What should have been done in this situation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewsTheMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NewsTheMan

Guest
I was at Mass last week. The EMsHC purify the vessels straight after communion (I know, this is wrong, but the Bishop says it’s alright so it will continue). Anyway, I hadn’t been to confession so I didn’t go up for communion, instead kneeling and praying (spiritual communion).

One of the EHsMC with the precious blood came up to me and asked me to finish the rest of the Precious Blood. I refused saying that I wasn’t in a state to receive that day. She urged me on but I bowed my head, closed my eyes and prayed and kinda gave her the message that my first answer was the final answer.

Point is this:

If I had been in a state to receive the precious blood (after having gone up ordinarily) should I have ‘finished’ the Precious Blood on behalf of this lady?

I have a feeling that the answer is no and that it’s related to the EHsMC purifying the vessels, but I just wanted to check.
 
Sometimes there is a lot of the Precious Blood left in the cup and the EM cannot finish it. Sometimes it is more than a cup, and that is enough to legally inebriate a person and we don’t want our EM getting DWIs driving home from Mass. It is perfectly OK to ask someone to help out to consume what is left. I know my home parish leaves it in the sacristy for the priest to consume after Mass but I don’t like that idea, especially with people going in and out and it being left unattended. But the priest also may not be able to consume all that is left. I ask the EMs who do not have the cup to help, but sometimes we have to ask people sitting close by, especially if there is a lot left,
 
It is not correct for the EM to go around asking people to “drink up”! The EM is to consume the remainder of Christ’s precious Blood, period. Why in the world would there be so much left over? The priest can ordinarily gauge the amount of wine needed by the number of the attending worshippers. Oridnarily, a few drops per person is sufficient. Whoever is pouring the wine needs some remedial portion control gauge!
 
Sherry_G said:
It is not correct for the EM to go around asking people to “drink up”! The EM is to consume the remainder of Christ’s precious Blood, period. Why in the world would there be so much left over? The priest can ordinarily gauge the amount of wine needed by the number of the attending worshippers. Oridnarily, a few drops per person is sufficient. Whoever is pouring the wine needs some remedial portion control gauge!
Click to expand...
It can’t always be gauged. At my daughter’s first Communion I watched two full rows of people pass by the chalice. They do the best they can, but there’s been more than one occasion when there has been some left over.

As to the op, a simple no should have been sufficient. Our Lord does not force himself upon us, no one else should try to force Him upon us either. I think you handled it well. The EMHC should have respected your answer the first time and asked someone else.
 
I believe that you did the right thing. You showed the EMHC that you love our Lord enough that you didn’t want to sacrilegously receive his Blood.

Here’s my advice for the future. If you’re not in a state of grace, you could just sit in the very back of the church, where the EMHC probably won’t bother you. This could save you the trouble of embarrassment, etc. If I sit in the very back, noone even asks me if I’m going up to receive Communion.
 
NewsTheMan said:
If I had been in a state to receive the precious blood (after having gone up ordinarily) should I have ‘finished’ the Precious Blood on behalf of this lady?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Can you clarify this for me?

Are you saying you were in a state to receive the precious blood when you went up the first time, but not in a state of grace to finish the cup?
 
You did the right thing in refusing the precious blood.I no they meant no disrespect in offering it to you and that person has his own view on how he should act but you stuck to your guns and I commend you on that.
 
May I point out what Redemptonis Sacramentum says about the matter:

The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.

If this kind of thing is happening on a regular basis, maybe your parish should reconsider it’s distribution of precious blood.
 
Sherry_G said:
It is not correct for the EM to go around asking people to “drink up”! The EM is to consume the remainder of Christ’s precious Blood, period. Why in the world would there be so much left over? The priest can ordinarily gauge the amount of wine needed by the number of the attending worshippers. Oridnarily, a few drops per person is sufficient. Whoever is pouring the wine needs some remedial portion control gauge!
Click to expand...
It’s not as easy as it sounds, especially in a large parish. In our parish, some weeks we have maybe 1/2 of a chalice (out of 6 total left) and others we will have 2 full chalices left. Same number in the pews, same mass time, same priest, etc.

Go figure.
 
One wonders if this is how receving under both forms went away the first time…
 
manualman said:
One wonders if this is how receving under both forms went away the first time…
Click to expand...
Actually, the main reason was because people began to believe that you did not receive the precious blood, you didn’t receive the whole Christ. At that point, only the priest received.
 
Sherry_G said:
The EM is to consume the remainder of Christ’s precious Blood, period.
Click to expand...
GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#III._PARTICULAR_MINISTRIES

A. Mass Without a Deacon
  1. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.
 
NewsTheMan said:
I was at Mass last week. The EMsHC purify the vessels straight after communion (I know, this is wrong, but the Bishop says it’s alright so it will continue).
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter I

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[23.] The faithful “should cling to the Bishop as the Church does to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ does to the Father, so that all may be in harmonious unity, and that they may abound to the glory of God”.[54] All, including members of Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life as well as those of all ecclesial associations and movements of any kind, are subject to the authority of the diocesan Bishop in all liturgical matters,[55] apart from rights that have been legitimately conceded. To the diocesan Bishop therefore falls the right and duty of overseeing and attending to Churches and oratories in his territory in regard to liturgical matters, and this is true also of those which are founded by members of the above-mentioned institutes or under their direction, provided that the faithful are accustomed to frequent them.[56]
 
JM3 said:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter I

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[23.] The faithful “should cling to the Bishop as the Church does to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ does to the Father, so that all may be in harmonious unity, and that they may abound to the glory of God”.[54] All, including members of Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life as well as those of all ecclesial associations and movements of any kind, are subject to the authority of the diocesan Bishop in all liturgical matters,[55] apart from rights that have been legitimately conceded. To the diocesan Bishop therefore falls the right and duty of overseeing and attending to Churches and oratories in his territory in regard to liturgical matters, and this is true also of those which are founded by members of the above-mentioned institutes or under their direction, provided that the faithful are accustomed to frequent them.[56]
Click to expand...
You are taking this out of context.

First, we need to listen to the authority of the Bishop in the liturgy. But he does not have the authority to do whatever he wants. I don’t have time to look up more references, but please stop taking things out of context.

See RS, #21:

[The bishop] within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.

He can not do whatever he wants in the liturgy.
 
SACRAM LITURGIAM

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19640125_sacram-liturgiam_en.html

XI. Finally we wish to emphasize that—beyond what we in this apostolic letter on liturgical matters have either changed or have ordered carried out at the established time—regulation of the liturgy comes solely within the authority of the Church: that is, of this Apostolic See and, in accordance with the law, of the bishop. Consequently, absolutely no one else, not even a priest, can on his own initiative add or subtract or change anything in liturgical matters (CONSTITUTION, Article 22, paragraphs 1 and 3).
 
JM3 said:
SACRAM LITURGIAM

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19640125_sacram-liturgiam_en.html

XI. Finally we wish to emphasize that—beyond what we in this apostolic letter on liturgical matters have either changed or have ordered carried out at the established time—regulation of the liturgy comes solely within the authority of the Church: that is, of this Apostolic See and, in accordance with the law, of the bishop. Consequently, absolutely no one else, not even a priest, can on his own initiative add or subtract or change anything in liturgical matters (CONSTITUTION, Article 22, paragraphs 1 and 3).
Click to expand...
Can you please stop posting quotes without any other comments, and explain what point you are trying to make? Assuming you are trying to say the bishop can change anything he wants, look at it closer:

regulation of the liturgy comes solely within the authority of the Church: that is, of this Apostolic See and, in accordance with the law, of the bishop.

“the apostolic see” - Rome can do whatever it wants with the Mass. Obviously.
“in accordance with the law, of the bishop” - The bishop can do whatever is allowed to alter those things that are specifically granted to him, such as allowing the faithful to stand after the agnus dei. That’s why it says “in accordance with the law”.

He does not have a “blank check” with the liturgy.
 
TheMc said:
Can you please stop posting quotes without any other comments.
Click to expand...
Show me the document that gives you the authority to regulate my posts.

A Bishop knows his authority and is answerable to Jesus. Not to you.
 
JM3 said:
Show me the document that gives you the authority to regulate my posts.
Click to expand...
Come on. Let’s be reasonable. We’re having a discussion, and I’m just trying to make sure I understand what you’re trying to say. There’s nothing unreasonable about that.
JM3 said:
A Bishop knows his authority and is answerable to Jesus. Not to you.
Click to expand...
And that’s why we have monstrosities like the LA (mis)education conference. All this “going straight to Jesus” stuff.

Most good bishops I know are answerable to the holy see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top