Unusual Mass

[MacBP]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

 

[agw123]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

No EMHCs available? Maybe he was sick and didnt want to spread germs. It is highly unusual this way though

 

[dshix]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

That was not licit. We are supposed to receive the Eucharist; it is given to us by the priest. We are NEVER supposed to TAKE the Eucharist; your priest was gravely incorrect to do that.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

This sounds to me like a serious violation of the rubrics for mass, if not of canon law itself. I would charitably bring my concerns up to the priest and if he does not rectify the situation I would bring it to the attention of the bishop. You want to be charitable and not mean spirited, however, it is important that the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist be celebrated properly.

JMTC.

 

[Stephanie_B]

The priest may have been having chest pain or have been extremely unwell and needed to sit. Perhaps inquire into his welfare… ask the priest if he was Ok, there might be a simple answer. I pray he is not having a crisis of faith. It must be so difficult for our priests. Pray for them always.

 

[js_cat3391]

Very bizarre. Maybe he was sickly. I would have probably panicked and not know what to do.

 

[mfrances]

All who were saying the Priest might have been sick:
Then he should have taken the eucharist and precious blood and not distributed at all at that Mass.
Our obligation is to assist (attend, respond, etc) at Mass but the laity do not have to receive Communion.

 

[superamazingman]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

Oh my goodness, yes. That should not have happened under any circumstance. If distribution is not possible, then the faithful do not receive communion. Nuf said.

It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.

 

[padrepio_2012]

even if he was sick it is still wrong. he could have just sanitized or washed his hands before. he MUST distribute the Most Precious Body and Blood. it is very bad for him not to. and back before Vatican II the priest was the only one who could distribute, so he would’ve been in a big doozy then

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

All who were saying the Priest might have been sick:
Then he should have taken the eucharist and precious blood and not distributed at all at that Mass.
Our obligation is to assist (attend, respond, etc) at Mass but the laity do not have to receive Communion.

True, although I feel that the person who suggested asking about the priest’s welfare is on to something; it is a neat little conversation starter to broach the topic if the O.P. chooses to do so.

 

[dshix]

even if he was sick it is still wrong. he could have just sanitized or washed his hands before. he MUST distribute the Most Precious Body and Blood. it is very bad for him not to. and back before Vatican II the priest was the only one who could distribute, so he would’ve been in a big doozy then

Actually, no, there is zero obligation for the priest to distribute communion. If he really thought he couldn’t he should have just skipped communion and moved on, NOT let the people go up and take the Eucharist themselves.

 

[GwenL]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

The laity are never to approach the altar and “take” communion. They must receive communion; even Extraordinary Ministers receive communion (from a priest, deacon, or another EMHC) and then distribute.

Perhaps the priest was sick, feeling faint, etc. The proper thing to do would have been for him to give communion to EMsHC and they then distribute to the congregation, and then for him to sit.

We had a priest who has a prosthetic leg. Not many people knew this. About every six months, he would have to remove the prosthetic; his stump was so irritated that he needed a week or so without the prosthetic to heal. When this happened, he would not go down the steps to give communion; plus he could not stand on one leg and maintain adequate control over the ciborium. So, he would have the altar server retrieve the ciborium from the tabernacle and the priest would give communion to EMsHC who would distribute to the congregation while he sat. That’s the correct way to do this, if the priest cannot physically distribute communion to the congregation.

Start off by asking after this priest’s health. “Are you feeling OK, Father, I’ve never seen you feeling so bad that you had to sit during communion.”

 

[agnes_therese]

Start off by asking after this priest’s health. “Are you feeling OK, Father, I’ve never seen you feeling so bad that you had to sit during communion.”

Excellent suggestion!

 

[thistle]

even if he was sick it is still wrong. he could have just sanitized or washed his hands before. **he MUST distribute the Most Precious Body and Blood. ** it is very bad for him not to. and back before Vatican II the priest was the only one who could distribute, so he would’ve been in a big doozy then

No. It is not required that Communion be distributed. If he was sick then it is sufficient that he received. We are not required to receive.
However, it is also not permitted for us to “take” Communion so in that respect he was wrong.

 

[MacBP]

Just as a clarification. This was on Wednesday’s mass. The priest in question does have some health issues; I don’t think he was able to stand for the entirety of the mass. He did not appoint EMHC.

This particular priest was filling in for the our normal parish priest. I believe the matter has been broached with our regular priest.

 

[superamazingman]

I believe the matter has been broached with our regular priest.

Thank goodness, because that REALLY shouldn’t have happened.

 

[Reuben_J]

A few days back I was attending mass when something unusual happened. When it came time to receive Communion, the priest sat back and informed us that we could receive Communion under both species. I’m aware that this is permissible. However, after the priest made that announcement he sat back and had us approach the altar where we took the Host ourselves. We were not handed the Host by the priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Was that permissible? Or was some serious canon law broken?

Incidentally personally I had come across such practice during the mass some years back. They were not public mass but during some retreat or home mass and only certain priest had a habit of doing that. Perhaps those things can be counted as many bizarre experience that I had along the years. Anyway he was certainly not sick. Goodness. I would say if he could not hand out the Holy Communion then maybe he should not celebrate the mass. Having not known better then nevertheless I thought that he was very daring to do it (for he would not do it during public mass in the church thus implying that what he did was not right).

I agree that it is one instance when the priest has overstepped his authority. We come to the feast of the Eucharist by invitation and when we receive Communion we need to utter the word ‘Amen’ when the EMHC say ‘the body of Christ’. This is an important part of the Holy Communion. Our bishop was visibly upset when he noticed that the EMHC were not very audible in saying ‘the body of Christ’. And he equally wanted the communicants to say the Amen loud enough too.

Therefore by serving ourselves to the Holy Communion we have missed the important aspect of what it means.