Self-serve chalice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SPQR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SPQR

Guest
I was recently at a weekday mass in a different town, and during the reception of communion the priest distributed the host as is usually done, but left the chalice on the altar for people to go up to and take for themselves. This struck me as wrong (seemed like I’d be taking instead of receiving), so I didn’t do it, but do any of you know if this is licit?
Thanks.
 
SPQR said:
I was recently at a weekday mass in a different town, and during the reception of communion the priest distributed the host as is usually done, but left the chalice on the altar for people to go up to and take for themselves. This struck me as wrong (seemed like I’d be taking instead of receiving), so I didn’t do it, but do any of you know if this is licit?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
This is totally forbidden. It is considered one of the more serious liturgical abuses in the most recent document on such. No one other than a priest is permitted to self-communicate.
 
Joan_M said:
This is totally forbidden. It is considered one of the more serious liturgical abuses in the most recent document on such. No one other than a priest is permitted to self-communicate.
Click to expand...
I recently read an interesting thing- most Catholics today do self-communicate.

If one recieves in the hand, their hand becomes in effect a ciborium from which the communicant takes the host and places it in their own mouth. In recieving from the chalice, the communicant takes the chalice into their own hands to drink from it.
 
Caesar said:
I recently read an interesting thing- most Catholics today do self-communicate.

If one recieves in the hand, their hand becomes in effect a ciborium from which the communicant takes the host and places it in their own mouth. In recieving from the chalice, the communicant takes the chalice into their own hands to drink from it.
Click to expand...
Well surely you aren’t suggesting that we have someone hold the cup to our lips.

I believe self-communication is when a person says “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” to himself, then partakes. A priest does this when he says inaudibly, “The Body of Christ bring me to everlasting life” (or something like that) and then he partakes.

When you have a minister say “The Body” (or Blood) “of Christ” and the the person partakes by the hand or by a cup, that is not self-communication.
 
jpjd said:
Well surely you aren’t suggesting that we have someone hold the cup to our lips.

I believe self-communication is when a person says “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” to himself, then partakes. A priest does this when he says inaudibly, “The Body of Christ bring me to everlasting life” (or something like that) and then he partakes.

When you have a minister say “The Body” (or Blood) “of Christ” and the the person partakes by the hand or by a cup, that is not self-communication.
Click to expand...
I think you’re quite correct. There would be massive danger of spillage and sacrilege regarding the Precious Blood were someone to insist on holding the cup to the lips of the communicant and somehow figuring out how far to tilt the cup when the contents couldn’t be seen. Taking the Host or the Cup from the hands of an authorized minister wouldn’t seem to be self-communication.

That said, I can think of an exception to the self-communication rule: when a deacon or authorized layperson leads a Communion Service, that deacon or layperson must of necessity self-communicate from the reserved Hosts. But of course that isn’t a Mass.
 
SPQR said:
I was recently at a weekday mass in a different town, and during the reception of communion the priest distributed the host as is usually done, but left the chalice on the altar for people to go up to and take for themselves. This struck me as wrong (seemed like I’d be taking instead of receiving), so I didn’t do it, but do any of you know if this is licit?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
To answer your question, it is illicit, BUT the priest could have easily solved this by simple intinction, the priest being the intcintor, and the communicants opening hteir mouths wide to receive.
 
SPQR said:
I was recently at a weekday mass in a different town, and during the reception of communion the priest distributed the host as is usually done, but left the chalice on the altar for people to go up to and take for themselves. This struck me as wrong (seemed like I’d be taking instead of receiving), so I didn’t do it, but do any of you know if this is licit?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
It’s not only ilicit, it’s outright specifically forbidden. Let the Bishop know.
 
It is a serious liturgical abuse. It goes against the meaning of the Communion Rite. I believe it is specifically prohibited in the G.I.R.M. and Redemptoris Sacramentum. You should contact your bishop.
 
I don’t see the problem at all. Actually this could be revolutionary.

Think of it, have the Ciborum, if not available just use any tupperware container and Chalice, if none available use a Kool Aid pitcher, and a couple of stacks of edible paper cups. Sit them up on the communion table and after whoever is saying the Mass, priest preferably, but hey lets not get too technical on this after all, we are all to some degree priests right:thumbsup: , does his or her thing just have an old fashioned altar call and let the party start.

Just think of the bonding as mothers tenderly commune their kids and husbands and wives exchange Holy Communion. Boyfriends and girlfriends could also grow closer through the amazing miracle of transubstantiation. The social outcasts who shun human contact would be free to self communicate. The need for extraordinary ministers would disappear and the Priest shortage would have no bearing at all on anything anymore.

Actually we could do away with the altar call and just have the respective elements strategically placed at the end of each pew and they could be passed around. Spillage could be curtailed by the use of straws and prepackaged packets of the Precious Blood, kind of like Capri Suns .

AND, in this scenario we could do away with the need of having a priest or deacon or anyone for that matter at the communion table and just use video screens. Just think the Holy Father himself presiding at each and every Mass!!! It couldn’t get any better than this.

ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION 👍 👍 👍
**
YES THIS POST IS PURE SARCASM**

BUT I have seen each and every one of the things that I have mentioned here happen at one time or another in the past forty years so it is not at all as far fetched as some might believe.

Except for the pre packaged packets of the Holy Blood that is.:eek: . My granddaughter was drinking a Capri Sun and I got inspired.
 
Caesar said:
I recently read an interesting thing- most Catholics today do self-communicate.

If one recieves in the hand, their hand becomes in effect a ciborium from which the communicant takes the host and places it in their own mouth. In recieving from the chalice, the communicant takes the chalice into their own hands to drink from it.
Click to expand...
You need to watch what you are reading. That is absolutely total EDIT nonsense that people receiving in the hand are self-communicating. That is simply the opinion of someone who 1) doesn’t like communion in the hand and 2) chooses to ignore the fact that Rome has specifically granted permission for Communion in the hand and did not withdrw that by their comments about self-communication.

Self communication means specifically reaching into the ciborium to take a Host, or going up to the altar or other location where the Chalice is unattended and picking it up to drink.

Go read the documents; rome is eminently capable of explaining what they mean and if they intended to withdraw permission to receive in the hand, they would have said so.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
To answer your question, it is illicit, BUT the priest could have easily solved this by simple intinction, the priest being the intcintor, and the communicants opening hteir mouths wide to receive.
Click to expand...
He also could have legitimately had someone hold the Cup as an EMHC; the rules allow a one time deputing of the administration of the Cup.
 
Folks: Just a friendly reminder that CAF has a forum section for those who prefer the Traditional Liturgy and practice. Please take those discussions there.
 
Caesar said:
I recently read an interesting thing- most Catholics today do self-communicate.

If one recieves in the hand, their hand becomes in effect a ciborium from which the communicant takes the host and places it in their own mouth. In recieving from the chalice, the communicant takes the chalice into their own hands to drink from it.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me and I agree. It is exactly what I and the medical world would call self-communicating.

However, those who claim to like communion in the hand will rationalize and call it something else. And no doubt they’ll cite the Vatican’s “approval” of it to back up their rationalization.
 
The only time I have ever been at a Mass where the people were to take the wine from the chalice on the altar, was at one of our Discalced Carmelite Meetings, where the priest said Mass in a small chapel, I mean, the chapel could hold no more than 10 people. and there were only 4 of us attending. He offered the cup to all of us, after we received the host.

I didn’t have a problem with this and I doubt it was an abuse in this situation.

Perhaps in the OP’rs case, being it was a week-day Mass, there weren’t many people in attendance?

Jim
 
This happened earlier this year in a neighbouring parish. The priest left the precious blood on the altar for us to take it ourselves. Not one person went up. This was a sizable congregation, so Father had to drink it all up afterwards, bearing in mind that the alcoholic properties remain…
 
Hi Jim,

In response to your post, this was a pretty small gathering (perhaps 20 or so people) in a side chapel. The cup was never offered to us directly (perhaps one could say he did this indirectly during the consecration, but to my thinking that would be a stretch), he just put it on the altar behind where he was standing, so that after receiving the Eucharist a communicant wanting to receive both species just went up, took the cup off the altar, had a drink, then put it back for the next person. The whole thing left me with a pretty bad, this-can’t-be-right kind of feeling.

As for speaking to the bishop as Br Rich and TantumErgo suggested, I thought if I was going to speak with anyone that I should speak with the priest first (seems to me that this would be the only fair thing to do), but I’ve never done that sort of thing before and so I wanted to see if this was really as big a problem as it seemed to me with my admittedly limited understanding. Any advice on how to approach such a situation would be greatly appreciated.
 
SPQR
In response to your post, this was a pretty small gathering (perhaps 20 or so people) in a side chapel. The cup was never offered to us directly (perhaps one could say he did this indirectly during the consecration, but to my thinking that would be a stretch), he just put it on the altar behind where he was standing, so that after receiving the Eucharist a communicant wanting to receive both species just went up, took the cup off the altar, had a drink, then put it back for the next person.
Click to expand...
I really don’t have a problem with this, in this as you describe the situation.
As for speaking to the bishop as Br Rich and TantumErgo suggested, I thought if I was going to speak with anyone that I should speak with the priest first (seems to me that this would be the only fair thing to do), but I’ve never done that sort of thing before and so I wanted to see if this was really as big a problem as it seemed to me with my admittedly limited understanding. Any advice on how to approach such a situation would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
By all means, speak with the priest. Your priest is a human being with feelings. If he is doing nothing wrong,(because in your dioceses may actually allow the priest to use his own discresion) you would be insulting his integrity.

Take what people say in this forum with a huge grain of salt, and place more trust in the integrity of your priest.

God Bless
Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top