EM's still purifiing vessels?

[Walking_Home]

At our parish the purification of vessels is still being done by the EMs. Our priest says we won’t follow Rome’s orders about this until the Archbishop passes the word because that’s the way it’s always been done. Our priest is a very orthodox and holy man so I don’t doubt his word, but I am a bit uncomfortable that the practice of EMs purifying vessels is continuing when the Vatican’s order is well known and very clear.

Any thoughts on this? Is waiting for the local Archbishop to offcially dispense with the indult the way things are done in your diocese?

---

Why not write to the Archbishop and ask why your church has not received the directive to do away with the EM’s purification of vessels. The bishops themselves are responsible for following the directives from Rome.

 

[gez722]

I say one can talk to the pastor about it and accept his judgement–if he says I’m going to wait until instructed by the bishop, we should accept that. My main point that I wanted to get across is that the priest’s immediate boss is the bishop, and it is not unusual for them to wait for orders from them.

Scott,
I totally agree with you. I was waiting to hear those words from my pastor. When I didn’t hear them, I felt I should contact him.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I beleive your Pastor is correct. He is under the Direct Authority of his Bishop and must follow his instructions… If he disagrees with his Bishop he should prayerfully take it up with the Bisohos superior.

The priest is actually also under the Direct Authority of the pope (who has supreme, immediate, and universal jurisdiction) so that’s not really pertinent in a strict sense. Those who have pointed to the manner in which disciplinary decrees are expected to come into force are more on the mark, but even here I would hesitate to conclude anything based upon the way in which things happened to have been run in the US in the past half-century.

I don’t know what all the guiding legal principles might be, but one of them would certainly need to pay attention to whether the promulgating authority decreed a date on which the law came into effect. In this particular case, since the loss of the indult was not due to a revocation but a choice not to renew it, there should be a discernible “stop date” for the permission based on its start date. Let’s say, for instance, the permission first came into effect on the First Sunday of Advent 2001. If the permission was granted for a five-year term, that permission would then exist until the First Sunday of Advent 2006 (exclusive). After that point, even if the bishop explicitly ordered a priest to continue the reprobated practice the priest would have to obey the law, not the renegade bishop. No matter what the bishop claimed, it would be clear that continuing such a practice would be illicit since the bishop doesn’t have the authority to institute it on his own.

The specific question here, though, is whether parishes must immediately cease allowing laymen to purify vessels or may delay this cessation. Here I would modify the above comments to say that barring the pope calling for immediate cessation the permission will last until whatever stop date the previous law determines. So there is a sense in which it would be proper to say “We’re waiting for the bishop to tell us” because the bishop might wish his parishes (I’m not sure if he could force it, I don’t know the specific terms of the indult) to stop the practice right away or he might wish them to organize a common stop date prior to the law’s cessation or he might wish them to keep up the practice until the very end of the indult.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

a) I’ve seen some other doozy things, but I’ve never actually seen the laity cleaning the sacred vessels. Where the hey is this going on?

b) Does this mean that AFTER the priest has cleaned the vessels at the altar (or elsewhere) the altar guild can’t give them a scrub and a polish in the sacristy? The priest cleans them to reverently to dispose of any Remains of the Sacred Species, but the altar guild/society cleans for, well, cleanliness.

 

[johnnykins]

a) I’ve seen some other doozy things, but I’ve never actually seen the laity cleaning the sacred vessels. Where the hey is this going on?

b) Does this mean that AFTER the priest has cleaned the vessels at the altar (or elsewhere) the altar guild can’t give them a scrub and a polish in the sacristy? The priest cleans them to reverently to dispose of any Remains of the Sacred Species, but the altar guild/society cleans for, well, cleanliness.

Eh Kirk, you’re lucky if you really haven’t seen the laity cleaning the sacred vessels. It’s quite common for the priest to simply set the vessels aside after communion and they are “cleaned” usually by a member of the laity after Mass. Other than EWTN it’s been years since I have seen the celebrant actually do it before the dismissal. Presumably the celebrant might do it after Mass - though that seems pretty rare, too.

As for the old scrub and polish, gold doesn’t require it - so the old requirement had its place (even a silver vessel had to be gold inside). Now, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a Brillo pad taken to the Chalice.

 

[CRW]

At our parish the purification of vessels is still being done by the EMs. Our priest says we won’t follow Rome’s orders about this until the Archbishop passes the word because that’s the way it’s always been done. Our priest is a very orthodox and holy man so I don’t doubt his word, but I am a bit uncomfortable that the practice of EMs purifying vessels is continuing when the Vatican’s order is well known and very clear.

Any thoughts on this? Is waiting for the local Archbishop to offcially dispense with the indult the way things are done in your diocese?

Our Bishop directed each priest, under his authority, to implement the new directive immediately. This Sunday, the EMHC placed the sacred vessels on the credence table and the priest, acolyte or deacon purified the sacred vessels (five Masses each Sunday so there is a different combination of priest, deacon(s) and acolyte).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Eh Kirk, you’re lucky if you really haven’t seen the laity cleaning the sacred vessels. It’s quite common for the priest to simply set the vessels aside after communion and they are “cleaned” usually by a member of the laity after Mass. Other than EWTN it’s been years since I have seen the celebrant actually do it before the dismissal. Presumably the celebrant might do it after Mass - though that seems pretty rare, too.

As for the old scrub and polish, gold doesn’t require it - so the old requirement had its place (even a silver vessel had to be gold inside). Now, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a Brillo pad taken to the Chalice.

Wow, our priest ALWAYS cleans the sacred vessels. I’ve been to Masses where the priest has on occasion (not often) set them on the creedance table to clean latter, but I’ve always assumed that HE cleaned them.

 

[johnnykins]

Wow, our priest ALWAYS cleans the sacred vessels. I’ve been to Masses where the priest has on occasion (not often) set them on the creedance table to clean latter, but I’ve always assumed that HE cleaned them.

As an aside, if you watch EWTN you will notice that the patens held under the chin of the communicants by the servers are also cleaned (as was the case before the VII reforms) of any crumbs that may have fallen on them. Makes me wonder what happens to those crumbs at most parish Masses since I cannot remember when I was last at a parish Mass that used them. (Must be at least 30 years!!) Perhaps I’m tending toward a form of scrupulosity with this concern.

BTW the usual term for this “cleaning” is “purification.”

Pax te cum

 

[maherite1977]

At our parish the purification of vessels is still being done by the EMs. Our priest says we won’t follow Rome’s orders about this until the Archbishop passes the word because that’s the way it’s always been done. Our priest is a very orthodox and holy man so I don’t doubt his word, but I am a bit uncomfortable that the practice of EMs purifying vessels is continuing when the Vatican’s order is well known and very clear.

Any thoughts on this? Is waiting for the local Archbishop to offcially dispense with the indult the way things are done in your diocese?

The EOMC’s at my Parish have a meeting coming up this month. Probably a safe bet this will be a topic. This issue only comes up on Sunday Masses at my parish - Saturdays we only offer the Precious Body. On Sundays - when we use both species - the EOMC’s are still purifying vessels. Hopefully this is resolved at our meeting.

 

[DiscerningDave]

I was talking to a friend of mine who will be ordained a priest in May, currently he is in the transitional deacon state right now. He said that the U.S. Bishops are meeing in a few weeks or so and that this will probably be one of the topics. He says he heard they are probably going to send an appeal to Rome about this issue. He doesn’t think it will do any good, nor do I. Nor do we want it too. He and I are very traditional and he is glad that the Vatican issued this statement. He is going to be an awesome priest, if you like taditional priests. No hand holding, no leaving the santuary for the sign of peace, no EM’s purifying vessels.
Peace

 

[Walking_Home]

I was talking to a friend of mine who will be ordained a priest in May, currently he is in the transitional deacon state right now. He said that the U.S. Bishops are meeing in a few weeks or so and that this will probably be one of the topics. He says he heard they are probably going to send an appeal to Rome about this issue. He doesn’t think it will do any good, nor do I. Nor do we want it too. He and I are very traditional and he is glad that the Vatican issued this statement. He is going to be an awesome priest, if you like taditional priests. No hand holding, no leaving the santuary for the sign of peace, no EM’s purifying vessels.
Peace

---

Now that has me wondering if the directive is not going to be implemented by some bishops until they get an answer to the appeal—and how long would this appeal procedure take.

 

[gez722]

I was talking to a friend of mine who will be ordained a priest in May, currently he is in the transitional deacon state right now. He said that the U.S. Bishops are meeing in a few weeks or so and that this will probably be one of the topics. He says he heard they are probably going to send an appeal to Rome about this issue. He doesn’t think it will do any good, nor do I. Nor do we want it too. He and I are very traditional and he is glad that the Vatican issued this statement. He is going to be an awesome priest, if you like taditional priests. No hand holding, no leaving the santuary for the sign of peace, no EM’s purifying vessels.
Peace

According to the CNS article, Bishop Skylstad (president of the USCCB) sent a letter to his fellow bishops on October 23, asking them to inform their pastors of the Vatican’s decision. I hope that this indicates that the USCCB isn’t planning an appeal.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[H_Opey]

HOLD ON ONE SECOND EVERYONE.

I thought purifying the vessals meant that he, the priest, consumed all the Precious Blood and then pours water in the vessal and consumes that.

This doesn’t mean the priest NOW actually WASH the vessal with soap and water too?

 

[CRW]

HOLD ON ONE SECOND EVERYONE.

I thought purifying the vessals meant that he, the priest, consumed all the Precious Blood and then pours water in the vessal and consumes that.

This doesn’t mean the priest NOW actually WASH the vessal with soap and water too?

Purification and washing are two separate processes. The priest, deacon or instituted acolyte purifies the sacred vessels; pours water into the vessels, consumes the water and any leftover remains of the precious Body or Blood and then wipes the vessels with a purificator. After that, anyone can “wash” the vessels with soap and water.

 

[H_Opey]

Thank you dear friend.
I thought I had it right.

 

[CRW]

Thank you dear friend.
I thought I had it right.

The EMHC are authorized to consume any remaining precious Blood before the purification process. Since they received the precious Blood, from the priest or deacon initially, it is not considered self communicating.