Q: Regarding the deacon who cannot tolerate alcohol, why not solve his matter by having the deacon distribute the sacred Host instead of ministering the chalice? There would be no need for mustum.
Just for information, on Nov. 3, 2009, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (Prot. N. 957/09/L stated in part: “The passage noted in your letter, indicating that ‘if Communion is given under both kinds, the deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants’ (IGMR, no. 182), can certainly not be interpreted in the sense of prohibiting the deacon from distributing the Sacred Host when, in addition to ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, there should be a need for extraordinary ministers to distribute the Sacrament to the faithful.”
==
A: I agree that a deacon may distribute the Body of Christ, but it is more in keeping with his ministry to administer the chalice, as mentioned even in the ordination rite at no. 189. I treat the symbolism in the book I co-authored with Bob Puhala for LTP, Guide for Deacons.
GIRM 281 lists reason why communion has a fuller form when it is administered under both kinds.
I stand by my position on this case: Better for the deacon to drink the Blood of Christ than to abstain, and to administer the Blood of Christ rather than the Body. He may perform the first of these actions with consecrated mustum.
View All Blog Posts | Explore Books | Submit a Blog Question | Share Post via Email