Fractioning wine after the consecration

[volzcpa]

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

Just a side note, the title “Eucharistic minister” is forbidded by RS #156 with the only acceptable term being “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”

 

[otm]

Br. Rich SFO:

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

Do you have a citation for that? My understanding was that 30 years was considered sufficient, but I cannot cite back to that statment.

 

[otm]

kmktexas:

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.

I think it is a little too simply put to say that the USCCB was saying that the CDW did not have authority. It is more a matter of whether or not that authority was properly exercised.
Law is not whatever whim comes down the pike, so long as it originated in Rome. there is a process by whioch law is promulgated and by which a law, once promulgated is modified. The query as I understood it was to the process and whehter or not it was followed in this instance.

Rome has authority (through the authority of the Pope), but that authority is not completely unfettered; we have a Code of Canon Law, and no one, including the Pope, has the authority to simply disregard the Canons. This is an area in which most people, including, seemingly, most Catholics, have little or no understanding. The presumption (often unspoken) is that the Pope has ultimate authority, meaning unbridled authority. He has ultimate authority, but not unbridled authority.

thus the issue with the dubium; it is not so much a question of the CDW having the authority, but properly exercising it.

What surprises many is how much authority a bishop may actually have in his own diocese.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

WHY DON"T WE SIMPLY ONLY RECEIVE THE CONSECRATED HOST AND LEAVE THE CONSECRATED WINE ON THE ALTAR???

If we all stopped receiving the consecrated wine, they’d stop filling the chalices with it.

Let’s get together and stop this! this is easy!

(Sorry, I get a little crazy about this one)
Angel

 

[otm]

Angels Watchin:

WHY DON"T WE SIMPLY ONLY RECEIVE THE CONSECRATED HOST AND LEAVE THE CONSECRATED WINE ON THE ALTAR???

If we all stopped receiving the consecrated wine, they’d stop filling the chalices with it.

Let’s get together and stop this! this is easy!

(Sorry, I get a little crazy about this one)
Angel

Because Christ gave it to us; and Christ did not do anything He did not intend. The Church for the first 12 centuries presented Communion under both species. It decided for a period of time that it would present Communion under one species, in part, at least at one point, to counter heresy.

The time of that heresy has passed, and the Church has seen fit to allow us to receive under both species, as the Church says, because it better symbolizes the aspect of the Sacred Meal. People who don’t want to receive under both species are not required to in the Roman rite; but from what I have seen, the majority of communicants do. Why would you suggest taking that away from them when the issue is so easilly resolved by following the rubrics?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by 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

volzcpa:

Just a side note, the title “Eucharistic minister” is forbidded by RS #156 with the only acceptable term being “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”

True. Just saving time. Should have said EMHC.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Catholic4aReasn:

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).

Well everyone, this weekend was very enlightening. The bishop celebrated Mass at our parish on Sunday and did NOT pour the wine into separate cups after the consecration. The wine was in the cups and on the altar at the consecration.

I feel badly that our liturgical minister was not honest with me. How can I go about correcting the liturgical abuse at my parish? I don’t want to get a reputation as a snitch (or anything that rhymes with it).

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Turtledove]

Hi,

Perhaps your Parish is in the process of changing the procedure?

Maybe you could ask again, mentioning the Bishop’s Mass?

Sometimes people (such as your LM) will resist any conversation where they stand corrected, but will rethink the situation at a later time, and make the appropriate change.

I have found that if you ask questions in a very respectful manner, more often than not, the results are good.

(Say a little to the Holy Spirit before you have the conversation)

Dove

 

[Turtledove]

PS error alert

Last line should read
(Say a little prayer to the Holy Spirit before you have the conversation)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic4aReasn:

I feel badly that our liturgical minister was not honest with me. How can I go about correcting the liturgical abuse at my parish?

In Christ,
Nancy

I feel badly that our “liturgical minister” was not honest with me. The only “liturgical minister” that matters is the pastor. You need to start by writing the pastor.

 

[Brendan]

otm:

Because Christ gave it to us; and Christ did not do anything He did not intend. The Church for the first 12 centuries presented Communion under both species. It decided for a period of time that it would present Communion under one species, in part, at least at one point, to counter heresy.

The problem is, the Ultraquist heresy is reviving due to this practice.

I see in on this board and in the pews. People actually think there is a difference between the species in a way other than Accidents.

Ask around in your parish and see who thinks the Host is ‘just the Body’ and the Chalice hold “Just the Blood”

 

[Brendan]

otm:

I and no one, including the Pope, has the authority to simply disregard the Canons. .

Not true, The Pope is not bound by Canon Law unless he chooses to be so.

The Pope may act, at any time, for any reason, outside Canon Law.

Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever right and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

Vatican I - Session IV, July 18th 1870, Chapter 3., The Power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

For those of you participating in this thread I have some good news! We recently got a new pastor and he’s changing our parish’s liturgically abusive practice of pouring the precious blood of Christ after the consecration. The wine will now be poured beforehand. Praise God!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[buffalo]

Catholic4aReasn:

For those of you participating in this thread I have some good news! We recently got a new pastor and he’s changing our parish’s liturgically abusive practice of pouring the precious blood of Christ after the consecration. The wine will now be poured beforehand. Praise God!

In Christ,
Nancy

Lucky dogs!!