E
Elzee
Guest
Does it matter if EMHC’s consume the remaining Precious Blood in their cups in the sanctuary immediately after communion, or if they return to the sacristy room to consume it (also immediately after communion)?
- Status
C
Cristiano
Guest
In my parish we have been instructed to return to the sacristy to consume it, if any left.
Yesterday I was looking online for some formal/official documents with clearly espressed do’s and dont’s for EMHCs. I would appreciate anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut with reference to documents, books or web sites. Personal opinions are really welcome but please state that is your opinion.
F
frleo
Guest
You might want to refer to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
It is referenced here usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
I hope this helps
- The sacred vessels are purified by the priest, the deacon, or an instituted acolyte after Communion or after Mass, insofar as possible at the credence table. The purification of the chalice is done with water alone or with wine and water, which is then drunk by whoever does the purification. The paten is usually wiped clean with the purificator.
It is referenced here usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
I hope this helps
P
palmas85
Guest
I was always under the impression that it must all be consumed at the altar.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
I consume the remaining Blood of Christ in the sacristy room. It seems very crude to up end the chalice in front of the congregation.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
It does seem that what frleo provided from GIRM agrees with you.
Quote=frleo
You might want to refer to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
Care must be taken that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar.
It is referenced here usccb.org/liturgy/current…r4.shtml#sect4
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Here in RS —it states the same thing.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
[107.]… Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.[196]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
[107.]… Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.[196]
T
tequilamac
Guest
May I ask a question here that may be offensive to you EM’s? It is out of curiosity not to be offensive.
I was under the impression that the Vatican was trying to curtail the use of Extraordinary Ministers except when it was impossible for the priest to distribute in a reasonable fashion. So if this is the case, why are so many people still signing up to be EMs and why do we still have so many in every parish, especially the small parishes? If the Vatican disapproves, why is everyone still doing it? Do the EMs believe the Vatican is wrong or what?
I was under the impression that the Vatican was trying to curtail the use of Extraordinary Ministers except when it was impossible for the priest to distribute in a reasonable fashion. So if this is the case, why are so many people still signing up to be EMs and why do we still have so many in every parish, especially the small parishes? If the Vatican disapproves, why is everyone still doing it? Do the EMs believe the Vatican is wrong or what?
P
palmas85
Guest
I could answer that one, but in the spirit of charity, which many here say I lack, I will refrain from doing so.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Why? Does it make you angry? Why would it? It is a question that people in the pews are asking. My daughter asked me this question this morning when her teacher went up to be EM. Why is Mr. …Eucharistic Minister? I thought the Church didn’t want that? What am I supposed to tell her? Well, dear, Mr. … is an EM because it makes him mad to be asked why not or he does not care what the vatican thinks or what? We have approximately 60 people in Mass.We have 15 EM’s. The priest is not overloaded with work. I think it is a fair and honest question. And if EM’s cannot answer it without being angry, they have no business being an EM in the first place.
P
palmas85
Guest
My personal views on Extraordinary Ministers or as is often the case Extraordinary Abuse Ministers, 8 the other day for a congregation of about 30, and yes you guessed it no Chalice offered, are very well known on this forum and have resulted in more than a few heated exchanges from some of them and their die hard supporters. Lets just say that I don’t really think most Extraordinary Ministers are overly concerned with anything the Vatican might say that would infringe upon their, how shall I word this, rather elite community?Why? Does it make you angry? Why would it? It is a question that people in the pews are asking. My daughter asked me this question this morning when her teacher went up to be EM. Why is Mr. …Eucharistic Minister? I thought the Church didn’t want that? What am I supposed to tell her? Well, dear, Mr. … is an EM because it makes him mad to be asked why not or he does not care what the vatican thinks or what? We have approximately 60 people in Mass.We have 15 EM’s. The priest is not overloaded with work. I think it is a fair and honest question. And if EM’s cannot answer it without being angry, they have no business being an EM in the first place.
No they are overall quite content and assured that the US Bishops are firmly in their corner and will alow nothing to diminish their roles.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
They should not be consuming the remaining Precious Blood at all. The Priest and Deacons should at the altar an EMHC or two are permitted to assist the priest and deacon if necessary. But EMHC cannot do this instead of the priest and deacon.
E
Elzee
Guest
It says the hosts are to be consumed at the altar, but doesn’t specify the blood. Also - by ‘minister’ (what I put in red) does it mean priest or deacon or oes EMHC constitute a ‘minister’ - technically?? I’ve always seen EMHC’s consume what is left in our diocese - never the priest or deacon.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Oh. Sorry. I’m afraid that I have never read your views as I have never been confronted with a question I could not answer about EM’s before. My daughter was quite concerned. One of our EM’s is her English Teacher at school and he went up to be EM today. He has always conveyed the view that anyone who opposed the vatican was not really Catholic. She being 14 reads very well, he tells me at a level above college. So she has read that the Vatican is attempting to if not suppress the use of EM’s, to discourage it. And she reasonably wondered why then if we are following the Vatican, is he an EM? I did not intend to offend anyone either in the camp for or against EM’s. I guess you are saying it is all the Bishop’s fault? I think not. My own personal opinion would be that anyone who is aware that the Vatican does not want widespread use of EM’s, should stop volunteering to be one. But maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. I know I am a lector. I was asked at the time I joined the other lectors if I could also be a Eucharistic Minister and I said no, I thought we were not doing that anymore. But hey…who IS running the Church? It isn’t fair to blame the Bishops when the laity is still insisting on doing something else.
S
steve_green_2
Guest
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
The correct term is “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” not “Eucahristic Minister”.
From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. …
[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.”
The point of the term “Extraordinary Minister” is that the Ordinary Minister is a bishop, priest or deacon. Others do the job when there is a special need and not enough Ordinary Ministers. Since the introduction of the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, around 1972, this is what the Vatican’s official documents have said.
What is the Vatican doing to discourage lay people from taking Communion to the sick, when not enough Ordinary Ministers are available? What is the Vatican doing to discourage exposition of the Blessed Sacrament? What is the Vatican doing to discourage Communion under both kinds?
I believe the Vatican is encouraging all these in its official documents. So what basis do you have for the assertion: “… the Vatican is attempting to if not suppress the use of EM’s, to discourage it.”
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
I believe EMHCs may consume the Precious Blood, based on a letter of 22 March 2002 by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez (Prot. 1383/01/L). There is a report on it at usccb.org/liturgy/innews/03042002.shtml .
To summarise, the USA bishops asked for an indult allowing this. The reported reply was: "Cardinal Medina, Prefect of CDWDS, noted that neither an indult nor even the permission of the diocesan bishop is required for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to help the priest celebrant to consume what may remain of the Precious Blood after the distribution of Holy Communion. “Rather,” he wrote, “given the grave and overriding need to safeguard the Precious Blood, ministers of Holy Communion or other communicants may consume what remains of the Precious Blood in a dignified and reverent manner.”
The 2002 GIRM descibes only the priest and deacon doing this. This should be what normally happens. But if there is more than they want to drink, Extraordinary Ministers or other communicants should consume what remains.
E
Elzee
Guest
John, Thanks. Does it matter if they do this in the sanctuary or in the back room of the sanctuary? I’m still confused on this detail.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
RS 107 refers back to the GIRM. The section that frleo provided states that the Precious Blood is to be consumed at the Altar.
As to who is meant by “minister”. Are the laity (EMHCs are still laity) allowed to stand at the Altar to consume the remaining Precious Blood-----?
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…#Chapter%20III
[107.]… Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.[196]
Quote=frleo
You might want to refer to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
279…
Care must be taken that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar.
It is referenced here usccb.org/liturgy/current…r4.shtml#sect4
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
Yes, I think it matters.
The GIRM always describes the consumption of the remaining consecrated wine at the altar, even though the purifications should normally be at the credence table.
For example, 2002 GIRM n. 249: “The deacon, however, consumes at the altar all that remains of the Precious Blood, assisted, if necessary, by some of the concelebrants. He carries the chalice to the credence table and there he or a duly instituted acolyte purifies, wipes and arranges it in the usual way.”
I think this is so that it is clear to everyone that the Precious Blood has all been properly consumed. If it is taken into a back room or sacristy it creates confusion, gives cause for concern about security. Is someone going to pour it down the sacrarium by mistake? Should there be an investigation into someone deliberately profaning the Eucharist, which has the penalty of excommunication?
An option is for any communicant to help consume the Precious Blood. So I think it would be reasonable for them to come forward to the normal place to do this, rather than going to the altar.
- Status