Use of Ablution Cup?

[AltarMan]

ByzCath:

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. **

This differs greatly from what you suggested in posting #9 above:

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

You need to dig a bit deeper. The results of your reductionist method is in error and the term “abuse” is over-used.

 

[netmilsmom]

ByzCath:

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.

Then it’s in the GIRM.
(Hand holding is not.)

There are somethings that are continuations from other GIRMS as well. If a GIRM (say 2003) does not specifically state that something is overriden (say from GIRM 2000) then it is not. If you don’t see it in the GIRM 2003, there is more research to be done.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Then it’s in the GIRM.
(Hand holding is not.)

There are somethings that are continuations from other GIRMS as well. If a GIRM (say 2003) does not specifically state that something is overriden (say from GIRM 2000) then it is not. If you don’t see it in the GIRM 2003, there is more research to be done.

Thats not true. When a new GIRM is published that is becuaes a new Missal has been promulgate. The promulgation of a new Missal automatically overrides the earlier one.

It seems that just two of you are aruging this point. How do we tell what is an abuse? Just something that isn’t in the GIRM that you don’t like?

This dicussion has been held else where and I am comfortable with the company I keep with my opinion on this. I stand by it. Reply if you wish but know that I will not see it as I am finished with this topic and am moving on.

 

[Papabile]

AltarMan:

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.

I would note that I believe the use of the post-communion ablution cup can be legitimated within the rubrics of the IGMR (GIRM). However, the principle the person above cited is absolutely factually incorrect.

This was explicitly rejected by dubia. While the dubia was related to incensation, it answers more generally precisely what altarman asserted.

In Notitae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2 reads:

DUBIA: In Mass with a congregation celebrated more solemnly, different ways of incensation are being used: one plain and simple; the other, the same as the rite for incensation prescribed in the former Roman Missal. Which usage should be followed?

REPLY: It must never be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly “the Missal of St. Pius V,” and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal (see , Vatican Polyglot Press, 1962: VIII and pp. LXXXLXXXIII) are not to be resumed
.
In incensation the celebrant (GIRM nos. 51 and 105) proceeds as follows: a. toward the gifts: he incenses with three swings, as the deacon does toward the Book of the Gospels; b. toward the cross: he incenses with three swings when he comes in front of it; c. toward the altar: he incenses continuously from the side as he passes around the altar, making no distinction between the altar table and the base.

 

[netmilsmom]

ByzCath:

Thats not true. When a new GIRM is published that is becuaes a new Missal has been promulgate. The promulgation of a new Missal automatically overrides the earlier one.

It seems that just two of you are aruging this point. How do we tell what is an abuse? Just something that isn’t in the GIRM that you don’t like?

This dicussion has been held else where and I am comfortable with the company I keep with my opinion on this. I stand by it. Reply if you wish but know that I will not see it as I am finished with this topic and am moving on.

Silence on an issue in the new GIRM does not override the old one.
And why is it that you continue to call all of these innovations abuses?

 

[netmilsmom]

Papabile:

I would note that I believe the use of the post-communion ablution cup can be legitimated within the rubrics of the IGMR (GIRM). However, the principle the person above cited is absolutely factually incorrect.

This was explicitly rejected by dubia. While the dubia was related to incensation, it answers more generally precisely what altarman asserted.

In Notitae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2 reads:

DUBIA: In Mass with a congregation celebrated more solemnly, different ways of incensation are being used: one plain and simple; the other, the same as the rite for incensation prescribed in the former Roman Missal. Which usage should be followed?

REPLY: It must never be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly “the Missal of St. Pius V,” and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal (see , Vatican Polyglot Press, 1962: VIII and pp. LXXXLXXXIII) are not to be resumed
.
In incensation the celebrant (GIRM nos. 51 and 105) proceeds as follows: a. toward the gifts: he incenses with three swings, as the deacon does toward the Book of the Gospels; b. toward the cross: he incenses with three swings when he comes in front of it; c. toward the altar: he incenses continuously from the side as he passes around the altar, making no distinction between the altar table and the base.

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I mean that there are more documents to be researched than just the GIRM.

 

[AltarMan]

Papabile:

I would note that I believe the use of the post-communion ablution cup can be legitimated within the rubrics of the IGMR (GIRM). However, the principle the person above cited is absolutely factually incorrect.

This was explicitly rejected by dubia. While the dubia was related to incensation, it answers more generally precisely what altarman asserted.

In Notitae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2 reads:

DUBIA: In Mass with a congregation celebrated more solemnly, different ways of incensation are being used: one plain and simple; the other, the same as the rite for incensation prescribed in the former Roman Missal. Which usage should be followed?

REPLY: It must never be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly “the Missal of St. Pius V,” and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal (see , Vatican Polyglot Press, 1962: VIII and pp. LXXXLXXXIII) are not to be resumed
.
In incensation the celebrant (GIRM nos. 51 and 105) proceeds as follows: a. toward the gifts: he incenses with three swings, as the deacon does toward the Book of the Gospels; b. toward the cross: he incenses with three swings when he comes in front of it; c. toward the altar: he incenses continuously from the side as he passes around the altar, making no distinction between the altar table and the base.

Absolutely sublime research, thank you. I based this on the following Q&A from EWTN:

Bell ringing during Communion?
Question from BellGuy on 05-07-2004:

Why does the altar server give the sanctus bells a short ring as the priest celebrant consumes the Precious Blood on the televised EWTN daily Masses?

I have never seen that in the current GIRM, and wondered if it was an unauthorized additon to the Mass?

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on 06-22-2004:

The Sanctus Bells are rung when the Priest consumed the Precious Blood in the Tridentine Mass. The custom may be continued in the Novus Ordo since it is not explicitly forbidden nor suppressed. The GIRM and IGMR mention ringing bells at the Consecration but neither forbid the custom or tradition for ringing them at the Priest’s communion.

 

[AltarMan]

ByzCath:

Thats not true. When a new GIRM is published that is becuaes a new Missal has been promulgate. The promulgation of a new Missal automatically overrides the earlier one.

It seems that just two of you are aruging this point. How do we tell what is an abuse? Just something that isn’t in the GIRM that you don’t like?

This dicussion has been held else where and** I am comfortable with the company I keep with my opinion on this.** I stand by it. Reply if you wish but know that I will not see it as** I am finished with this topic and am moving on.**

Is that how you think it works? You join a thread with nothing to offer except your own conjecture? When pressed you then try to back it up by the supposed company you keep? At the same time you chose to run and hide because you can’t defend your ideas? Honestly?

Because I’m quite certain you’ll read this, please know that you added absolutely nothing to the discourse – although others certainly did (thanks msproule and Papabile.) Please think long and hard before you try your hit and run tactics on other threads that I’m sure can do without the pollution.

 

[ToServeHim]

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.

I like your response. Totally agree.