Spontaneous EMHC?

[Sir_Knight]

OK, SirKnight, maybe the situations you describe do exist sometimes, & I should acknowledge them & concede that they show the inadequacy of my attitude in certain cases.

OK, I will acknowledge that point.

But, I don’t think it follows that we’re all somehow disqualified from ever questioning EMHC practice on the grounds that there just might be such extreme circumstances hidden in the background.

We are to trust our religious leaders while they, on the other hand, do not need to justify all of their actions revealing every detail in order to satisfy us. The shepard does not answer to the sheep.

In fact, I guess you correctly noticed that I was implicitly assuming more or the less the opposite. That is, my suggestion of a small gesture of “defiance” presupposed that we all know the EMHC are usually not as necessary as they might be in the scenarios you describe.

Again, that is for the Pastor to decide because he has the training, experience AND authority while we do not.

But I think even the argument from convenience is usually insincere. At out local NO/OF parish the EMHCs take up so much time up in the sanctuary that it’s not clear that the precious 10 minutes is saved. It seems obvious that it’s not about the 10 minutes; it’s about getting laity up on the altar.

And who is it that wants the laity up on the altar? From personal experience, I can tell you that I didn’t volunteer to be an EMHC. I was ASKED by our Pastor. The first words out of my mouth were that I wasn’t worthy and his reply was that none of us are worthy and went on to say that he needed me to serve our Lord.

If the Pastor doesn’t want/need laity up on the altar, then there shouldn’t be any laity up on the altar and if he does, them there should be – we should trust his judgement in matters of faith unless it is a clear violation of church teaching … otherwise, we should yield to his experience & training in these matters.

On the other hand, I really shouldn’t have used the word “defiance” because it has obscured what I think are the real issues: (1) In practice EMHCs break the rules every day.

Then the Pastor needs to be made aware of these violations but I need to also point out that what we MAY view as a violation, may, in fact, not be a violation. Again, I speak from personal experience on this. I approached our priest over a matter which I felt was a clear violation the Vatican instructions. It was as clear as day and I had the Vatican document in hand. The priest handed me a book on Canon Law and asked me to read a particular Canon. Sure enough, there was an exception to that rule which was present in our parish.

This happened twice with two different matters. It has taught me to trust our priests almost completely when it comes to matters of faith.

(2) Anyone who objects is viewed as uncharitable.

My point: Somehow, we ignore actual, frequent, open defiance by pastors and EMHC, but we scold the guy who doesn’t like it and suggests the possibility of not going along with it.

Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel (an APPROVED revelation) …

“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

I also think you’re correct to point to a dilemma that Catholics have always faced: What is our duty of obedience to parish Priests who themselves openly defy regulations?

Although it’s off-topic, NB: People haven’t always considered it necessary to receive at every Mass.

A general question about the pattern: What kind of rule-breaking do we ignore as opposed to what kind we crack down on?

While we are not required to believe private revelation, the one given by our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel is official approved by the Church. Which means that it is worthy of belief and contains nothing which conflicts with Church teaching. If this is indeed a message from our Lord, then what does Jesus tell us to do when priests defy regulations?

 

[benedictgal]

We are to trust our religious leaders while they, on the other hand, do not need to justify all of their actions revealing every detail in order to satisfy us. The shepard does not answer to the sheep.

Again, that is for the Pastor to decide because he has the training, experience AND authority while we do not.

And who is it that wants the laity up on the altar? From personal experience, I can tell you that I didn’t volunteer to be an EMHC. I was ASKED by our Pastor. The first words out of my mouth were that I wasn’t worthy and his reply was that none of us are worthy and went on to say that he needed me to serve our Lord.

If the Pastor doesn’t want/need laity up on the altar, then there shouldn’t be any laity up on the altar and if he does, them there should be – we should trust his judgement in matters of faith unless it is a clear violation of church teaching … otherwise, we should yield to his experience & training in these matters.

Then the Pastor needs to be made aware of these violations but I need to also point out that what we MAY view as a violation, may, in fact, not be a violation. Again, I speak from personal experience on this. I approached our priest over a matter which I felt was a clear violation the Vatican instructions. It was as clear as day and I had the Vatican document in hand. The priest handed me a book on Canon Law and asked me to read a particular Canon. Sure enough, there was an exception to that rule which was present in our parish.

This happened twice with two different matters. It has taught me to trust our priests almost completely when it comes to matters of faith.

Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel (an APPROVED revelation) …

“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

While we are not required to believe private revelation, the one given by our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel is official approved by the Church. Which means that it is worthy of belief and contains nothing which conflicts with Church teaching. If this is indeed a message from our Lord, then what does Jesus tell us to do when priests defy regulations?

However, we are not required to believe in private revelation. Just because it has been approved by the Church, that doesn’t mean that it is dogmatic.

This is what the Church says regarding what the rights of the faithful are:

12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.32

[13.] All of the norms and exhortations set forth in this Instruction are connected, albeit in various ways, with the mission of the Church, whose task it is to be vigilant concerning the correct and worthy celebration of so great a mystery. The last chapter of the present Instruction will treat of the varying degrees to which the individual norms are bound up with the supreme norm of all ecclesiastical law, namely concern for the salvation of souls.33

With all due respect, Sir Knight, the Church recognizes that there have been and there remain liturgical abuses. Were this not so, she would not have promulgated the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which, by the way, has a protocol regarding the manner in which these issues are to be addressed.

The faithful do have a right to approach their pastors, and even their bishops, when things are not as they should be as far as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned. This right is guaranteed under Redemptionis Sacramentum, and it is found embedded within the paragraph that I have just quoted. Just because someone is a priest, that does not give him the right to do as he pleases during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What the person in the episode presented in the OP did was wrong. I think we can agree on that point. However, this issue needs to be resolved through fraternal correction.

 

[ASD]

the Church recognizes that there have been and there remain liturgical abuses. Were this not so, she would not have promulgated the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which, by the way, has a protocol regarding the manner in which these issues are to be addressed.

The faithful do have a right to approach their pastors, and even their bishops, when things are not as they should be as far as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned. This right is guaranteed under Redemptionis Sacramentum, and it is found embedded within the paragraph that I have just quoted.

Very informative. Thanks.

ASD​

Redemptionis Sacramentum

 

[Newbie2]

This is great. Not only will it do away with the thundering herds of Extraordinary Ministers that fill most Sanctuaries during even lesser attended Masses…

If only we could get those that number amonst the thundering herds to show up when they are scheduled…

I am wondering how many parishes have Communion under both species for daily Mass. Our parish does not.

.

Ours does, if you’re keeping count.

ASD,
It actually started with Vatican II. Yes, the real Vatican II not the “Vatican II says [insert personal opinion]” stuff.

The intention of the Council was to provide for extraordinary circumstances. As we all know, that notion has been expanded-upon and abused to no end, but the actual origin is the Council.

All EMHCs must be appointed by the priest for each individial act of assisting to distribute Communion. We can only speculate as to whether or not the priest made such an appointment (even if it was done silently), but even so, there’s no reason or excuse for an EMHC taking the chalice from the altar, as opposed to being handed the chalice from the priest.

I do think we can assume that the priest knew her and at least tacitly approved of what she was doing, or else he would have stopped her.

It’s certainly not the right way to do things, don’t get me wrong, but it is something that happened “once” and it was out of the ordinary in that the deacon wasn’t there. Sometimes things just happen the wrong way and the best way to handle that is to ignore it at the moment and deal with it later, rather than to further detract from the dignity of the Mass by trying to “backtrack” and fix something which by then is in-the-past. It should never have happened, but the question of “what do we do now that it has happened?” is sometimes best left for outside of Mass. Apparently, that’s what this priest thought at the moment–at least let’s hope so.

 

[FrDavid96]

If only we could get those that number amonst the thundering herds to show up when they are scheduled…

Yet again, that expresses the problem with the abuse of EMHCs. If they’re not reliable, then why are they on the schedule in the first place? Why haven’t they been removed from the schedule? How dedicated can they be if they aren’t showing-up? And furthermore if the parish can get by without them, are they realy needed in the first place?

In too many places, EMHCs go through no more extensive screening process than a sign-up sheet in the vestibule. One of the first questions asked before choosing a person for the schedule should be “does this person attend Mass regularly” not just in the sense of every Sunday, but also in the sense of the same Mass every Sunday. How reliable are they? They might be very faithful Catholics, but if they’re not able to keep a consistent schedule (though there’s nothing wrong with that, so long as they go to some Sun. Mass) then they should not be on the list of potential EMHCs in the first place.

We simply must abandon the false notions that 1. EMHCs “must” serve at every Mass and 2. It is somehow the right of every Catholic to volunteer for this, and the responsibility of the parish to accomodate that desire.

The parish which has a genuine need for EMHCs is rare. The parish where this pracice is abused on the other hand has unfortunately become the normal practice in the US.

We don’t “need” EMHCS simply because a parish has decided that they will have 8 stations for distribution, and then if all of them aren’t filled, suddenly we need more people. The multiplication of communion stations was done (for the most part) for no reason other than to create a need where there was none in the first place. I don’t doubt that some parishes have a sincere need, but again these parishes are the exception not the rule.

Likewise I sincerely believe that Eucharist under both species became so popular in the US not because of a desire to receive the Blood of Christ, but for no reason other than to accomodate an excuse for more laypersons distributing the Eucharist (again, not exclusively). That brings us to the real heart of this thread. From the original post, it seems that there was in fact no need for an EMHC, yet one appeared (appointed or not, we can’t be sure). The fact that the distribution of Holy Communion is treated so casually in the US is not only the source of this problem in this thread, but the beginnings of much bigger problems in the future.

 

[Newbie2]

Yet again, that expresses the problem with the abuse of EMHCs. If they’re not reliable, then why are they on the schedule in the first place? Why haven’t they been removed from the schedule? How dedicated can they be if they aren’t showing-up? And furthermore if the parish can get by without them, are they realy needed in the first place?

Good questions. We work on that all the time; some extremely reliable EMHCs move, get sick, etc. on rare occasion. If we removed everyone who has missed, forgotton, or become sick, we’d have very few ideed. We do have a system that works well for substitutes, though.

In too many places, EMHCs go through no more extensive screening process than a sign-up sheet in the vestibule. One of the first questions asked before choosing a person for the schedule should be “does this person attend Mass regularly” not just in the sense of every Sunday, but also in the sense of the same Mass every Sunday. How reliable are they? They might be very faithful Catholics, but if they’re not able to keep a consistent schedule (though there’s nothing wrong with that, so long as they go to some Sun. Mass) then they should not be on the list of potential EMHCs in the first place.

We allow them to be subs.

The parish which has a genuine need for EMHCs is rare. The parish where this pracice is abused on the other hand has unfortunately become the normal practice in the US.

We have 2 or 3 elderly priests fill in at mass who, for apparent medical reasons, do not distribute communion.

We don’t “need” EMHCS simply because a parish has decided that they will have 8 stations for distribution, and then if all of them aren’t filled, suddenly we need more people. The multiplication of communion stations was done (for the most part) for no reason other than to create a need where there was none in the first place. I don’t doubt that some parishes have a sincere need, but again these parishes are the exception not the rule.

Likewise I sincerely believe that Eucharist under both species became so popular in the US not because of a desire to receive the Blood of Christ,*** but for no reason other than to accomodate an excuse for more laypersons distributing the Eucharist ***(again, not exclusively).

Here I would disagree with you.

 

[Sir_Knight]

However, we are not required to believe in private revelation. Just because it has been approved by the Church, that doesn’t mean that it is dogmatic.

If you would have completely read what you quoted, you would have seen that I clearly pointed this out myself – “While we are not required to believe private revelation …”

This is what the Church says regarding what the rights of the faithful are:

With all due respect, Sir Knight, the Church recognizes that there have been and there remain liturgical abuses. Were this not so, she would not have promulgated the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which, by the way, has a protocol regarding the manner in which these issues are to be addressed.

The faithful do have a right to approach their pastors, and even their bishops, when things are not as they should be as far as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned. This right is guaranteed under Redemptionis Sacramentum, and it is found embedded within the paragraph that I have just quoted. Just because someone is a priest, that does not give him the right to do as he pleases during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What the person in the episode presented in the OP did was wrong. I think we can agree on that point. However, this issue needs to be resolved through fraternal correction.

This has already been discussed and I’m not going to keep re-hashing it. Just because someone has a “right” to something, doesn’t mean that exercising that right is the correct / proper thing to do in all cases.

 

[DebChris]

On several of these threads, I have read statements about an EMHC being arrogant. How can a person feel anything other than humility when he/she realizes who it is that he/she holds?
The years that I have been doing this work have not reduced the awe I experience each time I accept the role.
It is not unusual for members of the congregation to refuse the cup when offered. Again, that is something that I do not understand.
It is often repeated that Jesus is whole and entire regardless of form. One example given, either in the CCC or the Vatican II documents, is the Blood being given to the person who is too incapacitated be accept the Host.
Nonetheless, if I am offered both species, why would I refuse either?

Back to the OP. It is customary, in the parishes to which I have belonged, for a commissioned EMCH to step forward whenever there is a shortage. This means looking around to make sure there is a need, and deferring if another person steps forward first to fill that need.
The chalice is offered during daily as well as Sunday Mass. While EMCH’s are scheduled for the Sunday Mass, this is not true for daily Mass. The person who regularly accepts this role attends almost every day. It is on the rare occasions that she does not come when somebody else will step forward.
As has already been mentioned on this thread, we do not know if the priest asked the person to step forward when nobody else did. Perhaps to avoid disrupting the flow of the Mass, any concerns were addressed after Mass.
My tendency is to look at the possibility of error on the part of either the priest or the person who stepped forward rather than intentional abuse. Especially if this is not a common occurrence.

 

[benedictgal]

Today at daily Mass, the deacon was not present. No one came forward between the peace and the Agnus Dei, to help distribute. When it was time, he stepped down with the ciborium. After the first communicant received, she walked up to the altar, got the chalice, and took the usual place for an EMHC.

Is that an acceptable variant? Is it better than the Sunday usual procedure?

Evelyn, there is something else that I noticed in re-reading your thread. The time frame that you mentioned, bewtween the Sign of Peace and the Agnus Dei, is not the time to approach the altar for an EMHC.

According to the GIRM:

1. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.97 In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.98

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.

I know that I posted this earlier in response to the OP, but, when I noticed the time frame mention, I believed that it, too, needed to be addressed, since it, too, is not correct.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Evelyn, there is something else that I noticed in re-reading your thread. The time frame that you mentioned, bewtween the Sign of Peace and the Agnus Dei, is not the time to approach the altar for an EMHC.

I know I’ve never actually been in a Mass where it wasn’t done this way, if they had EMHC. At the end of the Peace but before the Agnus Dei, the EMHCs always line up in front of the altar, bow, and then process into a line across the back of the sanctuary, behind the priest and deacon and altar, between the altar servers. How is the choreography properly handled?

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;4570182:

Evelyn, there is something else that I noticed in re-reading your thread. The time frame that you mentioned, bewtween the Sign of Peace and the Agnus Dei, is not the time to approach the altar for an EMHC.

I know I’ve never actually been in a Mass where it wasn’t done this way, if they had EMHC. At the end of the Peace but before the Agnus Dei, the EMHCs always line up in front of the altar, bow, and then process into a line across the back of the sanctuary, behind the priest and deacon and altar, between the altar servers. How is the choreography properly handled?

They are never to approach the altar until their time is at hand. Furthermore, they are not to appear as though they are concelebrants. Here is what the 1997 document from the Congregation for Clergy notes:

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

***To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;***

All they have to do is come up to the altar after the priest has communicated and stand off to the side. There is no need to choreograph this; just follow the rubrics. We don’t have to make things complicated.

 

[EvelynEVF]

So the person in my OP actually had the correct timing, just the wrong action. Well, our pastor is slowly making a number of solid changes, so it wouldn’t surprise me if this too were on his radar.

 

[benedictgal]

So the person in my OP actually had the correct timing, just the wrong action. Well, our pastor is slowly making a number of solid changes, so it wouldn’t surprise me if this too were on his radar.

She came up after he communicated, but, she needed to both receive Holy Communion from him and the chalice, if she were going to help him.

That was a double whammy, then.

 

[timmo]

Hi Sir Knight

Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel (an APPROVED revelation) …

“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

Can you substantiate that this is “(an APPROVED revelation)” ???

regards

Tim

 

[MusicMan]

Oh, my goodness. I cannot believe this thread is this long.

The priest is accustomed to a deacon assisting him. The priest probably got to the foot of the sanctuary steps and realized there was no one to distribute the Precious Blood. He then quietly mentions this to the first person in line and asks them to distribute the Precious Blood.

Is anyone seriously going to make a fuss about Father needing to go back up to the altar and retrieve the chalice?

There’s no abuse here, just a goof on the part of the priest. One that seemed to be handled pretty smoothly until we faux-Liturgical lawyers got hold of the matter second hand.

 

[zab]

Oh, my goodness. I cannot believe this thread is this long.

The priest is accustomed to a deacon assisting him. The priest probably got to the foot of the sanctuary steps and realized there was no one to distribute the Precious Blood. He then quietly mentions this to the first person in line and asks them to distribute the Precious Blood.

Is anyone seriously going to make a fuss about Father needing to go back up to the altar and retrieve the chalice?

There’s no abuse here, just a goof on the part of the priest. One that seemed to be handled pretty smoothly until we faux-Liturgical lawyers got hold of the matter second hand.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh, my goodness. I cannot believe this thread is this long.

The priest is accustomed to a deacon assisting him. The priest probably got to the foot of the sanctuary steps and realized there was no one to distribute the Precious Blood. He then quietly mentions this to the first person in line and asks them to distribute the Precious Blood.

Is anyone seriously going to make a fuss about Father needing to go back up to the altar and retrieve the chalice?

There’s no abuse here, just a goof on the part of the priest. One that seemed to be handled pretty smoothly until we faux-Liturgical lawyers got hold of the matter second hand.

I think you need to re-read the OP. It didn’t happen as you said it occurred.

Originally Posted by EvelynEVF
Today at daily Mass, the deacon was not present. No one came forward between the peace and the Agnus Dei, to help distribute. When it was time, he stepped down with the ciborium. After the first communicant received, she walked up to the altar, got the chalice, and took the usual place for an EMHC.

(and in another post, she said that

The person who took the chalice is not an EMHC, but is staff. We usually receive both species because a deacon is present. The priest is not old and has in the past been quite comfortable asking for an EMHC or lector from the sanctuary, at least during daily Mass. I did some of the setup last night and he had plenty of time to ask me, as I am an EMHC. Since he did not ask, I did not go forward.

In this case, I believe the priest intended to distribute only the hosts, because I was second in line, and there was only the tiniest puddle of Precious Blood in the chalice, not nearly enough for the number of people we had. My first thought was that he had not intended it to be distributed, and certainly not in that informal way, but I thought I’d check here and make sure that what was done was not an appropriate variant that I hadn’t seen before.

He didnd’t motion anyone to come forward. the woman took it upon herself to do so. That is the detail that you are missing. No one called her to come forward. She came on her own.

Furthermore, as the OP noted in her subsequent post, had the celebrant intended to consecrate sufficient Precious Blood, the chalice would have been fuller than it was when the OP received Holy Communion.

 

[MusicMan]

He didnd’t motion anyone to come forward. the woman took it upon herself to do so. That is the detail that you are missing. No one called her to come forward. She came on her own.

You and the OP are drawing that conclusion. You cannot conclude that the priest didn’t give some subtle indication to the woman to assist, nor can the OP.

Furthermore, as the OP noted in her subsequent post, had the celebrant intended to consecrate sufficient Precious Blood, the chalice would have been fuller than it was when the OP received Holy Communion.

How does the OP know this?

Your conclusion may be right. The woman may have taken it upon herself to distribute. Of course, my conclusion, that the priest subtly directed the woman to assist, may be right too.

What business of ours is it to sit here and play Monday Morning Quarterback?

 

[DebChris]

You and the OP are drawing that conclusion. You cannot conclude that the priest didn’t give some subtle indication to the woman to assist, nor can the OP.

How does the OP know this?

Your conclusion may be right. The woman may have taken it upon herself to distribute. Of course, my conclusion, that the priest subtly directed the woman to assist, may be right too.

What business of ours is it to sit here and play Monday Morning Quarterback?

We do not know what exchanges took place between the priest and the woman either before or after the incident.
It is easy to look for abuses if that if is our choice and overlook the very real errors that each of us makes on a daily basis.

 

[Aramis]

There is an abuse here: a layperson taking up the chalice from the altar; that is specifically forbidden.