SPLIT: Hosts remaining after Mass questions

[allhers]

Here is one of the things I was referring to:

1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.73

source:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3c

 

[allhers]

…and this:

Planning
30. When Holy Communion is to be distributed under both species, careful planning should be undertaken so that:
enough bread and wine are made ready for the communication of the faithful at each Mass. (45) As a general rule, Holy Communion is given from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and not from those reserved in the tabernacle.

and this:
Preparations
32. Before Mass begins, wine and hosts should be provided in vessels of appropriate size and number. The presence on the altar of a single chalice and one large paten can signify the one bread and one chalice by which we are gathered “into the one Body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.” (47) When this is not possible, care should be taken that the number of vessels should not exceed the need…

source:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

 

[diggerdomer]

Preference, no, you’re right. Convenience - why not? If a priest is extremely elderly and incapacitated then it certainly might be more convenient for him not to distribute communion by himself, but he may let others do so while he sits down. That sort of convenience is perfectly good reason to ignore a Church ‘preference’ that priests distribute communion themselves.

Why are you so intent on assuming the worst - ie that all else IS equal in most situations where priests consecrate lots of hosts and that they are DELIBERATELY choosing to go against the Church’s preference? For starters I’ve seen plenty of churches that seem not to resort to the Tabernacle before Communion at each Mass - including those that use the method where individuals will place their own unconsecrated host in a bowl at the Church door before entering so the number is approximately right.

Neither you nor I are privy to all the possible reasons why priests consecrate the number of hosts that they do. Nor does a priest need to explain his reasons to you or anyone apart from his Bishop should the Bishop become concerned about it.

At least one situation where I can see it making lots of sense is that of large Churches with many Masses of a Sunday. One chuch in this diocese has 11 Masses each and every Sunday.

See, attendance at each particular Mass in such churches can vary dramatically from week to week, I know this from my own experience. A Mass time that is packed one week can be much less well-attended the next. And vice versa. So there’s simply no way for a priest of judging with any accuracy how many people will turn up at a given Mass on a given Sunday.

And the priest always needs to consecrate enough so that he won’t run out - and it’s not like in a large Mass he can a) take tiem out to get an accurate head count of the congregation AND b) painstakingly and timeconsumingly measure out with exactitude the number of Hosts required. So the end result will frequently be excess.

Rather than go through the wasteful process of consuming ALL the excess hosts after EVERY single one of those 11 Masses - it makes incredibly good sense to reserve the remainder from the earlier Masses instead, so that priests at the later Masses can safely consecrate lesser numbers of Hosts.

I’m pretty sure you’ll dislike this analogy, but I think it’s valid so I’ll share it for what it’s worth (which I expect you’ll think little).

If you are having a dinner party and invite people over, do you intentionally cook way more than you know you’ll need?

Thanks to allhers for the applicable posts, I agree. Read those remarks along with mine.

Cheers

 

[The_Fool]

The only way to minimize the number of consecrated hosts after Communion is for all those planning on receiving to arrive on time, and add one piece to the… I forgot the word, but to add one piece for every one of them. I understand some parishes do that, where before Mass parishioners will add one host to the… chalice? before consecration. If they show up after consecration, too bad. My parish does not, but is fairly strict about how much is consecrated at each particular mass. We have to be careful as our bishop greatly dislikes a large excess of consecrated hosts in the tabernacle.

The only valid exception I can think of for purposefully consecrating far too many hosts is Holy Thursday before Good Friday.

 

[LilyM]

I’m pretty sure you’ll dislike this analogy, but I think it’s valid so I’ll share it for what it’s worth (which I expect you’ll think little).

If you are having a dinner party and invite people over, do you intentionally cook way more than you know you’ll need?

Thanks to allhers for the applicable posts, I agree. Read those remarks along with mine.

Cheers

If we compare the priest to the dinner party cook - fact is he often DOESN’T with any sort of accuracy ‘know how much he’ll need’. It’s not like he personally chose a limited guest list of people that he’s personally and individually invited. On the contrary, he’s in fact just thrown open his doors to all comers.

As a result, almost any number of people could turn up. So he is basically forced to cater for the maximum number of people that he might reasonably expect, not the average, not the minimum.

Besides which, the initial point of your question was ‘why would there be so many Hosts consecrated that some be put back in the tabernacle after Communion’, was it not?

Fact is there might just be a very few leftover Hosts (unless you can look into the ciborium yourself each time and know otherwise, you don’t know that it’s EVER ‘way more than reasonably necessary’), and that small quantity would entirely reasonably be reserved for sick visits during the week.

 

[FrDavid96]

If you are having a dinner party and invite people over, do you intentionally cook way more than you know you’ll need?

Yes. If you are anticipating the possibility that more guests will arrive than the number which are already in the house when the cooking begins. If I cook for 10 people and 12 arrive, am I supposed to tell the last 2 that they have to sit there and watch everyone else consume because they were the last ones to arrive? If I have a dinner party every week, and somewhere between 10 and 14 guests show up every week, I don’t prepare for 10 and hope that the other 4 have already eaten or won’t show. I cook for 14, maybe 15 and if that means leftovers, better that than a hungry guest. Good analogy by the way, thanks.

Attendance at Sunday Mass varries. Common practice (and common sense) is to have just a little bit more hosts (both new and already consecrated) than the priest can anticipate needing at that Mass just in case there are more than the usual number.

If attendance varries by 5%, at a Mass with 2000 people, that translates into 100 hosts. Should the priest make an announcement just before the distribution of Communion that the last 100 people to walk into the door should refrain from receiving Communion because if he distributes the hosts from the tabernacle he would be going against the Church’s preference? Or should he use some other criteria for deciding who does not get to receive at that Mass?

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. If you are anticipating the possibility that more guests will arrive than the number which are already in the house when the cooking begins. If I cook for 10 people and 12 arrive, am I supposed to tell the last 2 that they have to sit there and watch everyone else consume because they were the last ones to arrive? If I have a dinner party every week, and somewhere between 10 and 14 guests show up every week, I don’t prepare for 10 and hope that the other 4 have already eaten or won’t show. I cook for 14, maybe 15 and if that means leftovers, better that than a hungry guest. Good analogy by the way, thanks.

Attendance at Sunday Mass varries. Common practice (and common sense) is to have just a little bit more hosts (both new and already consecrated) than the priest can anticipate needing at that Mass just in case there are more than the usual number.

If attendance varries by 5%, at a Mass with 2000 people, that translates into 100 hosts. Should the priest make an announcement just before the distribution of Communion that the last 100 people to walk into the door should refrain from receiving Communion because if he distributes the hosts from the tabernacle he would be going against the Church’s preference? Or should he use some other criteria for deciding who does not get to receive at that Mass?

Of course it’s prudent and plain common sense to have more consecrated bread/hosts than needed. Falling short would of course be very problematic.

I didn’t think my analogy would work all that well. Guess I was right.

Anyway, the initial concern I had was with hosts from the Tabernacle routinely being used at Mass, which is clearly contrary to Church preference and imho detrimental to the theology of the Eucharistic liturgy.

Cheers

 

[LilyM]

Yes. If you are anticipating the possibility that more guests will arrive than the number which are already in the house when the cooking begins. If I cook for 10 people and 12 arrive, am I supposed to tell the last 2 that they have to sit there and watch everyone else consume because they were the last ones to arrive? If I have a dinner party every week, and somewhere between 10 and 14 guests show up every week, I don’t prepare for 10 and hope that the other 4 have already eaten or won’t show. I cook for 14, maybe 15 and if that means leftovers, better that than a hungry guest. Good analogy by the way, thanks.

Attendance at Sunday Mass varries. Common practice (and common sense) is to have just a little bit more hosts (both new and already consecrated) than the priest can anticipate needing at that Mass just in case there are more than the usual number.

If attendance varries by 5%, at a Mass with 2000 people, that translates into 100 hosts. Should the priest make an announcement just before the distribution of Communion that the last 100 people to walk into the door should refrain from receiving Communion because if he distributes the hosts from the tabernacle he would be going against the Church’s preference? Or should he use some other criteria for deciding who does not get to receive at that Mass?

Thank you Fr David - a voice of common sense.

 

[FrDavid96]

Of course it’s prudent and plain common sense to have more consecrated bread/hosts than needed. Falling short would of course be very problematic.

I didn’t think my analogy would work all that well. Guess I was right.

Anyway, the initial concern I had was with hosts from the Tabernacle routinely being used at Mass, which is clearly contrary to Church preference and imho detrimental to the theology of the Eucharistic liturgy.

Cheers

Try looking at it this way: Rather than saying that the tabernacle should not be used “routinely” what if we were to say that the vast majority of the Hosts distributed at any given Mass should be those consecrated at that Mass, insofar as this is possible?

 

[diggerdomer]

Try looking at it this way: Rather than saying that the tabernacle should not be used “routinely” what if we were to say that the vast majority of the Hosts distributed at any given Mass should be those consecrated at that Mass, insofar as this is possible?

First I’d go by what’s in the GIRM, then consider options like the one you suggest.

Cheers

 

[benedictgal]

I think what the Church thinks. Hosts in the Tabernacle are for giving communion to those who couldn’t be at the celebration of Mass. They are not intended to be used AT Mass.

Cheers

So then, would you say that the Church is contradicting herself when she states, in Paschale Solemnitates, the Circular Letter on Holy Week that for Holy Thursday:

1. The tabernacle should be completely empty before the celebration. [53] Hosts for the communion of the faithful should be consecrated during that celebration. A sufficient amount of bread should be consecrated to provide also for communion the following day.

These hosts should be

reserved in a closed tabernacle or pyx. Under no circumstances may it be exposed in a monstrance.

The place where the tabernacle or pyx is situated must not be made to resemble a tomb, and the expression tomb is to be avoided: for the chapel of repose is not prepared so as to represent the Lord’s burial but for the custody of the eucharistic bread that will be distributed in communion on Good Friday.

Thus, the argument that you made is not necessarily absolute. As Lily has stated, you also have to take into account that the Sacred Hosts in reserve are also used for the sick and the home-bound. My father is an EMHC to the sick and homebound. One Saturday, the celebrant (who was the diocesan director of divine worship) seriously miscalculated and when my father went to the Cathedral on Sunday morning, there were about three hosts in the Tabernacle. He waited until there was enough for him to take (he visits about 40 people on Sundays). Father apologized and made sure that this kind of mistake would not happen again.

 

[diggerdomer]

So then, would you say that the Church is contradicting herself when she states, in Paschale Solemnitates, the Circular Letter on Holy Week that for Holy Thursday:

Of course not. The Triduum liturgies obviously require what you note. Obviously that’s an exception to the normal preference expressed in the GIRM.

Cheers