Ritual for Deconsecrating a Church

[Matrix_Refugee]

Can anyone here point me to a webpage where I can find the ritual for deconsecrating a church or chapel? I need this for a story that I’m working on; I’ve looked at EWTN’s website and their copy of the Roman Ritual, but it didn’t seem to be there.

Thanks, and God bless you!

 

[gelsbern]

Matrix Refugee:

Can anyone here point me to a webpage where I can find the ritual for deconsecrating a church or chapel? I need this for a story that I’m working on; I’ve looked at EWTN’s website and their copy of the Roman Ritual, but it didn’t seem to be there.

Thanks, and God bless you!

I don’t believe there is a ritual for it, I believe that once the church property is sold it automatically becomes deconsecrated,

If you do find something on it, be sure to share as it would make interesting reading.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

gelsbern:

I don’t believe there is a ritual for it, I believe that once the church property is sold it automatically becomes deconsecrated.

This sounds like the kind of answer a liberal would post. I need an orthodox-traditional answer. There has to be something, since a church has to be consecrated in the first place in order to be a real church, so it would stand to reason that there would be a kind of “reversal”. Just selling the property wouldn’t be enough to “reverse” the consecration, plus, the church furnishings – the statues, the sacred vessals, the hosts in the tabernacle, the altar stone, etc. – would need to be removed with all due reverence.

I’m sorry if I sound angry: I’m just very sensitive about these things.

 

[jjwilkman]

pick up the tabernacle and the altar and the crucifix and walk away. then walk away. done deal.

 

[gelsbern]

Matrix Refugee:

This sounds like the kind of answer a liberal would post. I need an orthodox-traditional answer. There has to be something, since a church has to be consecrated in the first place in order to be a real church, so it would stand to reason that there would be a kind of “reversal”. Just selling the property wouldn’t be enough to “reverse” the consecration, plus, the church furnishings – the statues, the sacred vessals, the hosts in the tabernacle, the altar stone, etc. – would need to be removed with all due reverence.

I’m sorry if I sound angry: I’m just very sensitive about these things.

Insults are not needed but I do forgive you. I will tell you that I am far from liberal in anything so your bearing false witness is something you will have to work out between you and God, but as I said I forgive you.

Now, as to answer your question, I have looked through ALL my rites books, and I cannot find anything, and that includes books that were pre-vatican I and pre-vatican II and post vatican II.

You are trying to use reasoning with faith, but if reason held true then there would be a way for a priest to deconsecrate a host too.

But let’s look at it logically if you insist. Consecration = blessing, deconsecration = removing a blessing, or to put it simpler, a curse. I have never seen any rites ever for a priest to unbless anything at all, every rite is to bring God’s blessing on something.

BUT with that being said, it is possible that such a rite does exist, but I have never run across such a thing in 10 years of studies, nor did I find such in my recent search. I do know that ANYTHING that is blessed or consecrated loses that consecration if it is sold, or if it is no longer recognizable as the original object. So, knowing that, as was said above, remove the altar, tabernacle and crucifix and then sell the property the consecration is null and void.

May God bless and keep you.

Long live the Mass of St. Pius V.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Google is your friend.

It seems those wacky Episcopalians have a ritual.

*When deconsecrating a church, the Bishop says “Lord God, in your great goodness you once accepted to your honor and glory this building, now secularized. Receive our praise and thanksgiving for the blessings, help, and comfort which you bestowed upon your people in this *place.”

Sounds more like a blessing to me, but they are Protestant, so who knows?

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is the canon law:

Canon 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been in great measure destroyed, or if they have been permanently made over to secular usage, whether by decree of the competent Ordinary or simply in fact.

---

Canon 1222 §1 If a church cannot in any way be used for divine worship and there is no possibility of its being restored, the diocesan Bishop may allow it to be used for some secular but not unbecoming purpose.

§2 Where other grave reasons suggest that a particular church should no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan Bishop may allow it to be used for a secular but not unbecoming purpose. Before doing so, he must consult the council of priests; he must also have the consent of those who could lawfully claim rights over that church, and be sure that the good of souls would not be harmed by the transfer.

Here is a paragraph from the CLSA New Commentary for canon 1212:

If a sacred place is to be given over permanently for profane uses, the competent ordinary should first issue a decree in writing, directed to the person responsible for the sacred place, stating that the place in question is no longer a sacred place and has by the decree lost its dedication or blessing. The issuance of the decree is subject ot the rules for individual administrative acts and individual decrees (cc. 35-47, 48-58), and recourse may be taken against it if a person, physical or juridic, is aggrieved by it. Although a sacred place also loses its dedication or blessing when in fact it has been permanently given over for secular purposes, this is not a legal option for omitting a decree but simply a provision of law in case a decree is not issued. A decree should be issued because it recognizes the authority of the ordinary who had the competence to establish the sacred place, it leaves no uncertainty about the status of the place, and it allows the possibility of recourse.