What are we to do???

[fall_fox]

I thought this was what you meant, but the charge was so serious I wanted to be certain.

So not only are laypeople doing the purification, but the vessels are not even being purified during Mass and the priest has no idea who actually does it or what their deportment is while they were doing it? To borrow a most useful expression:* Oy vey!*

I heard about situations like this, because our deacon said this is why laypeople are not allowed to do it any more: that is, there was total abdication of responsibility by the clergy to the point that people were in the sacristy laughing and carrying on while purifying the vessels. Our deacon, when teaching about how to cleanse (not purify) the vessels, cautioned that he doesn’t want to hear about that kind of behavior in the sacristy at all. Essentially, his message was that if you want to act like that, fine: they need you to help out at coffee and doughnuts. That’s how you act around disposable paper plates used at a social event, not sacramental vessels used in the Mass.

I want to address a quote from Phemie. It is not up to the Pastor. When something comes down from the Vatican on an issue like this, it’s even in the GERM, the pastor has an obligation to follow what the Vatican has ruled on.
On those same lines, Could there be a sin of disobediance, I wonder. Certainly if we can find and understand the proper procedure, why can’t the Pastors. Is the Bishops of their diocese, passing the information on to the Pastors?

I am an EMHC, when we were back in the sacristy, the woman next to me consumed what Precious Blood was left in her cup, and says when finished mmmmm good stuff. I’m no saint but it seems to me that the EMHC should be chosen with the greatest of care. I was new to the parish, meaning they knew nothing about me, with no questions at all they made me a EMHC, in fact this was on a Saturday afternoon and they wanted me to serve as a EMHC that evening. There was no commitioning, nothing. Well I didn’t because I thought there should be more to it than that. No piest was even presant. Later we did things propersy.

 

[Phemie]

I want to address a quote from Phemie. It is not up to the Pastor. When something comes down from the Vatican on an issue like this, it’s even in the GERM, the pastor has an obligation to follow what the Vatican has ruled on.
On those same lines, Could there be a sin of disobediance, I wonder. Certainly if we can find and understand the proper procedure, why can’t the Pastors. Is the Bishops of their diocese, passing the information on to the Pastors?

I know that it’s not up to the priest and that it violates rubrics but what is an EMHC to do when the priest says “It’s not my job”? When I brought up Redemptionis Sacramentum I was told in no uncertain terms that that document had not been promulgated in our diocese so I was to totally ignore what it said. In fact, I’m not sure that RS hasn’t been totally ignored in Canada, along with the 2002 GIRM.

I know that glass vessels were used at the Cathedral and are still being used now that it’s a basilica. At a Catechetical Conference I attended in another archdiocese, the Archbishop used glass vessels at the closing Mass. I was shocked to also see him break the Host at consecration when he said ‘broke it’ – again something that is addressed and forbidden in RS, but something that I’ve only ever seen happen twice, the other time by a retired priest subbing in a rural parish in Quebec.

 

[benedictgal]

I want to address a quote from Phemie. It is not up to the Pastor. When something comes down from the Vatican on an issue like this, it’s even in the GERM, the pastor has an obligation to follow what the Vatican has ruled on.
On those same lines, Could there be a sin of disobediance, I wonder. Certainly if we can find and understand the proper procedure, why can’t the Pastors. Is the Bishops of their diocese, passing the information on to the Pastors?

I am an EMHC, when we were back in the sacristy, the woman next to me consumed what Precious Blood was left in her cup, and says when finished mmmmm good stuff. I’m no saint but it seems to me that the EMHC should be chosen with the greatest of care. I was new to the parish, meaning they knew nothing about me, with no questions at all they made me a EMHC, in fact this was on a Saturday afternoon and they wanted me to serve as a EMHC that evening. There was no commitioning, nothing. Well I didn’t because I thought there should be more to it than that. No piest was even presant. Later we did things propersy.

You have raised a huge red flag in my eyes. Who was it who asked you to be an EMHC? Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it clear that:

155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,256 for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.257

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

If the priest asked you to be an EMHC, then, there is nothing wrong; however, if the invitation came from an EMHC, then there is a huge problem.

 

[EasterJoy]

I know that glass vessels were used at the Cathedral and are still being used now that it’s a basilica. At a Catechetical Conference I attended in another archdiocese, the Archbishop used glass vessels at the closing Mass.

“In the Archdiocese of Portland, vessels acquired prior to this directive may be used, even if they are glass or crystal”…this is according to the The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 2000, Revisions and Adaptations for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon as approved by Rome. You can disagree with it, but if there is permission there is no fighting it, at least not right now.

I can see where there would be a period of years allowed for parishes to replace improper crystal vessels with noble metals, but it turns out that the wait has not helped. Gold has climbed to over $1800/oz, though, so I don’t think the permission will be ended until that situation eases somewhat. It is too bad th vessels weren’t replaced back in 2000, when the price was about $300/oz.

 

[fall_fox]

“In the Archdiocese of Portland, vessels acquired prior to this directive may be used, even if they are glass or crystal”…this is according to the The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 2000, Revisions and Adaptations for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon as approved by Rome. You can disagree with it, but if there is permission there is no fighting it, at least not right now.

I can see where there would be a period of years allowed for parishes to replace improper crystal vessels with noble metals, but it turns out that the wait has not helped. Gold has climbed to over $1800/oz, though, so I don’t think the permission will be ended until that situation eases somewhat. It is too bad th vessels weren’t replaced back in 2000, when the price was about $300/oz.

In order to replace the glass vessels with more proper vessels, a letter was written and put into the church bullitin, asking for donors that would like to memorialize a loved one to purchase a vessel in their name. That name would then be engraved on the bottom of the chalice or ciborium, whatever the case might be. The Monday after the letter was put into the bullitin, there were eight families that wanted to purchase the vessels in honor of a loved one. The average cost was $500.00 per vessel. By the end of two weeks we had enough donors that we could buy 6 communion cups, 6 ciboria and a larger ciborium, this one cost $610.00. Now the quality of our vessels was not the highest by any means. They can easily go $4000.00 or more each. Ours are gold plated both inside and out. The reason I said that is because you can purchase a vessel that is pewter and is gilded only on the inside of the cup. The body or blood of our Lord would be in cintact with a precious metal and that would be within the guide lines of the GERM.

About the first part of your thread, you are saying that the GERM of 2000 approved of glass vessels. I have been curious about when glass was approved, and I could never find it. I thought it was one of those things that people felt free to change on their own, because of Vatican II. You say it’s in the 2000 GERM? You say that the Archdiocese if Portland Oregon ask for and received from the Vatican its very own revision and adaptation of the GERM? In that case, what is the USCCB for?

 

[fall_fox]

You have raised a huge red flag in my eyes. Who was it who asked you to be an EMHC? Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it clear that:

If the priest asked you to be an EMHC, then, there is nothing wrong; however, if the invitation came from an EMHC, then there is a huge problem.

Ben, here’s the thing, not knowing the procedure of being asked, I did the asking. Because of a divorice, I wasn’t able to receive the Holy Eucharist for a long time. We raised our kids in the faith, as Peter said, where else am I to go Lord, After 30 years I received an anulement and am in the good graces of the Church. I thought, and still think that being a EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER OF HOLY COMMUNION is the highest honor a human being can have, so I asked. It wasn’t the Pastor, or assistant Priest, we don’t have one, the person I was talking to was a Spiritual Life (Liturgy) Commission member. We can use you tonight she said (Saturday), I thought there should be more to it so declined. Was she an EMHC, I suppose so.

 

[fall_fox]

So are you saying that these people are in a state of mortal sin and are taking communion and serving it?! This disheartens me. I struggle with an addiction that is a mortal sin. Whenever I fall, I sit out communion until after I receive confession. It has been shocking that I am the ONLY one who I have ever noticed not receiving in the 3 months I have been back to the church. I just cannot in any way receive with an confessed/unforgiven mortal sin on my soul. I can’t do it. I am stunned.

I don’t like to say that they are in a state of mortal sin, but others know about the divorce and remarriage. I assume the Pastor also knows, why wouldn’t he address the situation? And if he doesn’t address it, doesn’t that put him in a difficult situation with God?

 

[fall_fox]

I know that it’s not up to the priest and that it violates rubrics but what is an EMHC to do when the priest says “It’s not my job”? When I brought up Redemptionis Sacramentum I was told in no uncertain terms that that document had not been promulgated in our diocese so I was to totally ignore what it said. In fact, I’m not sure that RS hasn’t been totally ignored in Canada, along with the 2002 GIRM.

I know that glass vessels were used at the Cathedral and are still being used now that it’s a basilica. At a Catechetical Conference I attended in another archdiocese, the Archbishop used glass vessels at the closing Mass. I was shocked to also see him break the Host at consecration when he said ‘broke it’ – again something that is addressed and forbidden in RS, but something that I’ve only ever seen happen twice, the other time by a retired priest subbing in a rural parish in Quebec.

Call or e-mail your diocese Office of Worship, they will tell you who is to do the Purification. That was an astonishing thing for a priest to say 'It’s not my job." Does he feel it’s below him to have to do that?

 

[EasterJoy]

About the first part of your thread, you are saying that the GERM of 2000 approved of glass vessels. I have been curious about when glass was approved, and I could never find it. I thought it was one of those things that people felt free to change on their own, because of Vatican II. You say it’s in the 2000 GERM? You say that the Archdiocese if Portland Oregon ask for and received from the Vatican its very own revision and adaptation of the GERM? In that case, what is the USCCB for?

I don’t know the history of the directive, except that permission from Rome was posted on the archdiocesan web site at one time. I assume that there was feedback when the directives were being re-done, and our archdiocese asked Rome what to do about improper vessels that had been used as chalices (and, I am assuming, especially as common communion cups). Since glass and crystal are not absorbent, I would assume that the answer was that pottery or anything absorbent had to be retired at once, while glass or crystal already in use could be tolerated until it could be replaced.

I wouldn’t even remember who was archbishop at the time the latest GIRM was being written, as this was at the time when Western Oregon had three archbishops in a relatively short period of time (now-Cardinal Levada left in 1995, now-Cardinal George was here 1996-1997, and our present Archbishop Vlazny arrived late in 1997).

But yes, it is my understanding that the rubrics of the GIRM are always in place “unless otherwise directed by the local ordinary”, but that in every case this means that the local ordinary must have obtained permission from Rome for each particular local variation. I am guessing that either then-Archbishop George or our current Archbishop Vlazny asked for the permission. Whether this is something that Archbishop Vlazny will revisit before he retires or if it is going to be left for the consideration of the next archbishop, I wouldn’t know.

 

[EasterJoy]

In order to replace the glass vessels with more proper vessels, a letter was written and put into the church bullitin, asking for donors that would like to memorialize a loved one to purchase a vessel in their name. That name would then be engraved on the bottom of the chalice or ciborium, whatever the case might be. The Monday after the letter was put into the bullitin, there were eight families that wanted to purchase the vessels in honor of a loved one. The average cost was $500.00 per vessel. By the end of two weeks we had enough donors that we could buy 6 communion cups, 6 ciboria and a larger ciborium, this one cost $610.00. Now the quality of our vessels was not the highest by any means. They can easily go $4000.00 or more each. Ours are gold plated both inside and out. The reason I said that is because you can purchase a vessel that is pewter and is gilded only on the inside of the cup. The body or blood of our Lord would be in cintact with a precious metal and that would be within the guide lines of the GERM.

Our parish has no glass or crystal cups, but that is a good idea.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Thanks, Phemie. We are getting ready for audit so I have not had the chance to get things going. Furthermore, my little Boston Terrier, Queenie died and I’ve been feeling really bad.

Sorry to hear about Queenie.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

In 2002 the vatican issued an indult saying that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion were allowed to purfy the Sacred Vessels after Holy Communion. In 2006 the indult ended, and the Bishops of the United States asked that the indult be reenstated so that the EMHCs could continue with the Purfication of the Vessels. The Vatican turned them down, and said the Purfication would be done only by Priests, Deacons, and Instituted Acolytes only. At my parish the EMHCs are still doing the Purfication.

Another problem is that wwe have EMHC that are divorced and remarried without an anulment. Others are living together without being married.

---

You should make your bishop aware of this, EM ARE NOT PERITTED TO PURIFY and if they continue, I would make it know to the bishop.

Your church seems it does what it wants to do–what happen to the virture of CHARITY?

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

 

[fall_fox]

---

You should make your bishop aware of this, EM ARE NOT PERITTED TO PURIFY and if they continue, I would make it know to the bishop.

Your church seems it does what it wants to do–what happen to the virture of CHARITY?

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

Well, it has but change is coming. I don’t understand your question on Charity???

 

[LovingMass]

So are you saying that these people are in a state of mortal sin and are taking communion and serving it?! This disheartens me… I just cannot in any way receive with an confessed/unforgiven mortal sin on my soul. I can’t do it. I am stunned.

I have recently heard other Catholic friends comment similarly on the lack of people sitting out communion. Such comments “dishearten” me. We simply do not know the state of others’ souls. We don’t know the intimate circumstances of their households, we usually don’t know whether or not their marriages have been annulled, we don’t know when they were last reconciled through the sacrament of confession, and we certainly don’t know our Lord’s opinion of their mortal souls. Please strive to not even consider whether or not another person is sinning. I know it’s hard, and I myself have a hard time living up to such a standard, but it is important of our own sake, as well as for that of our church community.:console: