I was wondering if there was something in error when the persons who distribute the Body and Blood of Jesus were passing the Chalice from one to the other at the altar before distributing to the congregation. Our pastor is in Nigeria at the moment and there is a priest taking his place. Normally, our pastor takes the Chalice and gives it to each person individually that is receiving on the altar and will be distributing to the congregation. I thought this was the proper thing to do.
The Elements should always be given to laypeople, they should never take it.
[94.] 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. Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.
This is my understanding, I guess that is why I noticed this specifically.
Thanks for the info.
The Priest is the Ordinary Minister, it is his place to distribute Communion. When there are great enough numbers He may have extra ordinary ministers help distribute Communion. Since the Priest probably indicated he wanted them to distribute to each other, they were following his lead. Each presenting the Body & Blood of Christ to the other. I believe this is acceptable for Eucharistic Ministers, but would not be for alter boys.
It's not acceptable for anyone. This is not the way the Eucharist was intended to be distributed.
My understanding is that the Priest is to give the Chalice directly to the person and the Chalice is not to be passed from hand to hand by and to layman. Other posters seem to think this is correct also.
Do you mean that the priest gives the chalice to an EMHC, who then receives from it, then administers to the rest of the EMHCs who have not received a chalice of their own? That is the way it’s done at our parish.
If so, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Is it any passing of the chalice along the line (if that is what is happening) that you feel is wrong? i have never seen that happen.
The priest gave it to the first one in line on the altar and she passed it on to the others standing on the altar waiting to give the Chalice to the congregation. Normally, our pastor gives each person the Chalice individually and it is not passed from lay person to lay person around the altar.
Maybe some one can weigh in on this that has the correct information. To my understanding this is not correct. If I am wrong, please let me know.
The priest should have given the chalice to each individual layperson one by one. It is not permitted to pass it around amongst laypeople.
Priest giving the chalice to one EMHC who then present the chalice to all the other EMHCs is permitted. There is nothing different between that and the EMHC presenting the chalice to everyone else in the congregation. I have also seen it where the EMHC presents it to the other EMHCs and after they received the priest hands their own cups to EMHCs that will administer the blood. That would also be permitted.
Priest giving the chalice to one EMHC who then passes the chalice down the line is not permitted.
I can’t remember if the first person was EMHC or not, I think she was, but I do know that she passed it to the next person and then the next person passed the Chalice on down the line. She did not give it to each person as the EMHC would have given it directly to each person in the congregation or the priest would have given the Chalice directly to each person. The priest permitted this apparently or maybe he did not see it happening.
[quote="lakotak, post:12, topic:310612"]
I can't remember if the first person was EMHC or not, I think she was, but I do know that she passed it to the next person and then the next person passed the Chalice on down the line. She did not give it to each person as the EMHC would have given it directly to each person in the congregation or the priest would have given the Chalice directly to each person. The priest permitted this apparently or maybe he did not see it happening.
This is not permitted, no.
Yes, the process you describe in the first paragraph is how it is done in our parish.
So, to clarify, what people here are saying is wrong is for EMHC (A) to receive from the priest, drink, than pass it to EMHC (B), who drinks and then passes it to EMHC © etc.?
Yes, I agree it would be wrong, as the vessels should be handed over to the EMHCs by the celebrant. I say, ‘should’ because actually. more often than not in our parish, the priest goes to the front of the nave with his ciborium after administering to the EMHCs, and leaves them to pick up whatever vessel they are scheduled to administer off the altar and follow in his wake. I think it may be because the EMHCs stand at different stations according to which vessel they are holding, and once or twice the priest has given an EMHC the wrong one and they have had to cross over the church to get to the right place.
There are lots of different points to be made.
- A EMHC should never take the Eucharist or the Precious Blood. It should be received.
- The first EMHC should receive from a deacon or priest.
- Whether subsequent EMHCs receive from an EMHC, deacon, or priest doesn’t matter.
- Passing the chalice/ciborium down the line shouldn’t happen, devalues what is being passed and is against “policy”.
- Once the EMHC has received it doesn’t matter if the chalice or ciborium for distribution to the congregation is given to them by the priest or deacon or EMHC [edited].
I have been to some very large Masses at places that do things “by the book” and most of these Masses have a MC (Master of Ceremony) that isn’t the celebrant. Sometimes they are a priest/deacon that isn’t the main celebrant (as in large Bishop/Cardinal Masses) sometimes they aren’t (as in “normal” Sunday Masses). The MC (not the celebrant) after receiving the Eucharist from the celebrant is the person that hands out the ciboriums and/or chalices to the other priests and/or EMHCs (after they have received the Eucharist from the celebrant and/or someone else) and assigns them their locations. Nothing about this violates official doctrine.