that right) on a variety of topics that had nothing to do with the Readings as being disrespectful at all.

James

Even though he is a visiting priest, that does not excuse his errant behavior. Your pastor should be notified. What you described are multiple violations of Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Eucharistic Prayer amendment is most troubling:

. The Eucharistic Prayer
[51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers"129 or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.130

Regarding the homily, the same document notes that:

[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church.147 It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ Himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.148

While I do not want to pass judgment, based on what you have written, the way I see it, the priest was the one who was showing grave disrespect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As I said, you should tell the pastor as soon as possible. There is no telling what other seeds of error this priest might be spreading in the various areas he visits.

We had a situation almost like what you experienced happen back in December. One of the parishes had an Advent/Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission/Novena. The visting priest was from Mexico and he did a lot of strange things. He had the faithful recite the Collect with him (it was his own creation because it focused on the mission). He preached for an hour long (not that this is an abuse, but, he was walking up and down the aisles). When it came time to distribute Holy Communion, he sat down while the pastor and four EMHCs distributed Holy Communion.

I spoke to him after Mass and charitably told him that what he did was against both the GIRM and RS. He said that different priests have different ways. I told him that even the GIRM used for the Mexican Episcopal Conference does not allow for the variances that I witnessed that night and that RS is a universal document. He just looked at me.

A couple of days later, I happened to run into our bishop during our city’s Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony. I told him what happened and he was not very pleased. Unfortunately, the pastor of the parish in question also has a reputation for playing fast and loose with both the GIRM and RS. Some time passed. The pastor showed up to sub for our pastor. He celebrated Mass in the usual manner with no variances.