Salad bowl vs paten

[ChrisC]

I agree. Titus, you are remarkable. And Tee eff em is a close second.

Reverence is the operative word and so many of these variations do not enforce it. The other issue too - and I hesitate to say this at the risk of getting off topic - is obedience; obedience to the norms of the past and to the spirit of the GIRM. After all, we hear enough about the spirit of Vatican II to justify so many aberrations of the day.

I really enjoyed this thread of conversation. I learned a few things and confirmed a few things in my own mind. Thanks.

 

[Titus]

I added you to my buddy list for saying I was remarkable, ChrisC. Thanks. You cheered me up.

I agree totally with the classical ciboria not equalling reverence. I have seen EMHCs (sadly it was them) grabbing bunches of Our Lord to give to other EMHCs who had run out during communion. Not very reverent, but boy were the ciboria lovely and traditional.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“331. For the consecration of hosts, a large paten may appropriately be used; on it is placed the bread for the priest and the deacon as well as for the other ministers and for the faithful.”

So there is clearly no requirement for what ChrisC had above in #5: “paten on which the single altar host to be consecrated is normally and reverently placed”.

A paten is required. For example 2002 GIRM 118: “The following are also to be prepared: … On the credence table: the chalice, a corporal, a purificator, and, if appropriate, the pall; the paten and, if needed, ciboria; …”.

The word “may” in n. 331 is saying it may be a large paten or it may be a small paten using ciboria.

So the case against this paten would be based on:

“332. As to the form of the sacred vessels, the artist may fashion them in a manner that is more in keeping with the customs of each region, provided each vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use and is clearly distinguishable from those intended for everyday use.”

 

[ChrisC]

It looks to me like John Lilburne cinched the case. I stand corrected. Thank you John.

AS for you Titus, I’m happy to be on your buddy list. I can spot a sharp intellect even in deep cyberspace. I think we came up with some good points in this thread but I as I said above, I believe John made the last and most compelling response. I wish I could say it’s only the first time I have been wrong.

 

[mystified]

You mean our bishop’s wicker basket for the hosts and Kool-Aid pitcher for the wine are not correct ?

 

[lak611]

You mean our bishop’s wicker basket for the hosts and Kool-Aid pitcher for the wine are not correct ?

The pitcher is ok as long as the wine is poured into chalices before consecration. Pouring the Blood of Christ from a pitcher into chalices after the consecration is unacceptable.

 

[Titus]

You mean our bishop’s wicker basket for the hosts and Kool-Aid pitcher for the wine are not correct ?

They are in Orange County!

The pitcher is ok as long as the wine is poured into chalices before consecration. Pouring the Blood of Christ from a pitcher into chalices after the consecration is unacceptable.

**The pitcher may be OK (and I want GIRM references if it is) but it sure isn’t reverent. **

 

[Pug]

Transfering consecrated hosts from one ciborium to another happens all the time. When communion has been distributed, the ciborium are brought back to the altar. Say there were 4 of them, but only two are going to be placed in the tabernacle. The remaining hosts must be transferred.

I don’t see a problem with this. But I’ve been wrong before.

 

[Titus]

Transfering consecrated hosts from one ciborium to another happens all the time. When communion has been distributed, the ciborium are brought back to the altar. Say there were 4 of them, but only two are going to be placed in the tabernacle. The remaining hosts must be transferred.

I don’t see a problem with this. But I’ve been wrong before.

The problem is not with the transferring, in my opinion, but rather with the style & irreverence of the transferring. See the grab handfuls and chuck them into the other ciborium. Of course this begs the question of how to do it reverently, and I don’t have a good answer.

 

[Pug]

Of course this begs the question of how to do it reverently, and I don’t have a good answer.

Hmmm. I don’t know either. Pouring them initially seems like it risks a fall, but I’ve seen this done often enough.When I fill a pyx to go to the hospital (and the priest is not there) I lift them one by one and place them in the pyx. That doesn’t seem practical for ciboria.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think it’s clear that a paten is required, but I also think much has been made of the absence of a paten without anyone ever providing a strict definition of what a paten is. I didn’t look at the links, but you all seem to agree that there is such thing as a bowl paten. When I had to purchase new vessels (to replace glass) at my former place of employment I bought what were, I believe, bowl patens but what the catalogue referred to as “host dishes.” When talking to a priest about them for the first time I wasn’t sure what to call them (patens, ciboria, something else?) and he told me “If it has a lid, it’s a ciborium. If not, it’s a paten.” So I would say that even though the ginormous bowl is a ridiculous instantiation of the form, it is still a bowl paten.

Regarding transferring hosts, though, I think common sense if not an actual liturgical norm, would dictate that hosts be consecrated in the vessels from which the priest intends them to be distributed. This would lead to greater respect being shown and a lower chance of particles of the Eucharist falling other than on the corporal. Transfer *after *distributing for repose is understandable, as is transfer for unforeseen circumstances (my paten/ciborium ran out and we’re not going to distribute within our time limits [set be reasonability or Mass schedule constraints] without keeping all the lines going), but intentionally setting it up so you have to transfer hosts in the manner you describe is wrong, whether a document says so or not.

 

[Titus]

I think it’s clear that a paten is required, but I also think much has been made of the absence of a paten without anyone ever providing a strict definition of what a paten is. I didn’t look at the links, but you all seem to agree that there is such thing as a bowl paten. When I had to purchase new vessels (to replace glass) at my former place of employment I bought what were, I believe, bowl patens but what the catalogue referred to as “host dishes.” When talking to a priest about them for the first time I wasn’t sure what to call them (patens, ciboria, something else?) and he told me “If it has a lid, it’s a ciborium. If not, it’s a paten.” So I would say that even though the ginormous bowl is a ridiculous instantiation of the form, it is still a bowl paten.

Regarding transferring hosts, though, I think common sense if not an actual liturgical norm, would dictate that hosts be consecrated in the vessels from which the priest intends them to be distributed. This would lead to greater respect being shown and a lower chance of particles of the Eucharist falling other than on the corporal. Transfer *after *distributing for repose is understandable, as is transfer for unforeseen circumstances (my paten/ciborium ran out and we’re not going to distribute within our time limits [set be reasonability or Mass schedule constraints] without keeping all the lines going), but intentionally setting it up so you have to transfer hosts in the manner you describe is wrong, whether a document says so or not.

I agree . This is such a common sense issue but of course with substantial percentages of the people & even some clergy not believing in or understanding the Real Presence, reverence is not seen as Priority #1 as it should be.

 

[ChrisC]

I agree with Andreas Hofer. Common (Catholic) sense would go a long way toward resolving the angst suffered by so many Catholics about irreverence shown to the Sacred Species. There is no need for the mass transfer of hosts from a very large ciborium to smaller ones for distribution to the faithful. It’s hard to imagine an altar (in a full size church building) so small that it can’t accommodate six or seven smaller ciboria which would be used for distribution of Communion. So the solution as to “how to do it reverently” (Titus) is just to not do it. Titus, of course, brilliant as he is, threw light on the real problem; laity and some clergy (maybe more then we can imagine) who just don’t understand (believe) that the Eucharist is the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[mystified]

Titus,
How did you know that this was in Orange County, the Diocese of Barney?:yup:

 

[Titus]

I agree with Andreas Hofer. Common (Catholic) sense would go a long way toward resolving the angst suffered by so many Catholics about irreverence shown to the Sacred Species. There is no need for the mass transfer of hosts from a very large ciborium to smaller ones for distribution to the faithful. It’s hard to imagine an altar (in a full size church building) so small that it can’t accommodate six or seven smaller ciboria which would be used for distribution of Communion. So the solution as to “how to do it reverently” (Titus) is just to not do it. Titus, of course, brilliant as he is, threw light on the real problem; laity and some clergy (maybe more then we can imagine) who just don’t understand (believe) that the Eucharist is the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

As always, your brilliant servant, Titus.

Titus,
How did you know that this was in Orange County, the Diocese of Barney?:yup:

Divine inspiration?