Precious Blood Spill

  • Thread starter Thread starter CathMass
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CathMass

Guest
A terrible case of the Precious Blood spilling occured at my local church when I went to Mass. In addition I saw leftover residue (the extraordinary minister cleaned it) and so I went and spoke to someone in charge and they had me scrub it. Of course I scrubbed it reverently and said some prayers.
Was I right to do this?
 
A prime reason why the Precious Blood of Our Lord should not be given to the laity, and why EHMCs shouldnt be used.

A purificator should have been used to clean up the spilt Precious Blood i believe.
 
Sure, you oculd do that, as long as you didn’t use paper towels and toss 'em.

As for spills, doesn’t matter who does it. They occur.
 
Seeing that would definitely had me running for an indult parish where communion of lay people from the chalice is still forbidden.

The PRIEST should have cleaned the area with a purificator as best he could… God forbid if it was on carpet and soaked through to the pad below… what sacrelidge!

Pray for the church! Pray she returns to Tradition - tradition that was in place to prevent the travesty you witnessed.

Ken
 
There is no reason to limit the clean-up to a priest, nor is this any reason to keep the chalice from the laity. This is however a good example of why EMsHC need to be thoroughly trained.

We are taught to blot-up the Precious Blood using purificators – as many as it takes. The purificators are then soaked, and the liquid poured down the sacrarium.
 
YachtsMan said:
There is no reason to limit the clean-up to a priest, nor is this any reason to keep the chalice from the laity. This is however a good example of why EMsHC need to be thoroughly trained.

We are taught to blot-up the Precious Blood using purificators – as many as it takes. The purificators are then soaked, and the liquid poured down the sacrarium.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, it used to be only the Priest that could clean up a spill or pick up a dropped Host, and there was a specific way that they had to be done.
 
kleary said:
Pray for the church! Pray she returns to Tradition - tradition that was in place to prevent the travesty you witnessed.
Click to expand...
Actually, that tradition was put into place to combat the heresy that Christ is not present body and blood under both species, and is present bodily only in the consecrated host, and his blood only in consecrated wine, when in reality, he is present body and blood in both species.
 
Yet another reason for not using glass vessels - imagine the broken glass among the spilled Blood. Still, our parish refuses to follow the order of our Bishop and we continue to use glass vessels for both the Body and Blood because it’s what our priest prefers.
 
CatholicNick said:
A prime reason why the Precious Blood of Our Lord should not be given to the laity, and why EHMCs shouldnt be used.

A purificator should have been used to clean up the spilt Precious Blood i believe.
Click to expand...
I agree !!!
 
Interestingly enough, the Church disagrees with postings #9 and #10. Unless there are so many communicants that it’s difficult to ascertain how much wine will be needed for the consecration, the Church encourages the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds:

*GIRM 281: Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom. *

Oh, and I’m not sure how a priest would necessarily be better than a layperson at distributing Holy Communion. Given how badly some older priests’ hands shake, quite the opposite seems to be the case rather often.
 
YachtsMan said:
Interestingly enough, the Church disagrees with postings #9 and #10. Unless there are so many communicants that it’s difficult to ascertain how much wine will be needed for the consecration, the Church encourages the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds:

GIRM 281: Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

Oh, and I’m not sure how a priest would necessarily be better than a layperson at distributing Holy Communion. Given how badly some older priests’ hands shake, quite the opposite seems to be the case rather often.
Click to expand...
So would a bishop who refuses to allow communion under both species be in defiance of the Church?
 
YachtsMan said:
Unless there are so many communicants that it’s difficult to ascertain how much wine will be needed for the consecration, the Church encourages the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds:
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a difference between encouraging a practice and permitting it. Consider this guidance from Redemtionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

“100. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.”

The clear implication of the emphasized text is that reception under both forms, while permitted, is the exception rather than the rule.

Also, it’s worth noting that the prospective number of communicants is not the only factor in determining the appropriateness of offering the Sacred Species under both kinds, even in cases where it is permitted. Paragraph 102 of RS gives a more comprehensive list:

“102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.”

Hope that helps.
 
Elzee said:
Yet another reason for not using glass vessels - imagine the broken glass among the spilled Blood. Still, our parish refuses to follow the order of our Bishop and we continue to use glass vessels for both the Body and Blood because it’s what our priest prefers.
Click to expand...
A parish which I used to attend, but never registered in, still had glassware for the Precious Blood of our Lord—as of only a few weeks ago.
 
Servulus said:
Actually, there is a difference between encouraging a practice and permitting it. Consider this guidance from Redemtionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

“100. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.”

The clear implication of the emphasized text is that reception under both forms, while permitted, is the exception rather than the rule.

Also, it’s worth noting that the prospective number of communicants is not the only factor in determining the appropriateness of offering the Sacred Species under both kinds, even in cases where it is permitted. Paragraph 102 of RS gives a more comprehensive list:

“102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.”

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Read the GIRM as I showed in posting #11 – the document actually controlling the Mass. It’s clearly encouraged.
 
As you suggested, I went back and read GIRM #281, which clearly outlines the beauty of receiving under both forms and its merits.

Then I continued reading, and found this in #283:

“Communion under both kinds may be permitted for the following reasons, in addition to those given in the ritual books:
a) for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
b) for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass;
c) for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
The diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed even in the churches of religious orders and in celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as their own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.”

The first sentence of the section is the key. In addition to referring to the ritual books (as the RS section in my previous post did), the sentence is clearly not treating the practice as something that should be routinely or universally done.
 
I’m grateful that the Church has restored to us the ability to receive under both species (something that the laity have been able to do for far longer than they have not). I hope it becomes even more widely practiced throughout the Catholic world, but not in super-large gatherings.
 
Servulus said:
“102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.”

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
It seems like in the majority of churches I’ve been to, about roughly 30-50% of the laity do not request the chalice of our Lord.
 
prv said:
It seems like in the majority of churches I’ve been to, about roughly 30-50% of the laity do not request the chalice of our Lord.
Click to expand...
And in mine, those who elect NOT to receive are in the minority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top