What is Considered Legitimate in Mass

[otjm]

As there may be cultures which actually call for holding hands during Mass (but I don’t know this for a fact), or dancing or other “acts,” for that matter, I don’t see where this is an issue the Vatican even wants to address in the more universal IGMR.

The GIRM, as I understand it, has been interpreted by the bishop’s conferences from the IGMR for their own countries. It seems if the issue were that important or it can’t be resolved at the parish level, it would be up to the bishops to revise those rules, I would think.

But as you have pointed out, it’s a practice around since the 60’s. If there is a problem with it, there’s certainly not a matter of urgency to fix it.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why it creates so much angst, and on bot sides. I have heard repeatedly of people who prefer to not hold hands, and have had everything from a dirty look to someone actually trying to pry their hand open. That, in short, is a rather obvious lack of charity.

And on the other side, there has been more electrons disturbed from their orbits and more electronic “ink” spent over the matter by those who seem to somehow abhor the matter, including dismissive and outright rude comments about those who do wish to hold hands. The whole matter started long, long ago as a sign of unity - coming from the “Our” Father, not “My” Father, as several priests said early on. I can’t trace it to any of our Protestant brethren, although in about '71 and subsequently, I observed it in cross denominational groups.

It is a bit like whack a mole - it seems to keep popping up. And it is more or less seen in parishes all over. Some do, some don’t, and some do more than others.

And it is not like there are not seriously more significant issues on the table; one might think that with over 54,000 abortions, for example, we might have more on our minds when we go to Mass than whether or not the person next to us makes a gesture we don’t like, or fails to make one we do like. Or Obamacare, forcing Catholic and other religious and business entities to support abortion (and I hear that California has decided to make the issue as a state mandate, no exclusions). Or businesses being forced to participate in gay “weddings”. And the list goes on…

 

[IrishAm]

In the US it is permitted under certain circumstances.

From the USCCB Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Species

1. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or Priest celebrant, the Deacon, standing at the altar, “immediately and reverently consumes all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted, if the case requires, by other Deacons and Priests.” When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the Diocesan Bishop

Thank you. I suspected all the parishes (each of which was in the U.S. and some of which were very traditional in their approaches) were not likely to be wrong. But I guess it wouldn’t have been the first time.

 

[peter26]

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has determined that it is not permissible for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the Sacred Vessels at Mass.

Previously the Bishops of the United States sought and received from the Holy See special permission, by way of an indult, to permit the priest to receive the help of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in purifying the Sacred Vessels. The indult granted to the dioceses of the United States was originally granted for three years, and at the direction of the Holy Father, it will not be extended. This change in practice regarding purification of Sacred Vessels reflects a movement to bring the practices of the United States more in line with the practices of the Catholic Church around the world.

fwdioc.org/decree-sacred-vessels.pdf

 

[Brendan]

fwdioc.org/decree-sacred-vessels.pdf

I don’t think anyone claimed that anyone other than clergy were purifying the vessels. Only that they consumed the remaining species of wine.

 

[peter26]

GIRM Paragraph 163

When the distribution of Communion is over, the Priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist. Upon returning to the altar, the Priest collects the fragments, should any remain, and he stands at the altar or at the credence table and purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice, and after this purifies the chalice, saying quietly the formula Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine (What has passed our lips), and dries the chalice with a purificator. If the vessels are purified at the altar, they are carried to the credence table by a minister. Nevertheless, it is also permitted to leave vessels needing to be purified, especially if there are several, on a corporal, suitably covered, either on the altar or on the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass, after the Dismissal of the people.

 

[otjm]

GIRM Paragraph 163

When the distribution of Communion is over, the Priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist. Upon returning to the altar, the Priest collects the fragments, should any remain, and he stands at the altar or at the credence table and purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice, and after this purifies the chalice, saying quietly the formula Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine (What has passed our lips), and dries the chalice with a purificator. If the vessels are purified at the altar, they are carried to the credence table by a minister. Nevertheless, it is also permitted to leave vessels needing to be purified, especially if there are several, on a corporal, suitably covered, either on the altar or on the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass, after the Dismissal of the people.

This is the problem of quoting from only one document. The GIRM can be and is modified when Rome gives permission to bishops in a country to modify a rule. Elsewhere in the GIRM, the deacon can consume the remaining Precious Blood, and purify the vessels. The conference of bishops in the US has been given permission, which goes to the individual bishop, to allow the EMHC to consume any remaining Precious Blood, so the question is answered; permission comes from the local bishop.

I note that you are in England; it would be up to the conference of bishops as to whether or not they had received permission to modify the rule of the GIRM, and if they choose to do so, or not; and then it is up to the local bishop, assuming they have received permission and acted upon it.

QED.

 

[Brendan]

GIRM Paragraph 163

When the distribution of Communion is over, the Priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist. Upon returning to the altar, the Priest collects the fragments, should any remain, and he stands at the altar or at the credence table and purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice, and after this purifies the chalice, saying quietly the formula Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine (What has passed our lips), and dries the chalice with a purificator. If the vessels are purified at the altar, they are carried to the credence table by a minister. Nevertheless, it is also permitted to leave vessels needing to be purified, especially if there are several, on a corporal, suitably covered, either on the altar or on the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass, after the Dismissal of the people.

In the United State, a Norm was submitted per Redemptionis Sacramentum 101

With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension

The USCCB submitted the Norms that I posted above, and the duly receive the recognito.

The Norms that I quoted above in post 19 are legitimate in the US, I cannot speak for other countries.

 

[ProVobis]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why it creates so much angst, and on bot sides. I have heard repeatedly of people who prefer to not hold hands, and have had everything from a dirty look to someone actually trying to pry their hand open. That, in short, is a rather obvious lack of charity.

To me, the whole thing boils down to church etiquette. And we seem not to have settled the matter. Where’s Ann Landers when you need her?

 

[otjm]

To me, the whole thing boils down to church etiquette. And we seem not to have settled the matter. Where’s Ann Landers when you need her?

While etiquette and charity are not identical, and one can have etiquette without having charity, the two certainly should go hand-in-hand (oh, pun my soul…).

Having been around long before Vatican 2 was even a light in John 23rd’s eye, I can understand people being upset with what have been abuses in the rubrics of saying Mass.

On the other hand, there comes a point somewhere along the line that we need to remind ourselves why we are at Mass, get a grip, get over our sensitivity to what we don’t like, and offer the Mass along with the priest, through Christ, to the Father. And that means that we quit paying attention to so many of the externals, and start paying a bit more attention to the internals.

 

[ProVobis]

get over our sensitivity to what we don’t like,

Creativity being what it is, often applauded, good luck with that argument.

 

[otjm]

Creativity being what it is, often applauded, good luck with that argument.

While I was not as clear as I could have been, part of what I was trying to say is that all too often (as this thread may exhibit, at least in part), what is objected to is not an abuse; but people react too often as if it were.

And having said that, I suspect we will continue to see kvetching over non issues. As much as Christ was criticized when doing right, why should we expect changes?

Ah, but hope springs eternal…

 

[ProVobis]

While I was not as clear as I could have been, part of what I was trying to say is that all too often (as this thread may exhibit, at least in part), what is objected to is not an abuse; but people react too often as if it were.

Okay but for the record, the OP stated that she didn’t think it was an abuse. Also, in her defense, I didn’t read anything uncharitable in her observations. I know she has posted before, mostly on the Anglican Use she attends, and I also know that she is a highly respected member of this community. So if there is anything I said that she found offensive, I apologize.

 

[otjm]

Okay but for the record, the OP stated that she didn’t think it was an abuse. Also, in her defense, I didn’t read anything uncharitable in her observations. I know she has posted before, mostly on the Anglican Use she attends, and I also know that she is a highly respected member of this community. So if there is anything I said that she found offensive, I apologize.

As I.