Blood of Christ in Alternative Vessel

  • Thread starter Thread starter jvickers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Totally flies in the face of Redemptionis Sacramentum that specifically forbids pouring after the Consecration.
 
There are plenty of churches in my diocese that pour after the consecration. I am aware this is not approved but it was a practice done for years and so it’s very common still
 
Just for reference:
Redemptionis Sacramentum
[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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is an excellent reference, @Phemie. Thank you for sharing it.
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
They consecrated the blood in a big pitcher and then poured
Click to expand...
I think Paperwrights question was not about how the wine was Consecrated, but how all the little cups were proper cleaned ( purified) afterwards.

Secondly, as Phemie noted, what you just descripted is considered to be a grave wrong by the Church

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

[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.

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.
 
Last edited:
If arrangements were made ahead of time, I believe the priest can have a second chalice that only she will receive from, but he may also prefer/suggest she just receive the host.
 
We have eight chalices already, so that might be confusing. I’m thinking intinction might be the route to go…
 
That’s a possibility. Could an arrangement be made for her to be the first to drink from one of the chalices?
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
I believe there was special dispensation
Click to expand...
Understood, for future knowledge, there can be no special dispensation to a grave wrong. That is noted in the term “objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Eucharist”

The qualifier ‘objectively’ indicates that this a grave wrong always and everywhere.
 
I know a lady with Celiac. She purchased a small chalice, it is reserved for her alone. She let’s the Sacristan know which Mass she will attend, sits up front and recieves from that chalice only. It is then returned to the Altar and no one else receives from it.

Speak to your pastor, this is do-able.
 
I think that is not allowed in the Catholic Church. I have seen the tiny individual cups used in reformed churches until they started with the recipient dipping the host themselves instead of drinking from the chalice.

When my diocese has made pilgrimages, the bishop has pointed out that those with gluten intolerance can receive from a separate chalice in X place.

Talk to your parish priest.
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
There are plenty of churches in my diocese that pour after the consecration. I am aware this is not approved but it was a practice done for years and so it’s very common still
Click to expand...
We did that in our parish too but the minute that Redemptionis Sacramentum was published and I showed it to our Pastor he immediately stopped the practice. He also stopped having EMHCs purify the vessels, something which the US had an indult for and which many Canadian parishes imitated, when the Vatican refused to renew the US indult.
 
HeDa said:
I think that is not allowed in the Catholic Church. I have seen the tiny individual cups used in reformed churches until they started with the recipient dipping the host themselves instead of drinking from the chalice.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve attended services at non-Catholic churches where you see holders designed for these little cups attached to the back of pews. Imagine the nightmare pouring the Precious Blood from a pitcher into these small cups and trying not to spill or splash! Where these are used they usually use a special plastic bottle to fill them without spilling. Often “Communion” is distributed from trays like these.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I do not know what disease your wife has. Of course, that is confidential information that does not need to be shared unless you want to PM me. I am not, I must point out, a doctor but I am a biologist. I would ask you if avoiding the chalice is something that you have been advised to do by a doctor. The chalice does present an increased risk of transmission of infectious diseases because of all the people who share it. However, the risk is not much greater than receiving a wafer of unleavened bread from the hand of a human. (I do know the bread is now consecrated and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and the priest’s hands are consecrated but the risk of diseases transmission remains.) I do wonder why the chalice would pose such an increased risk to your wife.

There are three possible solutions to the issue of her receiving from the chalice. The first one has to be her not receiving from the chalice. She knows she receives Christ in full from the bread alone and therefore should not see that she is missing out from not receiving the Precious Blood. Another option is she receives from a chalice that the priest has set aside from her to receive from only. A third possibility is that she receives from a chalice from which others receive but she receives first.
 
@TomH1, both her hematologists, one who is from Shands research hospital in Gainsville, Florida, forbade her from receiving from the chalice. She has neutropenia, which affects approximately 1 in 3 million people worldwide, if that many. This involves little to no actual neutrophil counts and virtually no white blood cells. She has to inject herself with neopogen, which stimulates bone marrow production, every other night to bolster her ANC and WBC counts. The side effects are horrible.

She only leaves the house for doctor appointments and Mass. When I leave the house (grocery store and doctor appointments), I wear a mask to keep as protected as I can so as not to bring something home with me. Fortunately, we both work from home. It’s a terribly difficult situation for her, as one might imagine.

We are attempting to negotiate with the head pastor for a solution. This is why I was asking about the canon law (I’ve not seen it and I’ve read a good deal) or a USCCB ruling. We have faith that the body and blood of Christ will not infect her. She may have to resort to intinction. She would like to partake in both species in full as she believes it will have a healing quality.

Thanks for responding.
 
TomH1 said:
A third possibility is that she receives from a chalice from which others receive but she receives first.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a good possibility. Speak to your Priest and see if she could receive first due to her health issues.
 
I know of priests who consecrate in a chalice meant for the consumption of only one communicant, a communicant other than himself. (In all these cases, it is someone who is the only celiac in attendance at a Mass at which the priest has elected not to offer the Precious Blood to everyone; he only ensures that everyone planning to receive Holy Communion has at least one species available whose accidents they can physically tolerate.) There isn’t a limit on how many chalices the priest may elect to use, provided each vessel is a vessel worthy to be used as a chalice. (As far as I know, there is no prohibition on putting a chalice into an autoclave, but I don’t know whether chalices are made to endure that.)

The priest will know about placing a pall on that chalice as much as possible, so no stray microbes or viruses would float into it. She might want to receive only under that species, since obviously the priest would have touched a host with his hands and could transmit some microbe or virus that way.

I do think there might be a limit to how much a particular pastor will go out of his way to make a second species available to every single communicant. That is his prerogative. The faithful have the right to the sacraments, but not the right to have the sacraments dispensed in the particular way they specify.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top