The fact that she said that there wasn’t sufficient Precious Blood in the chalice (and she was the second communicant) would give a good indication that the priest didn’t mean to distribute Holy Communion under both species.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?
It’s not a silly thing. What happened, what was reported by the OP was wrong. Incidentally, Francis Cardinal Arinze, when he was prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Discipline of the Sacarments, made the following observation when discussing EMHCs:And we continue to assume the worst…
Perhaps the priest should have stopped her. Perhaps this, perhaps that…
What a silly little thing to get hung up on.
I’d rather assume the best when I don’t have all the facts and trust the people who do to make the best decisions.
Here he was answering a question that concerned people going up to the ciborrium, take the Sacred Host and then dip it into the Precious Blood. Inasmuch as this is not what occurred in the OP, the line of thought is similar. We do not take; we receive. This includes the sacred vessles. We don’t go up and take them; we receive either the chalice or the ciborrium from the priest.Not correct. Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take.
I think, with all due respect, that you are missing the point. What happened was ilicit. The OP was concerned and posted the incident. The documents, including the GIRM and RS, back up what the OP had suspected.You’re assuming malicious intent, rather than considering the possibility that this person was acting under the instructions of the celebrant. Granted, such instructions could constitute an illicit act were they done deliberately, but perhaps the celebrant just goofed about having a lay person serve as emHC in lieu of a deacon.
Always assume the best.
Actually, the authoritative Church documents support the fact that what occurred in the situation described by the OP was wrong. This isn’t my mere opinion. This is what the documents say. You can dispute me, but, the documents are pretty clear.Perhaps the OP should speak with her priest about the situation. That would put an end to the supposition on both of our parts.
Neither one of us really have all the information, and while you can post all the Church documents you want, it won’t change that simple fact.
Again, she got up on her own accord to do this. Please re-read the OP and the person’s subsequent posts. Furthermore, the person who did this is not even an EMHC. Inasmuch as her actions may have been done with the best of intentions, these were wrong.I’m not disputing the documents. I am claiming the possibility that the priest simply goofed instead of deliberately committing an abuse. It may have been illicit under the documents, but I am not making the supposition that he intended to violate the documents or abuse the liturgy.
Furthermore, I am also asking that we give the same consideration to the lay person who served as emHC.
Had she gone up of her own accord, something you are assuming to be absolutely true and something I am only considering as a possibility, then it is another matter entirely. Still, it is not known whether or not the pastor has already addressed the matter with the woman and if the matter is closed.
See, I always assume the best intentions. Many here seem to want to point the finger, cite the documents, and scream “ABUSE!” without considering the situation.
Here is what the OP said in her initial post:I have reread the OP’s statements. The OP is assuming, just like you are, that the woman went up of her own accord. Neither of you can conclusively say that. I am asking that you consider that the priest directed her to assist.
I am certainly not blase about the rubrics of the Mass. However, I am also accepting of the fact that mistakes happen and for whatever reason things may not go according to the rubrics. I’d rather see us charitably consider the possibility that this was an honest goof rather than pull out RS and point out exactly where everyone broke the rules.
Have you considered the possibility that the priest made a mistake in not getting an emHC that you’d just embarrass him (further) by shoving RS in his face and showing him his illicitness?
What if that woman thought she was doing the right thing? And after the priest explained to her that she shouldn’t have. I’ll be she was embarrassed. Think of how hurtful a thread like this might be if that woman ever found it. The last thing she might need is to have a liturgy legal-eagle remind her of her error.
This world doesn’t need people to keep assuming the worst. It needs us to assume the best.
In a subsequent post, she also said that she was the second communicant. This means that she was behind the first commuiincant, the female staff member who had taken it upon herself to go to the altar and get the chalice. Had the celebrant asked the staff member, the OP would have probably heard it because she was right behind the individual. If you can hear the priest say “The Body of Christ” to the person in front of you, you can probably hear something else as well. Had the OP been further down the line, then, she could have assumed that the priest instructed the staff member to do what she did. However, since the OP was in close proximity and did not mention this in her post, more than likely, the celebrant didn’t ask.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
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.
Remember, too, that she was there and we were not. I am basing my comments strictly on what she has reported. As far as I can tell, the indications she gave lead me to believe that this was a case of someone acting spontaneously, and unfortunately, ilicitly. She may have had the best of intentions, but, the course of action that she took was against the norms.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.
However, the evidence presented by the OP indicates that the woman, in fact, did act on her own. A re-reading of the OP’s comments is indicative of that. Furthermore, why would the priest ask this person to do it if he knows that the OP is an EMHC? Think about it.I have repeatedly considered the possibility that the woman was acting of her own accord, but I will not concede the possibility that she was instructed to do so.
I think we’re making an incredible mountain out of a molehill here.
Regardless of who’s right, I suspect that the priest probably addressed the matter, either internally if it was his goof or externally with the staff person.
The OP shouldn’t be concerned unless it happens again.
Let us hope that he did. What I do not understand is why you do not take the OP at what she said? She was there and reported what happened. And, as the OP indicated the staff member acted of her own accord. The facts that the OP presented speak for themselves.No, this really is a mountain forming from a molehill, benedictgal. You can keep going back to the “documents” all you want, but the facts are at issue.
Have you considered at all that if the woman acted of her own accord that the priest didn’t discuss the matter with her after? If you haven’t, then that’s our mountain right there.
Hardly advisable as the woman was not commissioned to serve as emHC. Now you’re bringing your own anti-EMHC agenda into the matter.Maybe this incident will lead to a possible re-training of the EMHCs and also serve as a reminder to the priest regarding what both the GIRM and RS say regarding EMHCs.
Nothing can be further from the truth, as I, too, am an EMHC. I belevei that before you start leveling charges like that, you might want to check your sources. In many of these threads, I have indicated that I am an EMHC. Furthermore,because the staff member in question is not an EMHC, perhaps this would also be a good time for the celebrant to have this discussion with the staff and to instruct them that just because they work for the parish, that doesn’t necessarily give them the right to do what the person in the OP’s situation did. Thus, this should be a teaching moment for all of the parties involved.Hardly advisable as the woman was not commissioned to serve as emHC. Now you’re bringing your own anti-EMHC agenda into the matter.
Not necessarily, it could simply be a general discussion with the staff so that this situation will not repeat itself with others who might want to take it upon themselves to do something they are not supposed to do (no matter how well-meaning their intent is).No one is an emHC. They are either clergy or lay people. Clergy serve as ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Lay people can serve as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
I hope this was a benign moment. Perhaps when the priest talked to the woman she thought she was trying to be helpful. If they were so accustomed to having a deacon there, I could see her point. If this is the case, a discussion with the staff might embarrass her unnecessarily.