Priest pours the wine?

Is the priest (or deacon) the only one who is allowed to pour the consecrated wine into seperate chalices? Or are EMHCs able to do this as well?

Also, does wine and bread not on the altar during the consecration get turned into Jesus as well? This is always something I’ve wanted to ask… I’m pretty sure that it does, because I don’t know how the priest could fit 500 wafers and a bajillion chalices of wine on one little altar, but I’m just curious. I ask because at mass the priest always consecrates one plate of wafers, and then the EMHCs pull out a few other plates from the back.

Thank you

No one should be pouring the Blood of Christ. This has been discussed before on this form (try the search), and apparently Cardinal Mahony decided of his own initiative that he’s okay with it, and sent around a letter saying so. So you won’t get any traction on this issue.

I would guess that that the other hosts that are brought out are being brought from the tabernacle and were consecrated at a previous Mass. The general practice is to use the oldest hosts on hand first, since they cannot be allowed to go bad. However, EMHCs should not be bringing vessels from the tabernacle; in the GIRM, if you look, it states that the priest is to do this.

Edited to add: by the way, 500 wafers really isn’t very much, and the issue of a bajillion chalices is exactly why Cardinal Mahony and some priests prefer to consecrate one or more large decanters, and then pour into chalices during the fraction. And as to your question whether the elements must literally be on the alter, a priest in California couldn’t consecrate bread in Maine, but I believe he definitely can consecrate bread beside the altar, or in front of the altar, etc. That said, the the hosts are being brought in from another room, they were consecrated at a previous Mass. That much is pretty much universal practice.

okay, let me not only answer the questions but clarify some statements and terminolories

the wafers (or bread) once consecrated ceases to be bread (or wafers) but becomes the Body of Christ. its not right for Catholics to refer to the Body of Christ as merely wafers

now, when the priest consecrates, all that is on the altar are consecrated, so all bread becomes the Body of Christ, and all wine becomes the Blood of Christ. there will be usually several chalices of bread for consecration. when you see the priest take something “out of the back”, that “out of the back” is the tabernacle were any consecrated hosts are kept. usually a priest will have some left over from earlier masses either in the day, or from weekday masses. whats kept in the tabernacle is already the Body of Christ, thus are not bread to be consecrated

there is usually only one cup of wine for consecration. in parishes where the Precious Blood is offered to the people, there will be extra chalices if there’s a sizable congregation. or the priest just fills his cup a bit more to have more for the people. all of the Precious Blood are to be consumed in the same mass it was consecrated

“Wafer” just refers to the size and shape, somewhat like the word “morsel” does, so it’s not theologically problematic. (Some churches use actual bread-like unleavened bread, and Eastern churches use leavened bread, so these wouldn’t be wafers to begin with.) In my experience, repeatedly and insistently calling the host “a wafer” is what you get from anti-Catholic Protestants, but if it’s wafer-shaped, and you want to talk about its shape, it’s okay to call it a wafer (we just recognize that it is not only a wafer, but also the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ!). Being a wafer (assuming it is) is part of the “accidents” of the Eucharist.

No one should be pouring the Blood of Christ. This has been discussed before on this form (try the search), and apparently Cardinal Mahony decided of his own initiative that he’s okay with it, and sent around a letter saying so. So you won’t get any traction on this issue.

Hmmm… well I am no longer living in the diocese of Los Angeles because I came home for the summer, so I don’t know my bishop’s position on it. So, when I go to mass tomorrow morning and see that the EMHCs are pouring the consecrated wine (I can’t remember whether they do at my home parish or not), should I still be recieving even though this is illicit? Or could I still recieve the eucharist and just not the wine? (Is this on the same level as the EMHCs helping to break the bread, as we discussed in the other forum? Just curious)

I would guess that that the other hosts that are brought out are being brought from the tabernacle and were consecrated at a previous Mass. The general practice is to use the oldest hosts on hand first, since they cannot be allowed to go bad. However, EMHCs should not be bringing vessels from the tabernacle; in the GIRM, if you look, it states that the priest is to do this.

Well I don’t know whether or not the EMHCs are geting them directly from the tabernacle, or if they are already “laying around” in the area behind the altar during the whole mass. But I don’t see how the priest could possibly go to the tabernacle and back to the altar without excessively prolonging the Agnus Dei, seeing as how the tabernacle is pretty far away from the altar (it’s a big church), and the fact that he would have to somehow carry like 3 or 4 plates of the Eucharist all by himself…

If I do see the EHMCs going to the tabernacle to get the Eucharist themselves, is this a reason not to recieve the Eucharist?

i don’t think its a question of being licit, but it just an abuse and disrespect for the Precious Blood of our Lord

but this does not invalidate it in any way. so you may receive if you want

the priest should be the one to open the tabernacle and bring out the Hosts. although its also not uncommon to have the EMHCs do this if the tabernacle is not directly behind the altar

oh, during Good Friday because the tabernacle is open and empty, the hosts are kept at the back (presumably in another tabernacle, i haven’t confirmed this exactly) and our priest brought out 4 or 5 chalices all by himself and placed it on the altar.

no. its your loss, not theirs. this doesn’t invalidate the Eucharist in any way. it may be an abuse on their part, but it doesn’t make the Eucharist any less

As a general rule , the celebrant places all elements to be consecrated on the corporal spread on the altar and the intention becomes to consecrate all the gifts on the corporal.

When amounts of bread and wine to be consecrated are so large as to exceed the practicality of placing them on the corporal , they are subsequently still placed on the altar near the priest’s chalice and paten, which remain on the corporal.

When amounts of bread and wine to be consecrated at a Mass are so large as to exceed the practicality of placing them on the altar , they should be placed nearby and may also be consecrated. But the priest’s chalice and paten should always remain on the corporal and everything is hinged on the priest’s intention as to whether the elements become consecrated or not.

Even if a presider/celebrant should abuse these rules , but still has the intention of consecrating the elements, they become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Conversely , even if a presider/celebrant should obey all these rules , but does not have the intention of consecrating the elements, transubstantiation then is not effected (does not occur) and the elements remain bread and wine alone.

cuf.org/FileDownloads/gifts.pdf

It IS a matter of being licit, or rather illict. But you are correct that it does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.

Per Redemptionis Sacramentum, that Blessed Sacrament in the form of wine is NOT to be poured. That includes priests, deacons or laity.

[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices.[193] For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

No one should be pouring the Precious Blood from one vessel to another. Any and all pouring should be done before the wine is consecrated, during the “Preparation of the Gifts” before the Eucharistic Prayer.

The EMHCs are probably getting plates of already-consecrated Hosts from the tabernacle, which is where extra consecrated Hosts are placed after Communion (and from where they can be retrieved if necessary).

The priest’s intention is generally only to consecrate that which is on the corporal, or perhaps on the altar (if not everything can fit on the corporal).

  1. So I went to mass today, and it turns out that the priest consecrates his own individual chalice, along with two large jugs. Then during the agnus dei he and EMHCs pour out the consecrated wine into seperate chalices… so apparantly this is wrong? But now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever been to a mass that wasn’t celebrated in this way… is the priest supposed to pour out all the wine into the 10 seperated chalices and then consecrate it? Because if he did this, the altar would be absollutely cluttered with a bunch of chalices…

  2. The priest communicates to a few of the EMHCs, and then these go on to communicate to other EMHCs… is this allowed? Or are all EMHCs required to recieve directly from the priest?

  3. Also, one of the EMHCs was helping the priest distibute consecrated hosts into seperate plates during the agnus dei (I’m guessing becasue it would take forever for the priest to do it by himself). Is this okay?

I’m sorry for all the questions, I’m just really curious as to how mass is to be (properly) celebrated :slight_smile:

The Precious Blood is not to be poured out into the chalices. The wine is supposed to be poured out into the chalices at the offertory by either the deacon or the celebrant.

Please note what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices.193 For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

When the Holy Father celebrates Mass at the Vatican, you will often see priests holding ciborria standing in a circle around the sanctuary. Since it is a difficult feat to have about 100 ciborria on the altar, the Holy Father intends to consecrate not only what is on the altar, but, what is within the ciborria that the priests are carrying.

When there is a huge number of communicants, Redemptionis Sacramentum recommends that communion under both kinds not be employed.

Regarding the question that you raised in the post ahead of mine, this is what is supposed to be happening as far as the EMHCs are concerned. First of all, they have no business being up there until after the priest himself has communicated. They are also not to do any pouring whatsoever. I think that we have addressed this issue in your previous thread. They are not to be assisting at all during the Fraction Rite. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[73.] In the celebration of Holy Mass the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread - done only by the Priest celebrant, if necessary with the help of a Deacon or of a concelebrant - begins after the exchange of peace, while the Agnus Dei is being recited. For the gesture of breaking bread “carried out by Christ at the Last Supper, which in apostolic times gave the whole Eucharistic action its name, signifies that the faithful, though they are many, are made one Body in the communion of the one Bread of Life who is Christ, who died and rose for the world’s salvation” (cf. I Cor 10:17).153 For this reason the rite must be carried out with great reverence.154 Even so, it should be brief. The abuse that has prevailed in some places, by which this rite is unnecessarily prolonged and given undue emphasis, with laypersons also helping in contradiction to the norms, should be corrected with all haste.155

What you have witnessed is very ilicit. The part about the distribution of the Precious Blood is gravely ilicit, as RS listed it as such.
Second, this is what is supposed to be happening at Communion:

  1. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.97 In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.98

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.

Thus, they receive their vessels directly from the celebrant, who, should also be distributing Holy Communion ot them.

Isn’t the altar cluttered with chalices anyway, after the Precious Blood has been poured into them?

The distribution of wine into chalices is supposed to take place during the Offertory, never after the consecration (when it is no longer wine, but the Precious Blood).

I really think a ten-chalice situation is imprudent. That is not what the Church had in mind when she permitted the laity to receive from the chalice again.

I think I’d prefer the priest to distribute Communion to all the EMHCs himself, but I do not think there is a requirement for it to be this way. In fact, in parishes where there is only one ordinary minister of Holy Communion (i.e. a priest without any other priest or deacon) and Communion is offered under both kinds, it is common for the priest to give Communion to one EMHC who then assists him in administering the Chalice to the other EMHCs while the priest gives them the Precious Body.

No, it is not.
37. As the Agnus Dei or Lamb of God is begun, the Bishop or priest alone, or with the assistance of the deacon, and if necessary of concelebrating priests, breaks the eucharistic bread. Other empty ciboria or patens are then brought to the altar is this is necessary. The deacon or priest places the consecrated bread in several ciboria or patens, if necessary, as required for the distribution of Holy Communion. If it is not possible to accomplish this distribution in a reasonable time, the celebrant may call upon the assistance of other deacons or concelebrating priests.

  1. If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion. After the priest has concluded his own Communion, he distributes Communion to the extraordinary ministers, assisted by the deacon, and then hands the sacred vessels to them for distribution of Holy Communion to the people.
    EMHCs should not be at or near the altar until it is time for them to receive, so no, they should not assist the priest in the distribution of the Hosts among the ciboria.

We pour at our parish. Another case, methinks, of the bishops being aware of but not stepping in. I wonder if Archbishop V. will start cracking down…


  1. These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.

The EMHCs must receive the vessel. It is not mandated that they receive the Sacrament itself from the Priest. RS and the GIRM both do not make mention of this. No one is permitted to self communicate.

I think it is interesting to note that the Deacon is not permitted to hand the vessels to the EMHCs. I see this a lot.

Let the Chancellory now. +Vigneron is very interested in stopping these type of things.

Write a nice letter requesting information on what particular law is in this diocese related to pouring the Blessing Sacrament relative to R.S.

Mark,

So if I understand you correctly, Cardinal Mahony allows for priests to be able to pour the wine once it’s been consecrated? But this, if not for him saying it was okay, would normally be illicit, correct?

And when you say “preference” in the second paragraph… is it really a matter of preference on the priest’s part, or does he really need to be following the rules? Because this is exactly what the priest at my parish does… he consecrates 2 large decanters (plus his individual chalice) and then he and other EHMCs pour into separate chalices.

I guess I am just trying to be fully prepared and more knowledgeable before I bring these issues up with my pastor.

I’ll address just this last part.

NeedImprovement had a good post here forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6740865&postcount=7 Allow me to simply expand upon it.

The priest must have the “intention to consecrate.” But how is that intention stated?

Whatever elements (bread/wine) are on the corporal during the consecration become the Body and Blood. It is a “given” that the priest has the intent to consecrate whatever is on the corporal (presuming that he has the intent to celebrate a valid Mass) and likewise not-to-consecrate whatever is not on the corporal. Note that the distinction deals with the corporal and not the altar.

That might seem a little obvious, but let me explain by examples. If there is an extra host that falls out during the offertory, and lands on the altar but the priest isn’t aware of it, then it’s not consecrated. If the priest keeps extra hosts on the altar (perhaps to add them at the offertory if needed) but does not place them on the corporal, they are not consecrated.

Any bread/wine which is not on the corporal during the consecration is consecrated ONLY if the priest specifically intends to do so.

If the priest doesn’t have enough room on the corporal to fit all the vessels, the right thing to do is to add another corporal (or more) to make one large corporal. However, if he skips the corporal and still places the vessels on the altar, they are consecrated only if he intends to consecrate them. This might seem like a given, but it’s not. No doubt, some readers are thinking “since he put them on the altar, of course he has the intent to consecrate them” But that’s not how the Church defines it. The presumed intent applies only to what is on the corporal, not the altar.

I’m willing to bet that some are asking “how can he put hosts on the altar but not have the intent to consecrate?” It happens…

Some examples:

A priest might accidentally drop a host on the altar either at the offertory or even before Mass–or the same might happen to pieces of an unconsecrated host.

I once said Mass as a visitor where the pastor kept a supply of unconsecrated hosts on the altar “hidden” by the missal stand (in a little plastic deli container). I didn’t even know they were there until I’d been saying Mass for a few days. Keeping hosts stored in the altar like that is not a very sound thing to do; so “don’t try this at home folks!”

On the other extreme:

If the priest has the specific intention to consecrate bread/wine which is not even on the altar, so long as it’s present at Mass (ie, not in the other room, or something like that) then it’s likewise consecrated. A priest in a situation like that would have to be very explicit/specific in his intent though.

When you studied this, was there any discussion of the hypothetical limits of what could be consecrated, distance-wise?

It is still illicit. The Bishop does not have the authority to override RS.

And when you say “preference” in the second paragraph… is it really a matter of preference on the priest’s part, or does he really need to be following the rules?

The priest who does it, does it because of his own preference, but he is supposed to be following the rules.

Again, during Papal Masses, you will see a lot of priests gathered near the altar, in about a 100-ft circumference, each holding ciborria. Obviously, you can’t have all of these vessels up on the altar with the Holy Father. He intends to consecrate what the priests are carrying in the ciborria, and these can number roughly thousands of hosts for the massive crowds at either the basilica or at St. Peter’s Square. Just imagine the hundreds of thousands of hosts that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had to consecrate for the funeral Mass of the Venerable Pope John Paul II. Obvously, several thousand ciborria could not be placed on the altar that day.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.