Purificators

[ladypeace]

A little kerfuffle in the sacristy…one of our adult acolytes folds the purificator and places it in the chalice after communion (after he consumes anything left in the cup). He places them on the credence table and continues in the participation of the conclusion of the liturgy. Is he incorrect to place the purificator in the cup?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I’m not sure I know the answer to your question, but I just love your use of the word “kerfuffle” — I had never heard it before!

I think what you describe is OK, but the priest should have purified the chalice first (rinsed it with water and consumed the water).

 

[ladypeace]

well, the the paten and chalice are cleansed after Mass. Someone has suggested that the purificator be placed directly on the credence table instead of “stuffed” in the chalice. Seems less than respectful to me…everyone is so heartfelt in their opinion and everyone is looking to do the right thing (even vehemently disagreeing with the priest’s decision). If someone has missed the education on this one, I’m certain we’d all abide by the correct info.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

TI( have been told that the purificator should not be put in the chalice before the chalice is purified. There may be a few drops of the Precious Blood in the chalice which will be absorbed into the purificator. While the purificator does absorb some of the Precious Blood, which must be rinsed out, one would like to minimize that amount.

 

[Lovemyfaith]

Our special ministers are trained to hand the purificator to the Sacristan when they are finished.
I am a volunteer purificator laundress. The purificators are stored in a hamper and when I picked them up (there are several of us who volunteer) I soak them in a basin and empty that water into the earth before they are laundered.

 

[John_Lilburne]

A little kerfuffle in the sacristy…one of our adult acolytes folds the purificator and places it in the chalice after communion (after he consumes anything left in the cup). He places them on the credence table and continues in the participation of the conclusion of the liturgy. Is he incorrect to place the purificator in the cup?

I don’t think the liturgical books forbid putting the purificator in the chalice.

It sounds like the purification is to take place immediately after Mass. So, from the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“163. … Nevertheless, it is also permitted, especially if there are several vessels to be purified, to leave them suitably covered on a corporal, either at the altar or at the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass following the dismissal of the people.” (My bold text. Similar instructions are in n. 183).

So in terms of appearance, the “suitably covered” does not seem to be happening. I understand this to mean either with a chalice veil or a corporal.

 

[IrishAm]

Originally Posted by **ladypeace **
A little kerfuffle in the sacristy…

Ahem, from one of my favorite websites, World Wide Words (www.worldwidewords.org)), where the British Michael Quinion writes about the English language, and, sometimes, the English Michael Quinion writes about the British language . . .

"kerfuffle

A commotion or fuss.

You will most commonly come across this wonderfully expressive word in Britain and the British Commonwealth countries (though the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer used it in January this year) [note: article is dated 18 May 2002] . It is rather informal, though it often appears in newspapers. One of the odder things about it is that it changed its first letter in quite recent times. Up to the 1960s, it was written in all sorts of ways — curfuffle, carfuffle, cafuffle, cafoufle, even *gefuffle *(a clear indication that its main means of transmission was in speech, being too rarely written down to have established a standard spelling). But in that decade it suddenly became much more popular and settled on the current kerfuffle. Lexicographers suspect the change came in response to the way that a number of imitative words were spelled, like *kerplop *and kerplunk.

In those cases, the initial ker– adds emphasis, as it does in other words, perhaps onomatopoeic but perhaps also borrowing the first syllable of crash. But we know *kerfuffle *was originally Scots and it’s thought that its first part came from Scots Gaelic car, to twist or bend. The second bit is more of a puzzle: there is a Scots verb *fuffle *(now known only in local dialect), to throw into disorder, dishevel, or ruffle. No obvious origin for it is known and experts suspect it was an imitative word. It is probably linked with Scots fuff, to emit puffs of smoke or steam, definitely imitative, which in the late eighteenth century also had a sense of going off in a huff or flying into a temper.

Some specialists think *kerfuffle *is also related to the Irish cior thual, confusion or disorder. It seems to be a minority opinion, though."​

See all the things you can learn here.