Fractioning wine after the consecration

[Catholic4aReasn]

According to Instruction Redmeptionis Sacramentum:

106.] 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.

At our parish the wine is poured from a pitcher into cups after the consecration. When I asked our liturgical minster about this she said that we are allowed to do it that way until the bishop specifically tells us otherwise. Also, she said that when our bishop celebrates Mass that’s how he does it (fractioning after the consecration).

Are we not required to comply with the Instruction until specifically told by the bishop that was must and would a bishop be allowed to fraction wine after the consecration when he celebrates Mass?

Thanks!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[buffalo]

As RS stated these practices are reprobated - they should be followed by all faithful ministers including the Bishop.

 

[joshua1]

This SUnday was the first time I sat the priest fraction the wine before the consecration. This is the way the GIRM instructs because itr lessens the chance of spillage.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

While it is true that RS has prohibites the practice cited above, it is also true that that section of RS is without force in the United States since an instruction (which is what RS is) cannot override particular law which is what is used in the United States for these practices. Particular law must have been approved by Rome, and this has been. Because of this conflict the bishops of the United States have sent a dubium or question to Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation.” Until that interpretation is given the particular law remains in force and a bishop is not to be considered “disobedient” because he does not follow what RS says.

Deacon Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic4aReasn:

According to Instruction Redmeptionis Sacramentum:

106.] 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.

At our parish the wine is poured from a pitcher into cups after the consecration. When I asked our liturgical minster about this she said that we are allowed to do it that way until the bishop specifically tells us otherwise. Also, she said that when our bishop celebrates Mass that’s how he does it (fractioning after the consecration).

Are we not required to comply with the Instruction until specifically told by the bishop that was must and would a bishop be allowed to fraction wine after the consecration when he celebrates Mass?

Thanks!!

In Christ,
Nancy

Where did this odd term “Fractioning the wine” come from?
The Fraction has nothing to do with dividing not wine but the Blood of Christ. Our Lord at the Last Supper took bread and broke it. He did not pour the contents of one chalice into another chalice before offering it. The words Fractio Panis are translated *"*Breaking of Bread". Connected with the Breaking of the Bread is the *Mixture *in which a small part of the Consecrated Bread is placed in the Chalice. But even in this it has nothing to do with dividing the contents of the chalice.

 

[Michael_Welter]

In my diocese, the Bishop has granted an exemption to this particular rule, due to the size of the average parish here. We require many chalices and having them all on the altar during the Consecration would make the altr look too cluttered.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Michael Welter:

In my diocese, the Bishop has granted an exemption to this particular rule, due to the size of the average parish here. We require many chalices and having them all on the altar during the Consecration would make the altr look too cluttered.

In my opinion when it get to that point we need to just receive Holy communion under one form like we used to do when only the priest distributed Communion…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Br. Rich SFO:

Where did this odd term “Fractioning the wine” come from?
The Fraction has nothing to do with dividing not wine but the Blood of Christ. Our Lord at the Last Supper took bread and broke it. He did not pour the contents of one chalice into another chalice before offering it. The words Fractio Panis are translated *"*Breaking of Bread". Connected with the Breaking of the Bread is the *Mixture *in which a small part of the Consecrated Bread is placed in the Chalice. But even in this it has nothing to do with dividing the contents of the chalice.

It’s the term used at my parish for dividing the consecrated wine into several cups for distribution by the eucharistic ministers. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[marty1818]

Michael Welter:

In my diocese, the Bishop has granted an exemption to this particular rule, due to the size of the average parish here. We require many chalices and having them all on the altar during the Consecration would make the altr look too cluttered.

If all are supposed to follow these instructions given by John Paul II, how can the Bishop grant exemption? He has to follow it as well. It would be better to not distribute under two species rather than commit a liturgical abuse that was specifically mentioned in a vatican document.

matthew

 

[muledog]

Deacon Ed:

While it is true that RS has prohibites the practice cited above, it is also true that that section of RS is without force in the United States since an instruction (which is what RS is) cannot override particular law which is what is used in the United States for these practices. Particular law must have been approved by Rome, and this has been. Because of this conflict the bishops of the United States have sent a dubium or question to Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation.” Until that interpretation is given the particular law remains in force and a bishop is not to be considered “disobedient” because he does not follow what RS says.

Deacon Ed

I don’t think that is correct. *Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, *which is particular law for the Church in the United States, was revised and approved by the USCCB in 2003 to reflect the “clarifications” in Universal Law listed in RS. Norms for Distribution and Reception is also listed in the current GIRM (para. 283) as being the authoritative document for the dioceses in the United States.

The so-called “modification” [the term used by the USCCB] of paragraphs 36 and 37 reflect requirements listed in RS. The pertinent section of paragraph 36 states:

At the Preparation of the Gifts
If one chalice is not sufficient for Holy Communion to be distgributed under both kinds to the priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, several chalices are placed on a corporal on the altar in an appropriate place, filled with wine.

Brother Rich hit the nail on the head when he stated that Communion shouldn’t be distributed under both species if the number of communicants is extremely large. The new General Instruction of the Roman Missal states the following in paragraph 283:

The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (see nos. 27-54).

I’m pretty sure that your bishop hasn’t received an exemption from this requirement.

In Manibus Dei,

• Mike M.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic4aReasn:

It’s the term used at my parish for dividing the consecrated wine into several cups for distribution by the eucharistic ministers. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

In Christ,
Nancy

I get so amused when new terms are invented or liturgical terms that have certain and specific meaning are somehow adopted for another use. (I understand that you heard this from someone else) I guess it’s a result of the English language. To say we “fractioned” the “wine” (actually the Blood of Christ) using the Latin would be saying that we “the have broken” the Blood of Christ? huh?

 

[msproule]

Muledog, in post #10, has provided the clearest and truest interpretation that I have seen yet on this topic. This is the explanation I have attempted numerous times but without such fine delivery.

Well done!

As additional support, the USCCB website has a few references on this topic:

See question number 24 here, as well as a whole page supporting the cessation of this practice here.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

Let’s just follow what the GIRM and other documents states…If we know that the priest done something contradicting to a rule then lets talk with the priest with respect. People sometimes commit mistakes without their knowledge.

The faithful must be also responsible for some errors commitied in church.

 

[Michael_Welter]

marty1818:

If all are supposed to follow these instructions given by John Paul II, how can the Bishop grant exemption? He has to follow it as well. It would be better to not distribute under two species rather than commit a liturgical abuse that was specifically mentioned in a vatican document.

matthew

Well, I didn’t say I agreed with the Bishop, but I am submissive to his authority. And Cannon Law does state that long statnding customs and traditions in a particular geography can take the status of Law if the Bishop so designates.

 

[kmktexas]

msproule:

Muledog, in post #10, has provided the clearest and truest interpretation that I have seen yet on this topic. This is the explanation I have attempted numerous times but without such fine delivery.

Well done!

As additional support, the USCCB website has a few references on this topic:

See question number 24 here, as well as a whole page supporting the cessation of this practice here.

Yes, this was an excellent explanation. The problem with the US “particular law” in this case is that the USCCB (after RS came out) sent a query to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (full name of the CDW). The query was whether the existing particular law in the US regarding the fractioning of the wine was to be considered still in effect, RS notwithstanding. The answer they received was “no”. So now the USCCB says that the CDW has no authority to overturn the particular law? If the USCCB believed that the CDW was not the office with the authority on this matter, why did they address the dubium there in the first place? What office DOES have the authority? You would think that Discipline of the Sacraments would cover it, right? When will the USCCB send a query to that office (or to the Pope) to get a final ruling? The last I heard, they had not resubmitted the query after receiving their original “no” response. This is, in part, because many (most) of the Bishops interpreted this “no” as definative and have implemented RS in their dioceses, including limiting the division of the wine to before consecration.

 

[martinmca]

I would say that as long as the blood is properly watched and divided by the priest on the altercloth then there would be no issue, my question concerns the drop of water, is it reserved for the priest chalice or to ALL the wine before consecration, I’ve seen both many times.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Michael Welter:

Well, I didn’t say I agreed with the Bishop, but I am submissive to his authority. And Cannon Law does state that long statnding customs and traditions in a particular geography can take the status of Law if the Bishop so designates.

Long standing custom is not something that has been done for 10, 20 or 30 years but for generations and hundreds of years.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

martinmca:

I would say that as long as the blood is properly watched and divided by the priest on the altercloth then there would be no issue, my question concerns the drop of water, is it reserved for the priest chalice or to ALL the wine before consecration, I’ve seen both many times.

As long as the water is placed in the main chalice it’s fine.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic4aReasn:

According to Instruction Redmeptionis Sacramentum:

106.] 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.

At our parish the wine is poured from a pitcher into cups after the consecration. When I asked our liturgical minster about this she said that we are allowed to do it that way until the bishop specifically tells us otherwise. Also, she said that when our bishop celebrates Mass that’s how he does it (fractioning after the consecration).

Are we not required to comply with the Instruction until specifically told by the bishop that was must and would a bishop be allowed to fraction wine after the consecration when he celebrates Mass?

Thanks!!

In Christ,
Nancy

The biggest risk I see from dividing the wine (before Consecration) is that in most parishes we no longer use “real” chalices. Have you even held a “real” chalice? It’s base is 4 to 5 times the weight of the rest of the chalice and three time as big a the cup. When sitting on a surface it is nearly impossible to knock over. Today in most parishes they use basically wine glasses made of several different materials. The base is 1/2 the size of the cup with a thin stem and it weighs nothing and when filled is very top heavy, and very eaisy to knock over. One solution to this problem is to use only one main chalice and offer only that one main chalice at Communion. When it empty it’s empty! That would make the pews front and center very crowded. You could move the chalice from the center row on week to a side row the next. That way everyone has the possibility of receiving under both forms at least once a month.

 

[volzcpa]

Br. Rich SFO:

…Today in most parishes they use basically wine glasses made of several different materials.

The use of glass vessels for the consecrated wine is also reprobated by RS #117

*117. Sacred vessels for containing the Body and blood of the Lord must be made instrict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books. The Bishops’Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. *Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay,or other materials that break easily. ** This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.