Is it okay for a priest to skip the washing of hands/lavabo?

[lady_arwen]

I regularly attend mass where the priest refuses to do the washing of the hands or to purify his vessels himself. Is it okay for him to do this? I don’t think it is, but could someone please give me something concrete to confront him with? Thankyou so much!

 

[benedictgal]

I regularly attend mass where the priest refuses to do the washing of the hands or to purify his vessels himself. Is it okay for him to do this? I don’t think it is, but could someone please give me something concrete to confront him with? Thankyou so much!

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes about the purifying of the sacred vessels:

[119.] The Priest, once he has returned to the altar after the distribution of Communion, standing at the altar or at the credence table, purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice, then purifies the chalice in accordance with the prescriptions of the Missal and wipes the chalice with the purificator. Where a Deacon is present, he returns with the Priest to the altar and purifies the vessels. It is permissible, however, especially if there are several vessels to be purified, to leave them, covered as may be appropriate, on a corporal on the altar or on the credence table, and for them to be purified by the Priest or Deacon immediately after Mass once the people have been dismissed. Moreover a duly instituted acolyte assists the Priest or Deacon in purifying and arranging the sacred vessels either at the altar or the credence table. In the absence of a Deacon, a duly instituted acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the credence table and there purifies, wipes and arranges them in the usual way.209

The document doesn’t speak to the washing of the hands, but, I would imagine that this shouldn’t be ignored.

 

[Ockham]

If EMHC are being employed then I wonder what the point of the priest washing away his sins are if they don’t. The same for receiving Communion in your hand.

 

[Pug]

please give me something concrete to confront him with? Thankyou so much!

Liturgy questions are not my forte, but the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) states:

1. The priest then washes his hands at the side of the altar, a rite that is an expression of his desire for interior purification.

It does not state that it is optional. Some things are, like using incense right before the lavabo on the gifts and the people, etc. I’ve never seen the lavabo omitted, but that doesn’t mean much. But anyway, there you have the place in the GIRM that talks about it. I can’t really imagine a priest wishing to skip it. Who wouldn’t wish to express a desire to be washed from their sins if they are standing there at an altar offering gifts to the living God?

 

[benedictgal]

Liturgy questions are not my forte, but the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) states:

It does not state that it is optional. Some things are, like using incense right before the lavabo on the gifts and the people, etc. I’ve never seen the lavabo omitted, but that doesn’t mean much. But anyway, there you have the place in the GIRM that talks about it. I can’t really imagine a priest wishing to skip it. Who wouldn’t wish to express a desire to be washed from their sins if they are standing there at an altar offering gifts to the living God?

Thank you, Pug, for that clarification. In fact, this custom of ritual purification dates back, I believe, to the priests of the House of Aaron who had to ritually purify themselves before they could offer the sacrifice.

 

[graceandglory]

Thank you, Pug, for that clarification. In fact, this custom of ritual purification dates back, I believe, to the priests of the House of Aaron who had to ritually purify themselves before they could offer the sacrifice.

That’s why I don’t think it should be omitted. I’m not the GIRM though. I went to a Mass with many liturgical abuses, and he also did not to the ritual washing before the consecration.

 

[TheDoctor]

I regularly attend mass where the priest refuses to do the washing of the hands or to purify his vessels himself. Is it okay for him to do this? I don’t think it is, but could someone please give me something concrete to confront him with? Thankyou so much!

As was mentioned above, it is a mandatory part of the ritual for the priest to wash. Even in Masses without altar servers, I have seen Father pour the water himself so that is not an excuse.

As to the vessels, if he is the only priest and there are no deacons, I believe he has no choice but to do it.

I am confused though when you say “refuses to do” - do you mean he runs away from the altar servers carrying the water and towel? Does he not purify vessels or specifically give them to an EMHC to do The reason I ask is to determine if Father is willfully violating the rules or if it is a question of bad habits/lax thinking/layity unawareness (I always assume the best about our Priests so I want to know for sure).

In all kindness, may I offer one correction? You said “…me something concrete to confront him with?..” IMHO, we should never confront our Priests. We should approach them in love and charity, keeping in mind the respect they all deserve since they have freely given their lives for us in the service of God (yeah, I know this is tough to do with some Priests but it can be done). Confronting Priests is the Bishop’s job, not ours.

 

[FrCorey]

I was taught it should Never be omitted.
it’s a very important little rite.

 

[Cluny]

I know of a priest who was having trouble with his sight before he had cataract surgery.

He would have another priest perform the ablutions, as he could not see clearly enough to make sure all the fragments were consumed.

Maybe this is a similar case?

 

[lady_arwen]

There are no altar servers or deacons, so he ideally should do the purifying vessels and the washing of the hands himself. There’s also therefore no altar servers to run away from. He just flat out refuses to do this; he said outside of mass that he simply does not do it. About what was said about “confronting” him: of course one should always do this with charity and give them the respect that their priestly vocation deserves. However, by confront I meant just that; confront him. It’s what happens when a concerned Catholic pulls them aside and tells them that they need to do something that they arent’ doing, that’s all. It isn’t and shouldn’t be just the bishop’s job. We all have a right and a duty as Catholics to speak up when our Mass is violated or abused. I’m sure that would include going face to face with the priest himself. Priestly vocation aside, he’s still a human being, and capable of doing right and wrong just like everyone else. This can be done with respect and charity.

 

[Danima]

Purifying the vessels is a very necessary task. Every part of Jesus is still Jesus, no matter how small. It is supposed to be done during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after the consumption of the Eucharist, but it is also permitted after the Mass. In my parish, for example, my Pastor does purify during the Mass, but the other priests let the Eucharistic Ministers to purify them afterward. Same thing was done in a parish across the country in Delaware (I live in California).

 

[benedictgal]

Purifying the vessels is a very necessary task. Every part of Jesus is still Jesus, no matter how small. It is supposed to be done during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after the consumption of the Eucharist, but it is also permitted after the Mass. In my parish, for example, my Pastor does purify during the Mass, but the other priests let the Eucharistic Ministers to purify them afterward. Same thing was done in a parish across the country in Delaware (I live in California).

However, as I noted in my initial post, this is not allowed. Either the celebrant or the deacon should be purifying, not th Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. By the way, for clarification purposes, the laity who assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The term Eucharistic Minister is reserved only for the bishops and priests because they are the only ones who can confect (cause to happen, consecrate) the Holy Eucharist. The deacon, by virtue of his reception of Holy Orders, is the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, along with the bishop and the priest.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

 

[ASD]

If EMHC are being employed then I wonder what the point of the priest washing away his sins are if they don’t.

Ha. Avoiding proscribed topic of lay gestures during Mass (which apparently includes Communion in the hand), I say that’s a great question.

If somebody can answer without straying into forbidden territory:

1. 
   *]What, exactly, is the point of the Lavabo? My Daily Missal has some explanation; but not handy.
   *]Depending on the answer to that question, it may be appropriate to ask why it’s limited to Priest celebrant.
   

   I believe, to the priests of the House of Aaron who had to ritually purify themselves before they could offer the sacrifice.

   It looks like benedictgal has given an historical answer already. But, there may be other aspects?
   

   TIA. ASD​

   Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Pug]

What, exactly, is the point of the Lavabo? My Daily Missal has some explanation; but not handy.

Originally, the priest collected bread, candles, and other items from the people at the offertory. Thus it had a practical purpose. The practical purpose being removing crumbs, etc. That is what I am given to understand. I could check my missal (the old one). I gave the current reason in another post above. It it about inner purity.

It is obvious to me (yes, I am an EMHC) that one ought to wash ones hands carefully and with soap at the latest moment possible (I do it right before I leave for mass) and then don’t touch your face, pick your teeth, stick your hands in dirt, pet your dog, etc. until after you have completed your duties. I take care to cough into the collar of my jacket if for some reason I need to cough at mass (not from illness, but acid in my lungs). I have just participated in the sign of peace, however, before my duties.

We already ask for inner purity during mass, at least, that is mentally how I tend to view it. We say non sum dignus…but only say the word, and I shall be healed. I tend to envision that I am a sinful person at that time. But now that I think on it, those words come from the story of the centurion’s servant, which was a physical healing. Surely it is about unworthiness spiritually, though? Huh. I never thought about it.

 

[Ockham]

Good for you Pug, keep thinking. When you think about why the priest consecrates his hands prior to touching the consecrated host the less it makes sense for our unconsecrated hands to be touching it. It’s not about germs, it’s about whether you believe in the Real Presence or not. Protestants distribute communion in hand. They also believe it to be merely a symbol. Since the “Spirit of Vatican II” ecumenical changes (i.e. protestantization) of the liturgy, the percentage of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence has decreased significantly. With the lack of reverence displayed in many parishes it is no wonder so many faithful have become confused.

 

[benedictgal]

It looks like benedictgal has given an historical answer already. But, there may be other aspects?

TIA. ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

This might be a stretch, but, if we read the account of the Last Supper from St. John, and link it up chronologically with the synoptic Gospels, I think we could very well find that the washing of the feet happened before the actual Last Supper. So, even though we are talking feet here, one could say that this was a purification ritual as well. Although, as Jesus told St. Peter, not all are clean (referring to Judas, who left early).

 

[Jimzz12]

My uncle is an old priest and he tells me that the skipping the purification of the hands or even performing it unsatisfactorily is an old abuse that was addressed a number of years ago.

The cardinal archbishop of Kazikstan said on EWTN that skipping of purification of the hands is common in countries where the Eucharist is recieved in hand as an option. His doctoral research was on this subject and he also said that technically speaking the Eucharist is to never touch any portion of the left hand nor the fingers or thumb of the right hand; that the curvature of the palm is seen as a ciborium of sorts.

He goes on to say that should we recieve Eucharist on our palm that we are to properly wash our own hands before Mass. Secondly, he says that women are generally asked to wear gloves when recieving in the same manner.

He is from the heart of Asia and born in Eastern Europe. So, his cultural outlook is worth consideration. It’s an interesting counter-balance to the depraved manners of the Western world.

The option to recieve in hand started as a serious abuse in the democratic west. It still isn’t generally acceptable in my understanding, but my understanding is deficient in this matter. I follow the precept that we are to recieve the Body of the Lord as defenseless children. The same cardinal archbishop mentioned above declares the recieving on the tongue as a supreme act of humility. He said so many of us show little humility in our daily life that an act of solid humility in communion with Jesus Christ is exemplary.

If you see a priest who does not purify his hands properly and handle the vessels irrevrently let him know it hurts you in the depths of your soul to see him demonstrate his lack of faith. Let him know that you think the Lord and his dwelling place are to be handled like that of a child. That ought to prop him right up.

If this doesn’t fix it… Tell him in the most charitable manner, “I hope you wash your hands after you use the restroom at least.”

 

[Pug]

Good for you Pug, keep thinking. When you think about why the priest consecrates his hands prior to touching the consecrated host the less it makes sense for our unconsecrated hands to be touching it. It’s not about germs, it’s about whether you believe in the Real Presence or not.

Ockham, you suggest here that the lavabo is a consecration of the priest’s hands. That didn’t cross my mind, since I would associate an idea of consecrating hands more with when he was ordained, and the oil was used upon his hands then, and he was handed a chalice. Wouldn’t a consecration of this type be abiding, and not need daily repeating? Why does the lavabo suggest to you that he is consecrating his hands then?

From the OT, I could cull the idea of the clean and unclean, and if his hands had touched the unclean, that they needed to be washed/purified before touching the clean, otherwise the contamination of unclean would spread.

But I grasp your idea here. The chalice, the paten, the corporal, a pyx if transporting, all of these are special items, special for the sacred species to rest upon (or fall upon). One would not set the Sacred Host upon an ordinary dinner plate that was used for ordinary things. Nor would one use a chalice to drink water from. It would be a jarring mix of the sacred with the profane/common/ordinary, and would feel wrong.

Clearly the Real Presence is what motivates us having all these special, devoted objects like chalices.

But, maybe you view the lavabo as a transitional action, between the two uses of a priest’s hands. From brushing his hair and eating breakfast, over to their use during mass. Hmmm. I’m still thinking, obviously. Anyway, here is what I found in my old A Catholic Dictionary:

…The *Lavabo *originated in the practical necessity of handling loaves of bread, etc.; it now signifies that purity with which the mysteries should be approached. When the celebrant is a bishop he washes his hands again after the ablutions…

Note: those ablutions were after communion.

My old missal says:

Originally the priest washed his hands because they had become soiled by handling the bread and flasks of wine, presented by the people at the Offertory. Now this act is a symbol of the inner purity with which the priest and faithful should approach the Sacrifice of the Lord.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“76. The priest then washes his hands at the side of the altar, a rite that is an expression of his desire for interior purification.”

And from the GIRM, in the description of “Mass Without a Deacon”:

“145. After the prayer In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive us) or after the incensation, the priest washes his hands standing at the side of the altar and, as the minister pours the water, says quietly, Lava me, Domine (Lord, wash away my iniquity).”

 

[Danima]

However, as I noted in my initial post, this is not allowed. Either the celebrant or the deacon should be purifying, not th Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. By the way, for clarification purposes, the laity who assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The term Eucharistic Minister is reserved only for the bishops and priests because they are the only ones who can confect (cause to happen, consecrate) the Holy Eucharist. The deacon, by virtue of his reception of Holy Orders, is the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, along with the bishop and the priest.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

Thanks for the welcome: its the first so far!

Also, you are right about calling them extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion… I have gotten into the habit of calling them Eucharistic ministers due to the wide use of the term in my parish. It would confuse everyone to call them by their proper office, unfortunately.

However, if I am not mistaken, the Deacon cannot consecrate a host into the Holy Eucharist… Only the priest and above can.