Why does our priest do this?

[Deo_Gratias42]

Lay “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” may also consume the remaining blood at the end of communion. This was the practice ay both parishes I have attended. It’s probably in the G.I.R.M. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal).

No, it’s not. It is strictly forbidden. It’s a serious liturgical abuse which the Pope himself got involved in.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-can-emchs-purify-sacred-vessels-after-holy-communion/

CONGREGATIO CULTO DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM

Prot. n. 468/05/L Rome, 12 October 2006

Your Excellency,

I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.

I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:

1. There is no doubt that “the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 281; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

3. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). “For pastoral reasons”, therefore, “this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1390).

4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.

5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops’ Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain, Your Excellency,
Devotedly yours in Christ,

+ Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

Monsignor Mario Marini
Under-Secretary

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Some churches don’t have one. Ours doesn’t. We pour any rinse water in the flower garden.

Yes, any newer churches in my city don’t have one either because the city instituted a bylaw prohibiting anyone from installing a drain pipe directly into the ground. Those parishes use a bowl and pour the contents outside in a flower bed or some other safe place.

 

[Mark1970]

No, it’s not. It is strictly forbidden. It’s a serious liturgical abuse which the Pope himself got involved in.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-can-emchs-purify-sacred-vessels-after-holy-communion/

This practice still seems to be happening in a lot of Churches in the UK, including my parish church. I privately sent a PM to one of the Apologists about it, as I’m an EMHC, and their response was “it’s wrong but it’s not your problem to worry about, it’s for the priest to sort out. Don’t worry about it.”

 

[MarkThompson]

No, it’s not. It is strictly forbidden. It’s a serious liturgical abuse which the Pope himself got involved in.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-can-emchs-purify-sacred-vessels-after-holy-communion/

These are two separate topics. Consuming the remainder of the Precious Blood is not purification of the sacred vessels. There is no prohibition on people’s assisting the priest with consumption of the remaining Sacrament.

Even the other issue, laypeople purifying the sacred vessels, although it is technically an abuse, can hardly be a “serious abuse” in light of the fact that it was expressly permitted for several years. Indeed, Redemptionis Sacramentum does not name this issue (¶ 119) on its lists of graviora delicta and grave matters (¶¶ 172-73).

 

[Anna_Claire]

These are two separate topics. Consuming the remainder of the Precious Blood is not purification of the sacred vessels. There is no prohibition on people’s assisting the priest with consumption of the remaining Sacrament.

Even the other issue, laypeople purifying the sacred vessels, although it is technically an abuse, can hardly be a “serious abuse” in light of the fact that it was expressly permitted for several years. Indeed, Redemptionis Sacramentum does not name this issue (¶ 119) on its lists of graviora delicta and grave matters (¶¶ 172-73).

Actually, using the word “abuse” is an abuse when we speak of liturgical matters. It’s used too often by those looking to find fault. A serious abuse would be something like using crackers and grape juice among others. Lay people purifying the vessels may be ilicit but it certainly is not an “abuse”.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Does the priest recieve extra graces for taking more of Christ’s blood than everyone else?

No. Receiving a particle of the host or even one drop of the Precious Blood constitutes a holy communion.

 

[angelic06]

Actually, using the word “abuse” is an abuse when we speak of liturgical matters. It’s used too often by those looking to find fault. A serious abuse would be something like using crackers and grape juice among others. Lay people purifying the vessels may be ilicit but it certainly is not an “abuse”.

The particular practice above of deliberately using crackers and grape juice, the latter of which is certainly invalid material for the consecration unless it is mustum, is not only an abuse but sacrilege and even simulation of the sacrament.

 

[WhiteLeather]

In addition to consuming and doing their best to consume any leftover of either species, there is also the reality of cleaning the vessels for their next use. If several Extraordinary Ministers consume some of the leftover Blood, they are simply doing what they are supposed to do to help prepare for the purification; also so that the priest or deacon doesn’t have to consume all the “wine” for themselves. It’s a bit of reality to consider.

In my parish, a sacristan stands near the credence table to keep an eye on the Communion lines (we’re a semi-circle, so 7-8 lines). If one E.M. finishes early, they’re directed to assist at another line, regardless of whether they have a ciborium or a chalice. Where people sit and how many of them receive Communion varies week to week, so we’re prepared to serve everyone with as much ease as possible. When all are done, I’m usually among the last to receive (I’m the liturgy/music director, keeping the Communion Processional song going while all receive).

We’re blessed with 2 full-time priests, share one priest with a neighboring parish (he serves the Spanish language part of the community), and a retired priest who assists at a few Masses each week. We also are blessed with 3 deacons and an acolyte who’s soon to be ordained permanent deacon. Still, with upwards of 1400 at a Mass, we truly need the ministry of the E.M. at Sunday Masses. Still, it’s up to the ordained and acolyte to purify the vessels so that they’re ready for the next Mass.

 

[PazzoGrande]

(I’m the liturgy/music director, keeping the Communion Processional song going while all receive).

How does your organist or pianist receive Eucharist? At my parish, he remains seated and still plays as someone administers the Host and the Cup to his mouth while his hands are still on the keyboard. If it were me I’d be afraid of dropping it and creating a gigantic problem… a GIGANTIC problem.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

How does your organist or pianist receive Eucharist? At my parish, he remains seated and still plays as someone administers the Host and the Cup to his mouth while his hands are still on the keyboard. If it were me I’d be afraid of dropping it and creating a gigantic problem… a GIGANTIC problem.

Wow! Ihave never seen or heard of such a thing. That sounds very dangerous and completely impractical. It would make more sense for him to recieve first (directly after the altar boys) or last, but after the song is over. There is nothing wrong with not having music at the very end of communion, especially when folks would be saying their thanksgiving prayers.

 

[WhiteLeather]

Wow! Ihave never seen or heard of such a thing. That sounds very dangerous and completely impractical. It would make more sense for him to recieve first (directly after the altar boys) or last, but after the song is over. There is nothing wrong with not having music at the very end of communion, especially when folks would be saying their thanksgiving prayers.

Dangerous? Hardly. Impractical? No. And if one reads and follows the GIRM, one knows that the Communion song begins WHILE the Priest/Presider is consuming or receiving Communion. He is the first of many to receive. To wait for him to receive places undue attention on his reception. I, as director, am also the organist/pianist, and end the song as close to all receiving as possible, and am the last to receive (unless the guitarist or bassist follows me in the aisle).

That being said, I have received while playing, and it’s no more impractical or dangerous than a person receiving on the tongue, or a person without use of their hands receiving.

Although I’d not start the song so late, why would the musician(s) receive after the altar servers? They’re not designated in any way to receive first that I know of.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Music doesn’t have to begin the second the priest consumes the host. Masses go on all the time with no music at all, so I highly doubt everyone would be staring at the music director if he got up to receive communion.

At my parish, the altar boys are the first ones to receive, since they are already right there. The choir and musicians sometimes line up right away (they are near the altar to the side of the nave) and receive first, sometimes they wait until the very end. I don’t know how they make that decision other than preference.

Receiving communion across a piano or organ keyboard (while playing) is not at all the same thing as receiving on the tongue while standing or kneeling at the railing. First, the musician is distracted from communion by playing. Second, the priest or EMHC is not directly in front of the person, but leaning over the instrument or standing to the side. If the host falls, it could go in the piano, get stuck in the keys, full under the organ pedals, none of which are good options.

I just can’t see that continuous music is so critical, that the person playing can’t get up to receive.

 

[Richard320]

Wow! Ihave never seen or heard of such a thing. That sounds very dangerous and completely impractical. It would make more sense for him to recieve first (directly after the altar boys) or last, but after the song is over. There is nothing wrong with not having music at the very end of communion, especially when folks would be saying their thanksgiving prayers.

I dunno… when I was a kid nobody touched the Host but the Priest and I don’t ever remember seeing anyone scrambling to recover one. For that matter, I don’t think I ever saw one hit the Communion Paten. (That’s the gold-plated ping pong paddle looking thing that altar boys held under the communicants’ chins)

Not sure if I’d want the Chalice held by someone else, though…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I dunno… when I was a kid nobody touched the Host but the Priest and I don’t ever remember seeing anyone scrambling to recover one. For that matter, I don’t think I ever saw one hit the Communion Paten. (That’s the gold-plated ping pong paddle looking thing that altar boys held under the communicants’ chins)

Not sure if I’d want the Chalice held by someone else, though…

See my other post. I’m not worried about the musician not receiving in the hand, but aboutthe awkward set up of receiving over the instrument, while obviously not paying full attention.

 

[WhiteLeather]

See my other post. I’m not worried about the musician not receiving in the hand, but aboutthe awkward set up of receiving over the instrument, while obviously not paying full attention.

I’ve never received “over” any instrument, and I was quite “obviously” “paying full attention” to receiving while I played. That was rare, though (receiving while playing).

Mrs. Sally also said, “Music doesn’t have to begin the second the priest consumes the host. Masses go on all the time with no music at all, so I highly doubt everyone would be staring at the music director if he got up to receive communion.”

May I suggest that you become more familiar with the instructions in the GIRM before submitting your own ideals as what should be done? The GIRM specifies that the song begins WHILE the priest is receiving Communion. It’s in paragraph 86. Please read it. Just because some parishes don’t follow the instructions doesn’t make it right.

 

[MissBorgia]

Yes, but they may noy purify the vessels.

I was instructed as a sacristan at my parish…in some case if Father or Deacon does not ( rarely ever ever happens) as a commisioned sacristain we have the authority to purify the sacred vessels.

 

[paperwight66]

Somebody has to, and if the priest disappears or is busy talking to someone after Mass, what is the sacristan to do? The vessels can’t be put away as they are, nor washed without purifying.

I think the rules (yet again, like blessings being encouraged in the Communion line) must be different in the UK, as the EMHCs purify the vessels at the Cathedral, and in our parish, even when the Archbishop is saying daily Mass for us to help out, so he doesn’t have any objection, it would seem.

Posters put forward rules as being so black and white, but really, they are not. There are national differences, and differences brought about by common-sense. There is very little totally right or totally wrong at all times and in all places.