Filling common cups-does order of mass matter, as to when they are filled, and by whom?

[Aramis]

For comparison, note that the Dominican Mass (one of the 9 forms of the mass in current use in the Roman Church) the gifts are prepared before mass, and in the Byzantine and Coptic Rites, as well, the gifts are prepared before the liturgy.

 

[Sr_Sally]

No, and my children go to school there. If they are not following proper form it needs to change, and probably will once the word gets out. **Our Pastor has had some health issues-skin cancer, fusion of disks in his back requiring surgery. ** All of that has been going on since 2003 or so. He probably missed it??

I will be praying for your priest.

 

[cknick]

Thanks. He is actually doing fine now-goes canoeing, rides his bike…
He should be up for the "catching up, " if that in fact is the issue as to why he isn’t using current and proper form.

 

[cknick]

Here is the reply I received from the Sacristan:

This is entirely up to the pastor how he wants
to handle the cups. I believe ________Parish is
doing the same way as our church, but
the priest must purify all the cups and ciborians at
the altar. Fr. ________, (Pastor) has not changed anything, he
is still doing the same way, as the bishop allows
the pastor to decide in his own.

I wrote a note to the clergy, and I’m waiting for a response. However, I attended a
first mass of a priest in the Diocese, and it looked pretty clear that he was trained
that way too. Not sure where to go from here

 

[buffalo]

There is to be no pouring after the Consecration.

 

[cknick]

Sorry, I’m telling you…It’s happening, and I’m probably in a lot of trouble right now for even bringing up the issue, and I can’t do anything about it, as far as I can see.

 

[cknick]

I was looking at the GIRM to see if there was some sort of exception, to where the Bishop’s had a choice as to whether or not to follow some of the RS guidelines.

Could this be the exception below?

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

 

[benedictgal]

I was looking at the GIRM to see if there was some sort of exception, to where the Bishop’s had a choice as to whether or not to follow some of the RS guidelines.

Could this be the exception below?

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

I do not believe that the bishop has the right to disregard any portion of the GIRM and RS at will. He is responsible for what goes on liturgically (and elsewhere) in his diocese. He does have some authority, but, it is not carte-blanche. Remember, too, that just as we are to obey our bishops in faith and morals, they, too, must also obey the Holy See. Thus, obedience is a two-way street. We obey the bishops, but, they must obey the Holy See.

 

[Brendan]

I was looking at the GIRM to see if there was some sort of exception, to where the Bishop’s had a choice as to whether or not to follow some of the RS guidelines.

Could this be the exception below?

Nope, because the General Instruction is a matter of liturgical law issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Under Canon 16) the promulgator that has the right to issue an authentic interpretation.

The CDWDS issued an interpretation and it retains the force of law.

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

Also note the conclusion of R.S.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

It notes that this document was send out by the CDWDS under a mandate from the Holy See and that it must be observed immediately by all concerned.

That leaves no ‘wiggle room’ on this subject.

 

[buffalo]

There is no wiggle room. As I remember a dubium was applied for and denied.

 

[Brendan]

There is no wiggle room. As I remember a dubium was applied for and denied.

That is correct. A few bishops requested clarification on if this Instruction was intended to override diocesan Particular Law and the CDWDS responded that it was.

 

[OhMalley]

The Holy See clearly forbids the practice of pouring the Precious Blood as others have shown but then we are treated to this famous quote from the cardinal of my eccelsial province:

*"…Some have inquired about the continued use of specially designed carafes in which the wine is presented at the Preparation of the Gifts, placed upon the altar, consecrated during the Eucharistic Prayer, and then distributed into smaller chalices for Holy Communion. Our overwhelming experience with this practice over the years has been most positive.

Because our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice, I am willing to grant exceptions to no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum for legitimate reasons, such as the following: where the altar table is too small to accommodate many chalices, thus creating a greater danger for spillage; and where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup, as well as increase the danger of tipping over the chalices…" *

the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm

Which translates into “we are going to do whatever we want.” This gets so darned old…

 

[cknick]

The Holy See clearly forbids the practice of pouring the Precious Blood as others have shown but then we are treated to this famous quote from the cardinal of my eccelsial province:

*"…Some have inquired about the continued use of specially designed carafes in which the wine is presented at the Preparation of the Gifts, placed upon the altar, consecrated during the Eucharistic Prayer, and then distributed into smaller chalices for Holy Communion. Our overwhelming experience with this practice over the years has been most positive.

Because our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice, I am willing to grant exceptions to no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum* for legitimate reasons, such as the following: where the altar table is too small to accommodate many chalices, thus creating a greater danger for spillage; and where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup, as well as increase the danger of tipping over the chalices…"

the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm

Which translates into “we are going to do whatever we want.” This gets so darned old…

Since the above is our Arch Diocese, then this applies to us, which is why I’m seeing the difference. What Document states he has the authority to make those exclusions for 106?

 

[Brendan]

That would be one of the bishops that wrote the dubium that was shot down by the CDWDS.

Note the date, 2004, the Vatican replied in 2005.

 

[cknick]

How do you know this? WOW!

 

[cknick]

I THINK I FOUND IT…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV

 

[cknick]

Sorry-i realized that document was published 3/04.

 

[Newbie2]

Sorry, I’m telling you…It’s happening, and I’m probably in a lot of trouble right now for even bringing up the issue, and I can’t do anything about it, as far as I can see.

Yeah, it’s happing in my parish.

 

[Brendan]

How do you know this? WOW!

Here is a Catholic News Service article on it from back in 2004, it includes quotes from Cardinal Arinze’s response to the dubium issued by Cardinal George.

In an April 27 letter to Cardinal Arinze, Cardinal George noted that the U.S. particular law contained in the 2002 norms “is apparently in contradiction to” the new instruction and asked for a “clarification … in a timely fashion.”

…

In his May 6 response Cardinal Arinze said, “The instruction’s clear exclusion of any pouring of the precious blood after the consecration overturns certain presuppositions that seem to underlie the above-mentioned (U.S.) norms.”

The protocol number of the letter is 660/04/L

And here is a page on the USCCB, noting that the liturgical law has been changed and is not likely to change back. It also references Cardinal Arinze’s letter.

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/0904.shtml

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040519.htm

 

[cknick]

that would be one of the bishops that wrote the dubium that was shot down by the cdwds.

Note the date, 2004, the vatican replied in 2005.

where can i find this reply? I looked and i cannot find the above vatican reply. I’m looking for any clarification, after the date of 09/04/04 which you provided on the link.