Liturgical Abuse

[slywakka250]

At my parish the wine used at Mass is in clear pitchers and it is not poured into the seperate chalices until after the consecration. I am fairly certain that this is illicit. is this a big enough issue that something should be done about it?

 

[Binney]

You should be concerned.
Information about this is in the GIRM. Find it online at the US Bishops website.
Bring it to your priests attention.
If he doesn’t listen, bring it to your Bishop’s attention.

 

[FrRobSST]

The Roman Rite permits the use of a flagon to contain the wine to be consecrated but does require that a chalice must be filled on the Altar. At the breaking of the bread, the flagon may be poured out into other chalices, but there must always be a filled, co-mixed chalice on the Altar. The flagon itself is never permitted to serve as a replacement for the Chalice. The priest must also remember to co-mix the wine in the flagon.

This was a big thing from the Liturgical Renewal that sought sign value from the single cup on the Altar. Rome was the first to permit it, and later rubrics in Anglican, Lutheran, and other Protestant rites began to be written in a similar way.

All that said, there is nothing in the Roman Rite prohibiting multiple chalices on the Altar (as anyone who has watched any large Mass has noted).

Rob+

 

[Benedictus]

FrRobSST:

The Roman Rite permits the use of a flagon to contain the wine to be consecrated but does require that a chalice must be filled on the Altar. At the breaking of the bread, the flagon may be poured out into other chalices, but there must always be a filled, co-mixed chalice on the Altar.

Negative. Pouring the Precious Blood after the consecration is absolutely forbidden:

However, 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. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms (Redemptionis Sacramentum 106).

 

[FrRobSST]

My apologies, Benedictus, I was referring to the norms of the GIRM as posted on the local RC Diocesan website. The relevant portion reads:

"The proper way to receive Holy Communion - 4/6/03
The target date for the implementation of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) is Palm Sunday in the state of Indiana. It may not be implemented until a week or two beyond Palm Sunday in some instances. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the Instruction is now liturgical law for the Catholic Church and is to be implemented ASAP.

“An adjustment in Communion procedure that will have to be made in most parishes has to do with extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. They are not to approach the altar for the distribution of Holy Communion until the priest has received his own Communion and always are to accept the vessel containing either species for distribution to the faithful from the hands of the ordained. Moreover, the ordained are to distribute Communion to extraordinary ministers who are to receive Communion from the ordained. When there are many Eucharistic ministers at Mass, the priest may give the Precious Blood to two of the extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, after which they may assist him in communicating the rest. After all extraordinary ministers have received Holy Communion, the priest celebrant returns to the altar. The ministers without vessels may approach the priest who hands each their proper vessel. Only the ordained are to perform the fraction and pour the Precious Blood into Communion cups.”

Rob+

 

[msproule]

I believe there was a contradiction between what is written in Redemptionis Sacramentum and what had previously been permitted in the United States. Upon submission of a dubium, the Holy See replied in the negative to the Bishops.

As a result, the instructions as layed out in RS are to be followed. Unfortunately, there are many parishes in my area (SE Michigan) that either are unaware of this or are acting in defiance of the Church’s instructions. I hope it is the former and not the latter! Nevertheless, I plan to bring it to their attention.

 

[FrRobSST]

Is there a good site online with a proper translation of the GIRM out of the Latin original?

Rob+

 

[puzzleannie]

"An adjustment in Communion procedure that will have to be made in most parishes has to do with extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. They are not to approach the altar for the distribution of Holy Communion until the priest has received his own Communion and always are to accept the vessel containing either species for distribution to the faithful from the hands of the ordained. . . … The ministers without vessels may approach the priest who hands each their proper vessel. Rob+

yesterday we had a visiting priest, who did not realize that one of the lay ministers was a nun who approached the altar from the choir side where she had been acting as cantor (she does this when nobody shows up to do it). She could have grabbed the extra ciborium from the altar but stood patiently until the deacon noticed and handed it to her. Beautiful example of humility and obedience.

 

[FrRobSST]

My preference, whenever possible, is to avoid using Lay Eucharistic Ministers (not sure, I think Rome changed the terminology recently). In the parish, it’s no big problem… Bishop, to priests, and a twice-a-month deacon.

In the hospital, daily crowds are usually small enough that I can commune a line under both species at the Altar Rail in about a minute or two. Only very rarely do I use a chalice bearer, and then I require that he be vested in at least an alb or cassock and surplice.

Rob+

 

[msproule]

The USCCB website has the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in English:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

However, I do not think it specifically addresses this topic of fractioning the Precious Blood. There are a number of critical issues that are not explicitly addressed. In part, I believe this is why the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published Redemptionis Sacramentum. It served to clarify certain key points that may have been missed or were left vague.

 

[Catholic2003]

msproule:

Upon submission of a dubium, the Holy See replied in the negative to the Bishops.

Unfortunately, the reply to the Bishops raised more questions than it settled. The Congregation said that it “wishes to modify its original confirmation” regarding the previously approved U.S. practice. However, there is no provision in canon law for the CDWDS to do this.

It’s as though the President of the U.S. were to announce to Congress that he changed his mind about a bill he had signed into law a year ago, and was withdrawing his signature so as to invalidate the law. It just doesn’t work that way.

 

[msproule]

Catholic2003,

The USCCB seems to disagree with you.

For a change of pace, it actually has timely information available on the website detailing the prohibition on pouring the Precious Blood:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/chalice.shtml

I am not a Canon Lawyer, but you say there is no provision in Canon Law which allows the CDWDS to change its position on an issue. Is there a provision in Canon Law that disallows the CDWDS to do what is described? If not, it seems that the CDWDS is to be obeyed.

 

[Catholic2003]

msproule:

The USCCB seems to disagree with you.

The USCCB acted with charity instead of with legalism. Just as I would expect Catholic bishops to act.

The link you gave even noted:

On August 2, 2004, Cardinal George wrote to Cardinal Arinze once again, noting that several Bishops “have questioned the competence of the Congregation to revise its
recognitio of norms approved and confirmed on a prior occasion.”

msproule:

I am not a Canon Lawyer, but you say there is no provision in Canon Law which allows the CDWDS to change its position on an issue. Is there a provision in Canon Law that disallows the CDWDS to do what is described?

Going back to my analogy of the President attempting to withdraw his signature from a bill, the Constitution says that a bill becomes law when passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. Similarly, canon law states that particular law comes in to force when approved by the episcopal conference and granted recognitio by the CDWDS.

The fact that the President can’t change his mind later derives from a general statement that his powers are limited to those explicitly enumerated, e.g., the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Similar statements in Pastor Bonus limit the powers of the various curial congregations, e.g., paragraph 8 of the preamble, and articles 14 and 15.

msproule:

If not, it seems that the CDWDS is to be obeyed.

With everyone getting so upset based on their perception that the U.S. bishops weren’t following church law, I thought that the CDWDS not following church law would generate a similar reaction. I guess I was mistaken.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Catholic2003:

The USCCB acted with charity instead of with legalism. Just as I would expect Catholic bishops to act.

The link you gave even noted:

Going back to my analogy of the President attempting to withdraw his signature from a bill, the Constitution says that a bill becomes law when passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. Similarly, canon law states that particular law comes in to force when approved by the episcopal conference and granted recognitio by the CDWDS.

The fact that the President can’t change his mind later derives from a general statement that his powers are limited to those explicitly enumerated, e.g., the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Similar statements in Pastor Bonus limit the powers of the various curial congregations, e.g., paragraph 8 of the preamble, and articles 14 and 15.

With everyone getting so upset based on their perception that the U.S. bishops weren’t following church law, I thought that the CDWDS not following church law would generate a similar reaction. I guess I was mistaken.

If I ever find myself questioning the Church, it’s this sort that initiates the questioning.

God bless those (arch)bishops who follow the Church and have thus stopped the distribution of the Precious Blood amongst different vessels…

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Catholic2003:

The USCCB acted with charity instead of with legalism. Just as I would expect Catholic bishops to act… Similarly, canon law states that particular law comes in to force when approved by the episcopal conference and granted recognitio by the CDWDS." … Similar statements in Pastor Bonus limit the powers of the various curial congregations, e.g., paragraph 8 of the preamble, and articles 14 and 15…With everyone getting so upset based on their perception that the U.S. bishops weren’t following church law, I thought that the CDWDS not following church law would generate a similar reaction. I guess I was mistaken.

you are incorrect with nearly everything you have typed. the bishops aren’t acting according charity, they are serving their office, at least those who follow the instruction. read the link to the bishops website on the issue. the challenge to authority that you noted was answered. the congregation issued an “instruction” which has the force of law to amend anything in current practice. while congregations have limits, those limits basically say that they can’t act like they are the pope. the response issued by the CDWDS was reviewed by the pope and thus in essense is issued by him. that’s the law.

btw, the use of pitchers during consecration has been a misunderstanding about the existing Norms. they never said use them during consecration, but they never said don’t. it was apparently always understood as ‘that’s not allowed’. when the congregation became aware that the problem existed, they specifically put it in RS. the claim that it is in the Norms is false, as the congregation pointed out. they then ordered that the Norms be made explicit.

also, no particular legislation has ever been posited as having weight in perpetuity. that is new cr*p by some jerk who wanted to have his own way. it has always been the case that when rome creates new legislation, the conferences submit new particular law in relation to it. you can’t possibly be suggesting that norms created in relation to previous missals are in effect, without any regard to the issuing of a new missal. or should we say that recognition of the new missal and GIRM are acts of charity too?

 

[Catholic2003]

JustSomeGuy:

you are incorrect with nearly everything you have typed.

I’m afraid you are the one who is incorrect. See below.

JustSomeGuy:

read the link to the bishops website on the issue. the challenge to authority that you noted was answered.

Yes, it was answered: The CDWDS agreed that it didn’t have the authority to withdraw its recognitio.

The CDWDS response went on to note that the Congregation has the authority to “interpret” liturgical law (which it does). However, the CDWDS then said that for the U.S. particular law that allows the priest to pour the Precious Blood into other vessels after consecration, its official interpretation was that the law really meant that the priest was not allowed to pour the Precious Blood after consecration.

Now, this kind of “interpretation” makes Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. constitution to include a right to abortion) look reasonable by comparision. The U.S. bishops truly were acting with charity when they chose to accede to the CDWDS’s latest abuse of their curial authority.

JustSomeGuy:

the congregation issued an “instruction” which has the force of law

Instructions do not have the force of law (as in lex legislation). In fact, the CDWDS does not have the authority to issue law. From article 18 of Pastor Bonus:

The dicasteries cannot issue laws or general decrees having the force of law or derogate from the prescriptions of current universal law, unless in individual cases and with the specific approval of the Supreme Pontiff.

JustSomeGuy:

the response issued by the CDWDS was reviewed by the pope and thus in essense is issued by him. that’s the law.

This is only true for instructions issued in forma specifica. However, Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in forma communi, giving it only curial authority, which article 18 of Pastor Bonus makes clear does not include the authority to issue law.

JustSomeGuy:

also, no particular legislation has ever been posited as having weight in perpetuity.

Are you trying to claim that the original CDWDS recognitio was only given for a fixed period of time? I’m afraid the facts are against you on this one.

JustSomeGuy:

it has always been the case that when rome creates new legislation, the conferences submit new particular law in relation to it.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was not new legislation created by Rome. As I have demonstrated, the CDWDS does not have the authority to issue new legislation; the fact that you see this happening means that you also recognize the CDWDS’s abuse of power.

JustSomeGuy:

or should we say that recognition of the new missal and GIRM are acts of charity too?

No, the new missal and GIRM were correctly promulgated.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

General Reminder:
The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.