Teaching moment at Mass today

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rpp

Guest
Today at Mass, they ran out of hosts. I suppose this is not that unusual given that this was Palm Sunday.

So what did the priest do?

First a little background. This parish has an altar rail Normally, parishioners only receive the Body, not the blood of Christ. There are no EMHCs.

So getting back to the question. What did the priest do?

He went to the altar, got the Chalice of the Sacred Blood, and administered it to the half-dozen or so people still waiting to receive.
 
I would regard it as an abuse. The term “Communion under both kinds” is used deliberately. The Roman Missal does not describe giving only the Precious Blood to people. Better solutions would have been to have broken six consecrated hosts in half or to have got more from the tabernacle.

In the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass” it has in the description of Viaticum by an extraordinary minister:
“55. Those who cannot receive communion in the form of bread may receive in the form of wine. The precious blood must be carried to the sick person in a vessel so secured as to eliminate all danger of spilling. …”.

So, assuming the six people were healthy enough to receive the consecrated hosts, I think the priest did the wrong thing.
 
An abuse? When the only other option at that point was not receiving at all? I don’t think so. It’s not as though it’s forbidden to receive solely from the chalice. It may not be the norm but it is an option for valid reasons and I think this is a valid reason. It may not have been great planning but I don’t think it was abuse.
 
John_Lilburne said:
I would regard it as an abuse. The term “Communion under both kinds” is used deliberately. The Roman Missal does not describe giving only the Precious Blood to people. Better solutions would have been to have broken six consecrated hosts in half or to have got more from the tabernacle.

In the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass” it has in the description of Viaticum by an extraordinary minister:
“55. Those who cannot receive communion in the form of bread may receive in the form of wine. The precious blood must be carried to the sick person in a vessel so secured as to eliminate all danger of spilling. …”.

So, assuming the six people were healthy enough to receive the consecrated hosts, I think the priest did the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Abuse? I think not…
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.
Click to expand...
God bless.
 
This is clearly an exceptional occurrence. Don’t worry about it.

(FWIW, the Russian Orthodox Sluzebnik has provisions for a second consecration. The priest takes more bread, or more wine, says the appropriate prayers, and resumes giving communion.)
 
One receives whatever element, but one receives the Body and Blood of Our Lord, whole and entire, no matter which element is used.
 
rpp said:
Today at Mass, they ran out of hosts. I suppose this is not that unusual given that this was Palm Sunday.

So what did the priest do?

He went to the altar, got the Chalice of the Sacred Blood, and administered it to the half-dozen or so people still waiting to receive.
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense to me. :yup:
 
rpp said:
Today at Mass, they ran out of hosts. I suppose this is not that unusual given that this was Palm Sunday.

So what did the priest do?

First a little background. This parish has an altar rail Normally, parishioners only receive the Body, not the blood of Christ. There are no EMHCs.

So getting back to the question. What did the priest do?

He went to the altar, got the Chalice of the Sacred Blood, and administered it to the half-dozen or so people still waiting to receive.
Click to expand...
That is one possibility. Why didn’t he go to the tabernacle and get the reserved Hosts that are there just for that reason? Let me guess he had already gotten them before Holy Communion even began.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
That is one possibility. Why didn’t he go to the tabernacle and get the reserved Hosts that are there just for that reason? Let me guess he had already gotten them before Holy Communion even began.
Click to expand...
Probably true, which would mean there wasn’t enough newly consecrated nor reserved (hey, accidents happen). Good opportunity to speak briefly (after the prayer after Communion) about “concomitance” as well as how to make a “spiritual communion” should there be absolutely no Holy Communion remaining at some point.
 
Give that man an R.G. Dunn!
Father gets full marks for understanding of sacramental theology and full marks for inventive solutions.

Matthew
 
In my original post, I failed to make it clear that the tabernacle had been emptied of Hosts. I also failed to mention that a significant number of people arrived late for Mass. Thus, estimating the number of hosts required was off and there were no fragments of the Precious Body of our Lord remaining. I apologize for not making this clear in the my original post.
 
Say one of the six people did not want to receive the Blood of Christ. Perhaps one was an alcoholic who had not consumed alcohol for 20 years. Suddenly, in front of the community, they were given the choice of receiving the Precious Blood or of refusing the sacrament they had come up to receive.

To accept that the priest made an understandable mistake is one thing. To applaud his action is another.
 
John_Lilburne said:
Say one of the six people did not want to receive the Blood of Christ. Perhaps one was an alcoholic who had not consumed alcohol for 20 years. Suddenly, in front of the community, they were given the choice of receiving the Precious Blood or of refusing the sacrament they had come up to receive.

To accept that the priest made an understandable mistake is one thing. To applaud his action is another.
Click to expand...
I believe your interpretation of events is incorrect. Your position is not supported by the rubric or canon law, as was pointed out earlier. While you are generally quite reliable about these matters, in this one instance, I believe your are not correct.

To make it clear, this parish has an altar rail. Two priests distribute Holy Communion. The cup is not offered. There are no extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Female altar servers and female lectors are not permitted at this parish.

First, we do not know when the priest realized there would not be enough Hosts. I was seated near the front and received early, I received a whole Host. We do not know when or if the priest began fracturing the smaller hosts in order to allow more people to receive. At some point, they ran out.

Your comments about the alcoholic are not applicable and frankly a canard. I did not observe anyone with any firearms pointed in the direction of those in communion line. No one forces anyone to receive Holy Communion. If someone is not able to receive, they do not receive.

If you want to try an fault the priest, go ahead. But when you do, please tells us about what you personally observed. That way, we can understand why you believe these exceptionally orthodox priests would take this action. On the other hand, if you were not there and are relying solely on the information I have provided, perhaps reserving judgment would be a better course. After all, as was pointed out earlier, what they did was permissible.

Personally, I think the moral of the story is do not sit in the back of the Church. (But then, by 15 minutes into the Mass, it was standing room only. 🤷 )
 
John_Lilburne said:
Say one of the six people did not want to receive the Blood of Christ. Perhaps one was an alcoholic who had not consumed alcohol for 20 years. Suddenly, in front of the community, they were given the choice of receiving the Precious Blood or of refusing the sacrament they had come up to receive.

To accept that the priest made an understandable mistake is one thing. To applaud his action is another.
Click to expand...
Pish, posh, I haven’t had a drink in 8 years. I receive the blood of my Lord and Savior.
 
rpp said:
Today at Mass, they ran out of hosts. I suppose this is not that unusual given that this was Palm Sunday.

So what did the priest do?

First a little background. This parish has an altar rail Normally, parishioners only receive the Body, not the blood of Christ. There are no EMHCs.

So getting back to the question. What did the priest do?

He went to the altar, got the Chalice of the Sacred Blood, and administered it to the half-dozen or so people still waiting to receive.
Click to expand...
I see no problem with it at all and I really can’t understand why anyone would.
 
palmas85 said:
I see no problem with it at all and I really can’t understand why anyone would.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything inherently problematic about the situation, but I do think it would have been better for the priest to exercise a little more foresight by gauging the remaining number of communicants and breaking hosts either more often or into more pieces in order to avoid having to communicate people under the form of the Precious Blood alone. It’s perfectly true that this is licit in case of necessity, I just know that it is also possible to break one host into some pretty small pieces (fours, say, are still reasonably sized), so it seems fairly easy to avoid that necessity when it’s merely a matter of quantity of hosts (and not physical/medical issues).

The situation also makes one wonder, BTW, why there was enough Precious Blood left in the chalice to commune six people if the priest had not intended that anyone else receive therefrom. Shouldn’t he have consumed all of that during his own communion?
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I don’t see anything inherently problematic about the situation, but I do think it would have been better for the priest to exercise a little more foresight by gauging the remaining number of communicants and breaking hosts either more often or into more pieces in order to avoid having to communicate people under the form of the Precious Blood alone. It’s perfectly true that this is licit in case of necessity, I just know that it is also possible to break one host into some pretty small pieces (fours, say, are still reasonably sized), so it seems fairly easy to avoid that necessity when it’s merely a matter of quantity of hosts (and not physical/medical issues).

The situation also makes one wonder, BTW, why there was enough Precious Blood left in the chalice to commune six people if the priest had not intended that anyone else receive therefrom. Shouldn’t he have consumed all of that during his own communion?
Click to expand...
I agree that perhaps the Priest was shortsighted inthis area.
 
rpp said:
Personally, I think the moral of the story is do not sit in the back of the Church. (But then, by 15 minutes into the Mass, it was standing room only. 🤷 )
Click to expand...
1st. let me say I agree with you.

2nd. Standing room only, WOW! What I’d would give to see that in my parish, even on Easter or Christmas MN Mass! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top