Self-communication?

[JustSomeGuy]

i thought that i had read somewhere, possibly not in an official document, that only the ordained, i.e. a priest or deacon, may give himself Communion. however i cannot find any definitive statement about it, one way or the other.

there are regulations in the GIRM (160, 284, et al.) and in Redeptionis Sacramentum and in other places where such a rule can be construed, but that is not very concrete. in my search for an exact statement, i was surprised to find that Immensae Caritatis says: “Local Ordinaries possess the faculty enabling them to permit fit persons, each chosen by name as a special minister, in a given instance or for a set period or even permanently, to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful and to carry it to the sick residing at home.” (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 1973, emphasis added.) perhaps the phrase “to themselves” means and should be interpreted as ‘to one another’, since the object of the sentence is the plural “persons.” this would be consistent with what i thought i knew, but i may be imposing my view on the document.

so the question is, does anyone know an explicit answer to this issue? i must be able to cite Church documents.

this issue arose when, in my parish, the extraordinary ministers consume the remaining Blood of Christ after Communion by themselves. unfortunately, they usually do so before returning to the sanctuary, or even while walking back! but that is another issue. the GIRM seems to reserve consuming the remaining Blood to the priest, deacon, or even the instituted acolyte at the altar after Communion. at the very least, it seems that they should be required to present the chalice to one another, announcing “The Blood of Christ”, as is required for all the faithful receiving Communion. otherwise, this amounts to self-communication.

a detailed answer with citings would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Mysty101]

from the GIRM

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[otm]

Mysty101:

from the GIRM

Mysty, I think if you look further, you will find the answer to his questions. I don’t have my copy handy.

 

[Mysty101]

I thought that was the answer----

Here’s the link to the GIRM
usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

 

[JustSomeGuy]

well, as it turns out, i was able to find the answer to this, at least in the l.a. archdiocese. while i was aware of GIRM 160, take note of the following:

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, no. 52:

1. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.”(54) When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop…[stranglely, enough, the footnote above references GIRM 287, which has nothing to do with this. it may be a reference to the previous edition.]
   even though no.44 says (emphasis added):
2. The chalice may never be left on the altar or another place to be picked up by the communicant for self-communication (except in the case of concelebrating bishops or priests), nor may the chalice be passed from one communicant to another. There shall always be a minister of the chalice.

unfortunately, since we are talking about l.a., where anything is allowed in the mass, the diocesan guidelines say:

1. Following the distribution of Communion, the ministers of the Eucharist consume the remaining Precious Blood from their chalices at a side table or in the sacristy (except as noted below, #28). The ministers of the Body of Christ or other appropriate people may be asked to assist in the consumption of the Precious Blood if needed…
   so there you go. i must say though that it is my opinion that the discretion offered to the local bishops in matters such as these are political concessions made for bishops who would do whatever they want anyhow. you just can’t have all these guys looking like dissident improvisors. ? it seems to me that a bishop, who gives the Eucharist the love and respect it (He) deserves, would never make this concession, even though it is offered.

i hope this helps others. trust in the Divine Justice on the last the last day.

john

 

[JustSomeGuy]

hello again,

i forgot to ask in the last post if this issue has arisen in other parishes. or is this a non-issue and i am just over sensitive?

john

 

[otm]

JustSomeGuy:

hello again,

i forgot to ask in the last post if this issue has arisen in other parishes. or is this a non-issue and i am just over sensitive?

john

I am not sure what you mean by the issue arising in other parishes. I know that when the GIRM was put in place, my parish liturgy committee went over the changes and started working to impliment them.

The issue of self-communication certainly was brought out by the GIRM, but if you think it through logically, they are not self-communicating if the priest presented the cup to them before they started distributing. They would only be self-communicating if they went up to the altar and picked up the cup, instead of having it presented to them by the priest. Generally, they receive from the cup right then and there, but receiving again at the end of the distribution of Communion would not become self-communication.

And yes, I would hazard a guess you are a bit sensitive. Much is made in these threads about abuses, and there seems to be little understanding of levels of seriousness, coupled with an almost anal approach to every liturgical rule and a general distaste for many of the rules. I do not suggest that anyone should be lax in any way. On the other hand, if we are paying attention to what we are at Mass for in the first place - to worship God - then I would submit that paying attention to that would reduce the amount of attention being payed to the minute observance of every liturgical act in terms of its licitness or validity.

And yes, I have heard the comments that certain individuals cannot worship well if things are not done properly. My reaction is that they seem a little too close to treating the Sacraments as magic. To make a poor analogy: When (rarely) I go dancing, I do not pay a whole lot of attention to how well my partner executes a particular step. Yes, there is a proper way to do that step. But I am there to enjoy the music, my partner, and the general process of the dance. I have met some dancers who have to execute the steps just exactly so; and they don’t seem to obtain much, if any pleasure from anything other than the specific execution of those specific steps. They think they are good dancers, but they have forgotten what dancing is all about. The steps are only the means to the dance, not the dance itself.

Hope that helps.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

you are right that is a poor analogy. you make no sense. first, if you were paying attention to what you should at mass, the worship of God, you would want that same God treated exactly right at every moment. that sort of attitude you’ve described as the worship of God, but it sounds like you are there to get something for yourself. if it were a dance, then you would be right, little would matter, we should just have a good time. but it’s not a dance and it is nothing like it. what people here are concerned about is that some people want to treat it like, and turn it into, a dance.

the mass is not there to make you or i feel warm and fuzzy. we should be receiving joy from God, not from the surroundings, etc. if you walk out feeling warm and fuzzy without giving Him your best, then you are just a thief. the details matter.

in short, that analogy didn’t help much.

 

[OhioBob]

With regard to EMHCs consuming the precious blood in view of the congregation, our Bishop directed the EMHCs to consume any remaining precious blood at the side table or in front of the tabernacle in view of the congregation so that there would be no doubt that it was consumed entirely.

I must confess to getting irked when masses stray from the norms, but I don’t see that as being hung up on the magic or superstition of the “steps” themselves. I feel that the norms are there to protect the traditions and rituals of the Church and straying from the norms dilutes the rituals and eventually can dilute someon’e faith. There is an old saying something to the effect that “ritual is the means by which the church passes on it’s history”. There is another that says something like “to destroy a church, first destroy it’s rituals”.

Besides, I hate to dance.

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

We recently had some new directives from our bishop. (Within the last year is what is called recent) In the past the deacon would receive The Host from the priest and self communicate the Precious Blood. Now in our diocese, even the deacon must receive the Host and Precious blood from the priest. The Ems are likewise not allow self-communication.

Deacon Tony SFO

 

[Mysty101]

but receiving again at the end of the distribution of Communion would not become self-communication.

Consuming the Precious Blood is not considered “receiving again”. It is a continuation of the same Communion. Once, after a papal Mass there were many fragments of Hosts brought back to the Parish, because of the size of the congregation, and there was no way to judge how many were needed. Our Pastor kept them in the tabernakle, and asked a few of the EMHC to come to the Sacristy after daily Mass and help him consume them. He did say that it was to be considered a continuation of the Communion at Mass, and not reception again.

 

[otm]

JustSomeGuy:

you are right that is a poor analogy. you make no sense. first, if you were paying attention to what you should at mass, the worship of God, you would want that same God treated exactly right at every moment. that sort of attitude you’ve described as the worship of God, but it sounds like you are there to get something for yourself. if it were a dance, then you would be right, little would matter, we should just have a good time. but it’s not a dance and it is nothing like it. what people here are concerned about is that some people want to treat it like, and turn it into, a dance.

the mass is not there to make you or i feel warm and fuzzy. we should be receiving joy from God, not from the surroundings, etc. if you walk out feeling warm and fuzzy without giving Him your best, then you are just a thief. the details matter.

in short, that analogy didn’t help much.

I think I said in my response that it was a poor analogy. The point that I was trying to get to is that Yes, I think you are a bit oversensitive. If you would prefer, I’ll say it another way: I suspect you are pushing a bit towards what I call the liturgy police. I have a hard time understanding how so many people can be so focused on the minutiae; they strike me as focusing on, or paying attention to, the rubrics themselves rather than on what the rubrics are about: worship.

Let me try it another way: after I have received Communion, I continue to pray through the form of the Communion hymn we are singing, accepting the old adage that he who sings prays twice. When the song is done, I spend some time in prayer conversing with Christ, whom I have just received. I am not paying attention to what the EMHCs are doing, because paying attention to them would be distracting from my prayer time with Christ. So I have to wonder how someone else is so “up” on what the EMHCs are doing, and I have to think that the observer is wondering to themselves “Gee, that doesn’t seem right to me; i wonder if that is a liturgical abuse?”

Now, of course, maybe I’m wrong.

And so maybe my analogy wasn’t the best; but I was trying to say that it seems that there is too much focus on the legal aspect of the liturgical rules, rather than what is behind them, which is the worship of God. Legalism isn’t new to the Church; in fact, it was if fine form prior to Vatican 2 in the area of moral theology. I do not promote in any way, shape or form the intentional violation of the rubrics of the Mass. I also don’t get as upset as some people do over things that they see as abusive. I consider abuse to be something intentionally done; too much of what is called abuse is just a lack of awareness of what is right, and why. The rubrics are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves; but the furor over them leads me to believe they are given more importance than they deserve. It is not that they are unimportant. but not as important as some profess.

And if I want warm and fuzzy, I’ll hug my blankey… and I am not there to “get something for myself”; I am there to worship God, and that doesn’t include micromanaging the priest, and the altar servers, and the lectors, and the cantors, and the EMHCs and the sacristan and all who go up to receive Communion.