Can anyone explain?

[mchium]

Redemtionis Sacramentum states in nos. 105 & 106: (italics mine)

[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.

Virtually every priest in virtually **every **parish I have attended (I’ve attended many because I am searching for an obedient and reverant parish), this directive is ignored completely.

Does anyone have any idea why this is? I am able to come up with only three possibilities: 1) the priests are unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum and what it calls for; 2) the priests are aware of it and don’t care; 3) the priests are in conscious disobedience and rebellion for their own reasons/agenda.

Given my possibilities, I don’t know what’s worse - priests who don’t know what the Church teaches or those who ignore her teachings.

Anyone have some options I missed? Why is this ignored so universally?

 

[lorathon]

This post hits very home to me.

I am going to a meeting with my Parish Liturgist and hopefully my Pastor this morning to talk about this very abuse. I have printed out about 12 documents showing how our diocese is going against the Redemtionis Sacramentum.

I hope that they will listen to me. If not, then I will go to the Diocese and try to talk to the Bishop.

The USCCB tried to get an adaptation to the GIRM but was denied twice by Rome.

Norms For Holy Communion in the US

USCCB News Letter May 2004

Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

Redemptionis Sacramentum and the Authority of the Diocesan Bishop

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass

Adaptations of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia

The above links helped me greatly. Hope it helps you.

 

[mchium]

Thanks so much! Jeff, for your reply! I am not alone! Hooray!! Please come back and let us know how your meeting went. I support you 10000% but will tell you that when I approached my archbishop, I was told to ‘let it be’. (in those words!!) Heaven help us! And Heaven help YOU to a different result! I’ll be praying for you!

Marge

 

[tee_eff_em]

I do not encounter this situation myself, but my understanding is (and it is very likely that I misunderstand):

After *Redemptionis Sacramentum *was promulgated, one or more US bishops sent a *dubium *to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments asking “May we please keep doing this?” and they received the *responsum *in the negative. They then sent a second dubium, essentially asking “Are you sure?”. I have not heard of a *responsum *since then, nor can I guess how long this game might go on.

Repeat: I might be completely wrong in this recollection.

tee

 

[lorathon]

The two letters were sent and both were denied.

Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

This specifically states the answer to the letters questions. Both were denied by the Prefect of Congregation of Divine Worship Cardinal Arinze

This quote from the above link I think is the most important.

Is the prohibition against pouring the Precious Blood likely to change?

No. Even if the USCCB wished to reassert the USCCB Norms to permit the use of flagons, the action must be confirmed by the Congregation, which is empowered to change any decision of a Conference of Bishops, even substantially, in order to bring it into conformity with Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Redemtionis Sacramentum states in nos. 105 & 106: (italics mine)

[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.

Virtually every priest in virtually **every **parish I have attended (I’ve attended many because I am searching for an obedient and reverant parish), this directive is ignored completely.

Does anyone have any idea why this is? I am able to come up with only three possibilities: 1) the priests are unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum and what it calls for; 2) the priests are aware of it and don’t care; 3) the priests are in conscious disobedience and rebellion for their own reasons/agenda.

Given my possibilities, I don’t know what’s worse - priests who don’t know what the Church teaches or those who ignore her teachings.

Anyone have some options I missed? Why is this ignored so universally?

I don’t know if I’m quilified to answer, but I’ll give it a try, this is strictly my opinion.

I have recognized all of the above in various parishes. I feel it is much worse when priests know the norms and choose to ignore them or may be forced to ignore them by the pastor. Sometimes it is seen also throughout a particular Religious Order. Priests are instructed to celebrate Mass in a specific manner by their Order. They may very well be stuck between a rock (their Order) and a hard place (the Bishop).

 

[mchium]

Br Rich: You may well be correct, but what a shame! Again, another 'what is worse?" - to be disobedient or to be ordered to be disobedient! Where does this end. Of course, it’s not like there arent ubiquitous abuses in most Masses these days, but this is one of the most aggregious to me.

tee: I believe the second letter was also responded to in the negative…i.e. yes, we said no, and yes, we really mean it!

What part of ‘don’t pour the precious blood of Christ’ don’t they understand? Good grief!

At my ex (for good reasons) parish, one priest always puts the still partially filled ‘chalices’ used by the EMHC back on the credence table after Communion to just sit there (still half full of Jesus’ blood!) until Mass is over. When I still attended this parish and if I was at one of his Masses, I would go, after Mass, and kneel at the credence table in adoration until someone finally came to remove the precious blood! I thought it would make them think twice, but nope!!

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut everyone…I keep praying

 

[lorathon]

This is an update on my meeting.

Pastor was not present but relayed what he wanted to say. He explained that the Diocese said it was OK through the Bishop.

1. I explained my problem with the pouring of the blood after concecration. I explained about how this was not allowed per the RS.
   Redemptionis Sacramentum
   See #105-106.
2. I also pointed out how our Diocese was still doing this based upon a letter that had already been denied by Rome.
   Guidelines for Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers See #17.
3. The Parish Liturgist did not know that the letter had been denied. She stated that she was seeing the Bishop tomorrow and would bring it to his attention.
   Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
   See #2. States second letter was denied also.

So we will see what the Bishop says. If he says it is OK I will drop the whole thing as he is the authority over the Diocese.

Thanks for the prayers and support. I will let you know.

 

[mchium]

This is an update on my meeting.

Pastor was not present but relayed what he wanted to say. He explained that the Diocese said it was OK through the Bishop.

1. I explained my problem with the pouring of the blood after concecration. I explained about how this was not allowed per the RS.
   Redemptionis Sacramentum
   See #105-106.
2. I also pointed out how our Diocese was still doing this based upon a letter that had already been denied by Rome.
   Guidelines for Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers See #17.
3. The Parish Liturgist did not know that the letter had been denied. She stated that she was seeing the Bishop tomorrow and would bring it to his attention.
   Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
   See #2. States second letter was denied also.

So we will see what the Bishop says. If he says it is OK I will drop the whole thing as he is the authority over the Diocese.

Thanks for the prayers and support. I will let you know.

Jeff: The prayers continue, including holy hours of adoration for this situation, in your parish and in the whole Church. Here are my thoughts, as cynical as they may be…

Interesting that the pastor was not there…I don’t remember if you said you had a meeting with the liturgist AND the pastor or not…if you did, then shame on him for not being there.

Seems, so far, like the same old, same old…so many times they have so many ‘reasons’ why they can ignore the rules and regs. It wouldn’t be so bad if this particular one wasn’t as important to the reverance due the blood of Jesus!

How can someone be a liturgist and ‘not know’? IMHO being up to date and knowledgable about the liturgy is their job description.

I don’t know who your bishop is, but as I indicated before, my own experience is that too many bishops are more concerned with keeping everyone on board and have very little tolerance for confrontation or conflict. (the whole USCCB is a good example).

Do let us know what the end result is…and I’ll keep this in my prayer - nothing is impossible for God. If He allows this to continue, then He has a good reason. Bishops can be wrong, but never God!! Keep up the good fight!

pray for me, too…

 

[otjm]

How can someone be a liturgist and ‘not know’? IMHO being up to date and knowledgable about the liturgy is their job description.

I don’t know who your bishop is, but as I indicated before, my own experience is that too many bishops are more concerned with keeping everyone on board and have very little tolerance for confrontation or conflict. (the whole USCCB is a good example).

I don’t think that anyone should make the presumption that everyone, simply on the basis of ordination, reads every document originating in Rome. The people in these threads have a particular interest in documents so originating, and it is easy to jump from the position of “well, I know about it” to, “well, everyone knows about it”. Priests are in short supply, and that only goes to make their lives even busier than they were when there were a greater number per capita of Catholics. They rely on their bishop, and the bishop most likely does not open his own mail. And given the ordinary problems of a diocese, and then add the difficulties from the sex abuse scandal, one might wonder when the bishops have any time to read much of anything. The old adage that when one is up to one’s arse in alligators, it is dfficult to focus on the original task of draining the swamp applies to them as well as everyone else.

Are the bishops aware of the document? I would assume most are by now, but I would not make the assumption that all have read it; and of those who do, they may be making a decision that none of us would agree with, to wit: don’t rock the boat. But then, we do not have to live with the consequences of their decision; they do. The Mass is still valid if the priest pours from a flagon, but the act itself is illicit. Neither you nor I have to deal with any backlash from priests, and we are by and large not privy to the internal workins of any diocese.

Prayer works. Eventually this too, shall pass. Patience is a virtue, and it is our primary moral duty to seek heaven, not to mediate the implimentation of variations of liturgical practice.

 

[lak611]

At my ex (for good reasons) parish, one priest always puts the still partially filled ‘chalices’ used by the EMHC back on the credence table after Communion to just sit there (still half full of Jesus’ blood!) until Mass is over. When I still attended this parish and if I was at one of his Masses, I would go, after Mass, and kneel at the credence table in adoration until someone finally came to remove the precious blood! I thought it would make them think twice, but nope!!

In my parish, the EMHC’s consume any remaining Precious Blood still left in their chalices. The empty chalices are placed on the creedence table for Father to purify.

 

[Aramis]

In my parish, the EMHC’s consume any remaining Precious Blood still left in their chalices. The empty chalices are placed on the creedence table for Father to purify.

The Roman parish I currently attend does likewise, but the deacons usually purify for Sunday liturgies.

The only times I’ve seen pouring from one chalice to another is BEFORE the consecration.

 

[lak611]

The Roman parish I currently attend does likewise, but the deacons usually purify for Sunday liturgies.

That is acceptable. A deacon or an instituted acolyte is allowed to purify. There are no deacons or instituted acolytes at my parish.

The only times I’ve seen pouring from one chalice to another is BEFORE the consecration.

That is acceptable too. The wine is allowed to be poured into chalices, but the Blood of Christ is not. In my parish, the wine is poured into the chalices for the congregation before the Mass starts. The priest only pours the wine into his chalice during the offertory. The other chalices, already filled with wine are brought to the altar by the servers during the offertory.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t think that anyone should make the presumption that everyone, simply on the basis of ordination, reads every document originating in Rome. The people in these threads have a particular interest in documents so originating, and it is easy to jump from the position of “well, I know about it” to, “well, everyone knows about it”. Priests are in short supply, and that only goes to make their lives even busier than they were when there were a greater number per capita of Catholics. They rely on their bishop, and the bishop most likely does not open his own mail. And given the ordinary problems of a diocese, and then add the difficulties from the sex abuse scandal, one might wonder when the bishops have any time to read much of anything. The old adage that when one is up to one’s arse in alligators, it is dfficult to focus on the original task of draining the swamp applies to them as well as everyone else.

Are the bishops aware of the document? I would assume most are by now, but I would not make the assumption that all have read it; and of those who do, they may be making a decision that none of us would agree with, to wit: don’t rock the boat. But then, we do not have to live with the consequences of their decision; they do. The Mass is still valid if the priest pours from a flagon, but the act itself is illicit. Neither you nor I have to deal with any backlash from priests, and we are by and large not privy to the internal workins of any diocese.

Prayer works. Eventually this too, shall pass. Patience is a virtue, and it is our primary moral duty to seek heaven, not to mediate the implimentation of variations of liturgical practice.

Which is why Pastors, Priests, Deacons, DRE’s need to realize that there are people out here that are willing and able to actually help them in areas that they do not have much time for, and are really “not out to get them.”