Use of Ablution Cup?

[AltarMan]

Is it common during Masses at your parishes for those (priest, deacon, EMsHC) who distribute the Body of Christ at Holy Communion to make use of an ablution cup and a clean purificator to cleanse their fingers at the conclusion of Holy Communion?

We certainly don’t do that here, but I was thinking of buying an ablution cup and setting it on the altar at the appropriate moment like they do at the EWTN Masses.

My guess is that only half the priests will make use of it, and even fewer of the EMsHC, but in addition to its intended function, it will also underscore an important point to those in the pews and as an ancilliary benefit, it’s sure to irratate those who bring abuse and irregularity to our Masses.

If anyone has a used ablution cup for sale with a lid, please let me know. I will give it a good home.

 

[ChemicalBean]

I apologize for my ignorance, but what is an ablution cup? What does it look like, and why is it necessary? I’ve certainly never heard of this at my parish and I know we don’t do it (I’m one of a few sacristans). Is it some uber-pious tradition found only on EWTN, or is it actually in the GIRM somewhere?

 

[AltarMan]

An ablution cup is a covered “finger bowl” used by those who touch the Body of Christ to cleanse their fingers in a way that will ensure reverent handling of the Eucharistic particles.

The ablution where an altar boy actually poured water or wine over a priest’s “distribution fingers” to cleanse them was/is part of the Tridentine Mass I believe.

It is not called out for the normative Mass in the vernacular, but it certainly wouldn’t be a liturgical abuse to make use of an ablution cup at the end of Communion. Quite the opposite – it would be a very symbolic reminder that the consecrated hosts are indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[LSK]

Before you buy one, I would ask your pastor. Remember, obedience is a virtue. If your Pastor has no objection, then by all means offer to buy one for your parish…what a wonderful gift.

 

[AltarMan]

LSK:

Before you buy one, I would ask your pastor. Remember, obedience is a virtue. If your Pastor has no objection, then by all means offer to buy one for your parish…what a wonderful gift.

I’m not sure how this would be a matter of “obedience.”

Actually in this specific case, because I am certain it’s allowed by the Church, I would just implement the use of the ablution cup at the Masses I serve. It would be up to the individual celebrants and EMsHC to use or not use the cup.

The only people that would be against its implementation are those who are opposed to any and all forms of solemnity, so it would be better to have its use already in place before they could whine to the pastor.

 

[netmilsmom]

AltarMan:

The only people that would be against its implementation are those who are opposed to any and all forms of solemnity, so it would be better to have its use already in place before they could whine to the pastor.

Or those that feel it’s “. some uber-pious tradition found only on EWTN”.

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

An ablution cup is a covered “finger bowl” used by those who touch the Body of Christ to cleanse their fingers in a way that will ensure reverent handling of the Eucharistic particles.

The ablution where an altar boy actually poured water or wine over a priest’s “distribution fingers” to cleanse them was/is part of the Tridentine Mass I believe.

How does this compare to the lavabo?

It (ablution) is not called out for the normative Mass in the vernacular…

But the lavabo is required. Are these the same thing?

 

[AltarMan]

The lavabo (hand washing) is not the same as the ablution after communion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

AltarMan:

It is not called out for the normative Mass in the vernacular, but it certainly wouldn’t be a liturgical abuse to make use of an ablution cup at the end of Communion. Quite the opposite – it would be a very symbolic reminder that the consecrated hosts are indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Actually if it is not called for and it is not found in the GIRM then it is an abuse.

Just as all the other abuses that occur when people add things that are not in the GIRM.

Just becuase some may feel this is something pious and good does not mean it is not an abuse.

As, again by definition, it is an abuse as this is not called for in the GIRM.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I wanted to add this to my last reply but I missed the window to edit the post.

As I have said else where, abuse is abuse. You can not be for one abuse and condemn all others.

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

The lavabo (hand washing) is not the same as the ablution after communion.

Oops! Forgive me for overlooking that part in the original post! I used post #3 as my main point of reference, and it was not quite clear to me when this occurred during in the TLM. Thanks for clearing it up!

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

It is not called out for the normative Mass in the vernacular, but it certainly wouldn’t be a liturgical abuse to make use of an ablution cup at the end of Communion.

ByzCath:

Actually if it is not called for and it is not found in the GIRM then it is an abuse.

Not so fast! Apparently, you missed this while perusing the GIRM (emphasis added):278. Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or the Communion of the faithful, the priest is to wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them…

ByzCath:

Just becuase some may feel this is something pious and good does not mean it is not an abuse.

According to the GIRM, it is not an abuse. It is also common sense. Furthermore, if fragments remain on the fingers, the priest cannot wash then in the bathroom sink. So how should he wash them? The traditional means is the ablution cup, so why not use one when the situation calls for it?

 

[AltarMan]

ByzCath:

Actually if it is not called for and it is not found in the GIRM then it is an abuse.

Just as all the other abuses that occur when people add things that are not in the GIRM.

Just becuase some may feel this is something pious and good does not mean it is not an abuse.

As, again by definition, it is an abuse as this is not called for in the GIRM.

mspoule is right on point with GIRM #278. That’s first-rate research. Your reductionist thinking on the other hand is dangeously flawed.

First, you had better understand specifically what an “abuse” is when used in the context of the Mass. Allowing someone to cleanse their fingers into order to correctly contain Eucharistic particulate matter would never be an abuse.

In a more general sense, customs from the Tridentine Mass that are not explicitly forbidden nor suppressed may be continued in the normative Mass in the vernacular. One example is the quick ringing of sanctus bells as the celebrant finishes taking communion when he receives the Precious Blood. This is neither called out in the GIRM, nor is it forbidden or suppressed – so it’s OK to preserve that custom.

There are many things that some people consider “good/pius” yet when they attempt to insert into the Mass they are abusive. That’s not true in this case (even in the absense of GIRM #278.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

msproule:

Not so fast! Apparently, you missed this while perusing the GIRM (emphasis added):278. Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or the Communion of the faithful, the priest is to wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them…According to the GIRM, it is not an abuse. It is also common sense. Furthermore, if fragments remain on the fingers, the priest cannot wash then in the bathroom sink. So how should he wash them? The traditional means is the ablution cup, so why not use one when the situation calls for it?

Thank you for that work. As I was saying, if it is not in the GIRM it is an abuse as is all the other things done that are not in the GIRM but as you show, it is in the GIRM so it would not be an abuse.

You are correct.

AltarMan:

mspoule is right on point with GIRM #278. That’s first-rate research. Your reductionist thinking on the other hand is dangeously flawed.

First, you had better understand specifically what an “abuse” is when used in the context of the Mass. Allowing someone to cleanse their fingers into order to correctly contain Eucharistic particulate matter would never be an abuse.

I do not agree with this thinking because anyone can then say that what they do is not an abuse because it has not been defined. You are correct this is not an abuse because it appears in the GIRM. If it didn’t then it would be an abuse.

As I said, just beucase someone thinks something is pious does not mean it is not an abuse.

In a more general sense, customs from the Tridentine Mass that are not explicitly forbidden nor suppressed may be continued in the normative Mass in the vernacular. One example is the quick ringing of sanctus bells as the celebrant finishes taking communion when he receives the Precious Blood. This is neither called out in the GIRM, nor is it forbidden or suppressed – so it’s OK to preserve that custom.

Again, if its not in the GIRM it is not to be done. Just becuase something was done in the TLM does not mean that it can, or should, be done in the Mass. That is mixing of rites which I believe is totally forbidden.

There are many things that some people consider “good/pius” yet when they attempt to insert into the Mass they are abusive. That’s not true in this case (even in the absense of GIRM #278.)

Again, I disagree but in this case it doesn’t matter becuase it is in the GIRM.

One last time, if it is not in the GIRM then it shouldn’t be done, there is no ad libbing in the Mass. The Mass belongs to the Church and the Church determines what goes on in it. This is done by the GIRM. To add things that are not in the GIRM is ad libbing and an abuse.

 

[AltarMan]

ByzCath:

One last time, if it is not in the GIRM then it shouldn’t be done, there is no ad libbing in the Mass. The Mass belongs to the Church and the Church determines what goes on in it. This is done by the GIRM. To add things that are not in the GIRM is ad libbing and an abuse.

Thankfully you are mistaken. While that is neither here nor there, you do a disservice to others by making such erroneous claims on such a public forum.

While some people do wrongly add things to the Mass under the guise of being “pious” or “better”, you are blatantly wrong to suggest that “if it is not in the GIRM then it shouldn’t be done.”

That’s reductionist thinking that has led to error.

 

[muledog]

ByzCath:

Actually if it is not called for and it is not found in the GIRM then it is an abuse.

Just as all the other abuses that occur when people add things that are not in the GIRM.

Just becuase some may feel this is something pious and good does not mean it is not an abuse.

As, again by definition, it is an abuse as this is not called for in the GIRM.

The GIRM doesn’t mention wearing shoes, either, but most people would consider them a necessity. The GIRM doesn’t specifically mention an incense spoon, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t - or shouldn’t - be used to transfer the incense into the thurible. There are a ton of things not mentioned in the GIRM that would be most appropriate for use in the liturgy.

No one would argue that it would be proper for EMHC to cleanse their hands before/after handling the Sacred Species. Therefore, an ablution cup (or whatever you may want to call it) would be most appropriate.

Let’s not get carried away.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

muledog:

The GIRM doesn’t mention wearing shoes, either, but most people would consider them a necessity. The GIRM doesn’t specifically mention an incense spoon, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t - or shouldn’t - be used to transfer the incense into the thurible. There are a ton of things not mentioned in the GIRM that would be most appropriate for use in the liturgy.

No one would argue that it would be proper for EMHC to cleanse their hands before/after handling the Sacred Species. Therefore, an ablution cup (or whatever you may want to call it) would be most appropriate.

Let’s not get carried away.

Fine, then holding hands during the Our Father is not an abuse and neither is crossing the aisle to give the Kiss of Peace to people over there.

You can not pick and chose which abuses you like and which you don’t.

Just because you like it does not make it ok, many like to hold hands.

 

[msproule]

ByzCath:

…many like to hold hands.

But unlike assuring that no fragments cling to the hands of those who touch the Holy Eucharist, there is no practical reason to hold hands during the Our Father. I think that is the point that is being made regarding the ablution cup. There is a difference, and it comes down to common sense (IMO).

 

[netmilsmom]

ByzCath:

Fine, then holding hands during the Our Father is not an abuse and neither is crossing the aisle to give the Kiss of Peace to people over there.

You can not pick and chose which abuses you like and which you don’t.

Just because you like it does not make it ok, many like to hold hands.

None of these things are abuses, all innovations.

You are talking about fixures in the mass.
If anyone can find another document that mentions the ablution cup in the mass, then it is neither an abuse nor an innovation.

Silence in the GIRM does not override another document.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

None of these things are abuses, all innovations.

You are talking about fixures in the mass.
If anyone can find another document that mentions the ablution cup in the mass, then it is neither an abuse nor an innovation.

Silence in the GIRM does not override another document.

Actually it has been pointed out that the GIRM is not really silent on the matter of the ablution cup.

My point was that if it was not in the GIRM then it shouldn’t be added to the Mass.