T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Hey all, in the EF does the priest also use wine while cleansing the chalice of sacred particles? Was there a reason why water wasn’t enough in the EF? Does it signify something?
- Status
C
CRV
Guest
Hoping one of the Fathers will answer - @edward_george1 or @InThePew
In the meantime I’ll take a stab at it.
I’m relying on others to correct me if I’m wrong about any part of this.
In the meantime I’ll take a stab at it.
Yes.
My guess is and as I understand it - the wine in the cruet is blessed by Father at the offertory (presented to him), and some of the wine and a drop of water is poured into the Chalice to be consecrated and for his Communion. (Father pours just enough for his communion into the Chalice.) At the purification of the Chalice, some of this blessed wine is poured over his fingers to cleanse them of any particles of the Host, then a second time with wine & water - he then consumes this.
I’m relying on others to correct me if I’m wrong about any part of this.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Thanks! Even if it isn’t correct as you pointed out it might not be. But it makes sense.
J
jimXroberts
Guest
After Holy Communion, the priest holds his fingers over the chalice and they are cleansed of any particles of the host. If the priest is saying no more Masses that day, his fingers are cleansed with water and wine. If he is saying another Mass, only water is used. That is because the wine would break the Eucharistic fast. The priest then drinks the contents of the chalice and cleans it with a purificator.
O
OldCAFMember
Guest
The wine is not blessed at the offertory; the water is.
The reason that the priest uses wine to purify both the chalice and his fingers in the EF is that the ancients understood that wine is more effective in purifying than just water. And they were correct about that.
The reason that the priest uses wine to purify both the chalice and his fingers in the EF is that the ancients understood that wine is more effective in purifying than just water. And they were correct about that.
C
CRV
Guest
Thank you for saying this. Many years ago when I was learning to be a sacristan, albeit for the OF, I asked the priest if the left over water from the cruet was blessed, (so to dispose of it correctly), only to be assured no it wasn’t and could go down the ordinary sink.
I also thank you for explaining the significance of these actions esp the understanding of the ancients.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
So why is this not how they cleanse in the OF?
C
CRV
Guest
Would you please expand your thoughts here, as I don’t think I understand.
Thinking in regards to a Sunday Mass at an average parish -
so, as this is after Communion (purifying the Chalice),so from this point on to the end of Mass including the final hymn,on average let’s say 10 minutes goes past, then he spends some time greeting his parishoners - say another 15 mins, then if the next Mass is scheduled to start in another 30-35 mins (his Mass started at 9am and the next is scheduled to start at 11am - same Church) - then an hour has already elapsed. Add in say 30mins before Communion in the following Mass, then a total of 1.5hrs roughly has gone by.
So with fasting being 1 hour, I don’t understand how he would be breaking the Eucharistic/Communion fast for his next Mass?
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
@Thomasbradley312
OF - water in cruet not blessed at offertory
EF - water in cruet has been blessed at the offertory
OF - optional to purify the chalice with both wine & water
EF - mandatory to purify the chalice with both wine & water
Therefore any water remaining in the cruet at an EF Mass after the final ablution, if not consumed by the priest then, should go down the sacrarium.
At the EF, the priest pours the rest of the wine into the chalice, which dilutes any remaining drops of the precious blood to the point the Real Presence ceases. It is then immediately consumed.
Using both water and wine to purify - I’ve been told is better in picking up any fragments of the host that might be in the Chalice or the ciborium if it too is being purified - is simply better than using water alone.
OF - water in cruet not blessed at offertory
EF - water in cruet has been blessed at the offertory
OF - optional to purify the chalice with both wine & water
EF - mandatory to purify the chalice with both wine & water
Therefore any water remaining in the cruet at an EF Mass after the final ablution, if not consumed by the priest then, should go down the sacrarium.
At the EF, the priest pours the rest of the wine into the chalice, which dilutes any remaining drops of the precious blood to the point the Real Presence ceases. It is then immediately consumed.
Using both water and wine to purify - I’ve been told is better in picking up any fragments of the host that might be in the Chalice or the ciborium if it too is being purified - is simply better than using water alone.
Because it is optional I assume.
Last edited:
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
Lots of simplifications for simplification’s sake. The Mass, for better or for worse was stripped to its bare essentials.
C
CRV
Guest
Yes, you’re right. My assumption was for this present time, not back in the day. 
D
dochawk
Guest
For that matter, what is the fast for the EF these days? Midnight or an hour?
While my church is one hour (Byzantine/Pittsburgh metropolis nee Ruthenian), I avoid anything but caffeinated coffee before liturgy.
While my church is one hour (Byzantine/Pittsburgh metropolis nee Ruthenian), I avoid anything but caffeinated coffee before liturgy.
T
TradViolin
Guest
It is the same as the OF (one hour), although I remember seeing in my Latin Missal a recommendation for a three-hour fasting before Communion.
C
CRV
Guest
One hour the same as for the OF, as TradViolin said.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Yah my Missal says one hour yet it is a praiseworthy thing to fast for three. Or something to that effect.
O
OldCAFMember
Guest
Fasting is a matter of canon law, not liturgical law, so being under the 1983 code, it is one hour.
That said, most traditionalists seem to go with the three-hour fast, which was in effect from 1953-1964, the period during which evening Masses were first introduced… However, the only requirement is that found in the current code of canon law.
That said, most traditionalists seem to go with the three-hour fast, which was in effect from 1953-1964, the period during which evening Masses were first introduced… However, the only requirement is that found in the current code of canon law.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Do laws in effect at that time still pertain to the EF?
For example, even though Inter Oecumenici omits the Judica Me and the Last Gospel in 1964, since it is in the 1962 Missal it is still used as that was before this document came out.
It gets interesting though in regards to the Leonine Prayers, or Prayers ordered by the Pope after Low Mass; which were never actually published in the Missal and were supressed with Inter Oecumenici, so some argue they are not in force anymore; others say since it was the prescription in 1962 they must be recited; regardless that is a discussion some have , but the majority of low masses I go too, they still do recite them after mass. What their intentions would be in the present would also be up for debate.
For example, even though Inter Oecumenici omits the Judica Me and the Last Gospel in 1964, since it is in the 1962 Missal it is still used as that was before this document came out.
It gets interesting though in regards to the Leonine Prayers, or Prayers ordered by the Pope after Low Mass; which were never actually published in the Missal and were supressed with Inter Oecumenici, so some argue they are not in force anymore; others say since it was the prescription in 1962 they must be recited; regardless that is a discussion some have , but the majority of low masses I go too, they still do recite them after mass. What their intentions would be in the present would also be up for debate.
Last edited:
E
Edouard
Guest
Because if all these things were done, the priest would be compelled to confront the Real Presence, and the people would still be edified by gestures which reinforce faith in the Real Presence. Both would have to make a distinct choice. As it is now, they can go on claiming and thinking they are “Catholic”, while their priests and their liturgy essentially teach them the Eucharist is a symbol… hence 74% of Catholics don’t believe in it, and 6 Catholics disappear for every 1 that appears. . .
- Status