Wine in a chrystal/class dispenser on the alter?

[Brendan]

Come on… it’s disobedience, not sacrilege. Otherwise there are many a bishop committing sacrilege on a regular basis.

It is both disobedience AND an offense against the dignity of the Sacrament.

Both of which are distinct from Sacrilege.

But why a priest or bishop would deliberately do what the Vatican has defined as a grave offense, is a question worth asking. And an explaination would be owed.

 

[boatbearer]

It most certainly is not a sacrilege nor is it offensive to the Lord. Glass or crystal chalices are not to be used due the fact that they break easily but that’s a far cry from being a sacrilege or offense against the Lord. Not to mention that early Christians seemed to indeed use glass chalices. Are you claiming the early Church approved of sacrilege and offenses against the Lord?

You make an excellent point. The pouring is not to be done. That’s clear. But the “sacrilege” hyperbole claims get darned old.

 

[boatbearer]

I’d agree.

Some take rubrics in the GIRM too far…and to presume what is and what is not offensive to the Lord.

We do both in our parish; pour consecrated wine and use a crystal decanter and crystal chalices.

Several bishops have been to our parish and have nary blinked an eye. If they don’t care about it, neither do I. We still treat the precious blood with reverence…not “sacrilege”.

You’re right. While I don’t think the GIRM can ever be taken too seriously – and I do think efforts must be made to follow it, I do think a great many take it too far. I think that’s why the Church instills so much local authority in the form of bishops. Let me give an example.

In my parish we used to use cheap stemware and glass candy dishes to distribute the Eucharist. The sacristan very loudly and proudly made it clear that we would NEVER have gold or silver sacred vessels at that parish (it’s not like we had a cupboard of fine sacred vessels sitting on the shelf.) That the Mass was a MEAL and that using common glassware was appropriate. She should have been canned for those continuing remarks. At one point there was an article in the local paper about how reverent things were at my parish. Someone wrote a laundry list of abuses that were taking place (including the glassware) and it was printed in the letters-to-the-editor and a copy made it to the bishop. Within a month we had a second collection that raised $7,500 for proper vessels.

On the other hand take the case of a large Mass I coordinated. Holy communion was being offered under one species by our bishop. There were 2 concelebrating priests, no deacon. He wanted to use an absolutely gorgeous crystal chalice that was gifted to him by a member of our parish. The Holy See still says don’t do it but consider: there was NO increased chance of profaning the Precious Blood by using the chrystal chalice. None. So while I think it would have been wrong for a priest to do this (without permission from the bishop) I think it was well within the bishop’s authority to do what he did. Some will claim he does not have that authority but they’re wrong.

STILL I am sure at least one or two people were very upset that the bishop had not followed the GIRM – even though there was no greater risk of profaning the Precious Blood and the bishop had the authority to choose to use the crystal chalice. It no doubt impacted their experience at the Mass – that’s where the “taking it too far” comes into play. And it’s on them, not the bishop.

 

[boatbearer]

It is both disobedience AND an offense against the dignity of the Sacrament.

Both of which are distinct from Sacrilege.

But why a priest or bishop would deliberately do what the Vatican has defined as a grave offense, is a question worth asking. And an explaination would be owed.

This is not a sacrilege. Overuse of such hyperbole brings in the chicken/sky/falling syndrome…

 

[SMHW]

No disrespect but would you say that liturgical disobedience never crosses the boundaries of sacrilege? And particularly when such disobedience is repeated over and over again?

Sometimes a disobedience could be a sacrilege. But in general, I think of sacrilege as something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

Using glass and/or breakable vessels may not be inherently wise but it’s still neither inherently evil, disrespectful, nor against natural law. If by some fluke of nature all the precious metals were to disappear from the face of the earth then the Church would change the laws to permit some other kind of vessels. And she wouldn’t even need such a cataclysmic event to do so. To the best of my knowledge pouring the Precious Blood from one vessel to others is not inherently wrong. The prohibition is to guard against spillage.

Calling an offense against a law that could be changed sacrilege seems a bit much.

 

[Aramis]

At my parish the priest keeps the wine in a glass container and then poors it into the chalices after consecrating the wine in one chalice. Is this permissable or should each chalice be filled with wine at the alter before the consecration?

The GIRM is explicit: carafes may not be used for consecration.

Communion under the species of the Blood of Christ may be given by spoon, straw, intinction, or sipping from a chalice, but one may not POUR the precious blood.

 

[choy]

At my parish the priest keeps the wine in a glass container and then poors it into the chalices after consecrating the wine in one chalice. Is this permissable or should each chalice be filled with wine at the alter before the consecration?

a little confusing here

the wine are usually in glass containers. the priest then pours the wine into a chalice, adds a little water, then prays over the gifts before consecration

if the wine in the glass containers are not consecrated, then there’s no problem

the priest may also, after communion, pour a little water into the chalice to make sure none of the precious blood is left, and all is consumed by him.

 

[Brendan]

Sometimes a disobedience could be a sacrilege. But in general, I think of sacrilege as something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

You are correct, this is disobedience ( a offense against the virtue of obedience) and and offence a dignity of the Sacrament ( which is an offense against Prudence)

Sacrilege is an offence against religion.

An example would be taking a host and putting it in your shirt pocket ( without the benefit of a pxy).

If you are doing it because you are an EMHC and are bringing it to someone who is home bound, that would be an offense against the dignity of the Sacrament. The Blessed Sacrament is not to be treated as such, but with great reverence.

If you are putting it in your shirt pocket because you belive that it will ward off traffic tickets when you are speeding, that would be sacrilege.

 

[Newbie2]

Their disobedience drives me crazy! Catholics have a right to a reverent and faithfull-to-the-books mass.

Does “faithfull-to-the-books” imply legalism? I understand what you’re saying, but one has to be careful not to appear to be sounding like a Pharisee.

Are you saying that your parish is the hight of litirgical perfection?

Nope. Don’t know where you’d come to that conclusion. I’d prefer that the rubrics of the GIRM are followed.

[edited]

.

It is both disobedience AND an offense against the dignity of the Sacrament.

Both of which are distinct from Sacrilege.

But why a priest or bishop would deliberately do what the Vatican has defined as a grave offense, is a question worth asking. And an explaination would be owed.

Good explanation, B. I agree. In the case of my parish, methinks the situation is that if pressed to change to conform to the rubrics, our priest would retire. Lousy reason, but reality. Maybe that’s why the bishops haven’t pressed the issue. Archbishop Adam, methinks, would have something to say on the matter.

You’re right. While I don’t think the GIRM can ever be taken too seriously – and I do think efforts must be made to follow it, I do think a great many take it too far. I think that’s why the Church instills so much local authority in the form of bishops. Let me give an example.

In my parish we used to use cheap stemware and glass candy dishes to distribute the Eucharist. The sacristan very loudly and proudly made it clear that we would NEVER have gold or silver sacred vessels at that parish (it’s not like we had a cupboard of fine sacred vessels sitting on the shelf.) That the Mass was a MEAL and that using common glassware was appropriate. She should have been canned for those continuing remarks. At one point there was an article in the local paper about how reverent things were at my parish. Someone wrote a laundry list of abuses that were taking place (including the glassware) and it was printed in the letters-to-the-editor and a copy made it to the bishop. Within a month we had a second collection that raised $7,500 for proper vessels.

On the other hand take the case of a large Mass I coordinated. Holy communion was being offered under one species by our bishop. There were 2 concelebrating priests, no deacon. He wanted to use an absolutely gorgeous crystal chalice that was gifted to him by a member of our parish. The Holy See still says don’t do it but consider: there was NO increased chance of profaning the Precious Blood by using the chrystal chalice. None. So while I think it would have been wrong for a priest to do this (without permission from the bishop) I think it was well within the bishop’s authority to do what he did. Some will claim he does not have that authority but they’re wrong.

STILL I am sure at least one or two people were very upset that the bishop had not followed the GIRM – even though there was no greater risk of profaning the Precious Blood and the bishop had the authority to choose to use the crystal chalice. It no doubt impacted their experience at the Mass – that’s where the “taking it too far” comes into play. And it’s on them, not the bishop.

I can see that. In my parish, I look at it as “it is what it is”. I’ve discussed these things with our priest, and he simply isn’t going to change. When he retires in a couple of years, no doubt things might and probably will change with whomever takes his place.

 

[LoyalViews]

Nothing personal; **You can’t have it both ways to say NO is not sacrilege then turn around and say well the GIRM is against such practices. I despise wishy-washy liturgical practices.
If the GIRM is against it then call it for what it is. We can’t act like a bunch of mindless idiotic chickens with their heads cut off. IT IS SACRILEGE!!! **

Although I said it was a sacrilege, after reading the posts, I noticed my error. I agree with you, the GIRM does call for what it is. It should be followed, to the greatest extent. For example, a Parish close to me is low on funds (not a high membership = less collection), though, it is a beautiful church. They do use gold vessels. But, this church is older, so it had them from when they were pulling in 500-600 people a Mass. But, some newer parishes who are low on funds, can’t afford the vessels, though, they could go to the Bishop and ask for a donation, of some kind. Though using a chrystal chalice may not in itself be a sacrilege (I said it was a sacrilege, I was wrong) the Priest is setting himself up for sacrilege if he pours the Precious Blood, infact, even if the Priest uses a gold “dispenser” to poor the Blood, he is still setting himself up for sacrilege. But, nevertheless, a Gold, or a Chalice made of a precious metal MUST be used.

+Below are the Church’s instructions re the sacred vessels with the Vatican Link for same . . . hope this helps a bit to at least clear up some of the confusion . . . *how it must sadden and further wound our **Blessed Lord’s *** so dear **Holy Wounded Sacred Heart **when His priests disrespect **Him **and disobey our Holy Mother Church’s instruction . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

That certainly clears it up. It explains it specifically. It is a great offence, not necessarily a sacrilege.

 

[Brendan]

This is not a sacrilege. Overuse of such hyperbole brings in the chicken/sky/falling syndrome…

If you read my posts on the matter, you will see that I am not claiming that it is a sacrilege, in fact, quite the opposite.

I am claiming what that Vatican claims, that this is a grave abuse and an offense against the diginity of the Sacrament.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I’d agree.

Some take rubrics in the GIRM too far…and to presume what is and what is not offensive to the Lord.

We do both in our parish; pour consecrated wine and use a crystal decanter and crystal chalices.

It really doesn’t matter what you feel is or is not offensive to the Lord. The GIRM is meant to be obeyed, not debated. The use of glass or pottery vessels and consecration in flagons are no longer permitted, regardless of “what they did in the early Church.” The early Church also practiced exomologesis (public confession and severe public penances). Should we perhaps go back to that?

And please, people, please learn to spell CRYSTAL.

 

[benedictgal]

You’re right. While I don’t think the GIRM can ever be taken too seriously – and I do think efforts must be made to follow it, I do think a great many take it too far. I think that’s why the Church instills so much local authority in the form of bishops. Let me give an example.

In my parish we used to use cheap stemware and glass candy dishes to distribute the Eucharist. The sacristan very loudly and proudly made it clear that we would NEVER have gold or silver sacred vessels at that parish (it’s not like we had a cupboard of fine sacred vessels sitting on the shelf.) That the Mass was a MEAL and that using common glassware was appropriate. She should have been canned for those continuing remarks. At one point there was an article in the local paper about how reverent things were at my parish. Someone wrote a laundry list of abuses that were taking place (including the glassware) and it was printed in the letters-to-the-editor and a copy made it to the bishop. Within a month we had a second collection that raised $7,500 for proper vessels.

On the other hand take the case of a large Mass I coordinated. Holy communion was being offered under one species by our bishop. There were 2 concelebrating priests, no deacon. He wanted to use an absolutely gorgeous crystal chalice that was gifted to him by a member of our parish. The Holy See still says don’t do it but consider: there was NO increased chance of profaning the Precious Blood by using the chrystal chalice. None. So while I think it would have been wrong for a priest to do this (without permission from the bishop) I think it was well within the bishop’s authority to do what he did. Some will claim he does not have that authority but they’re wrong.

STILL I am sure at least one or two people were very upset that the bishop had not followed the GIRM – even though there was no greater risk of profaning the Precious Blood and the bishop had the authority to choose to use the crystal chalice. It no doubt impacted their experience at the Mass – that’s where the “taking it too far” comes into play. And it’s on them, not the bishop.

However, no one has the authority to set aside what the Holy See has ruled upon regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Redemptionis Sacramentum clearly and vehemently states that glassware should not be used. Furthermore, it lists such usage as a grave abuse.

Your attitude towards the willfull setting aside of the norms of the Church is most concerning. With all due respect, it seems to me that you will only accept the norms when they agree with your interpretation and, when they don’t, you are the first one to belittle them and those who strive to adhere to them.

 

[benedictgal]

It really doesn’t matter what you feel is or is not offensive to the Lord. The GIRM is meant to be obeyed, not debated. The use of glass or pottery vessels and consecration in flagons are no longer permitted, regardless of “what they did in the early Church.” The early Church also practiced exomologesis (public confession and severe public penances). Should we perhaps go back to that?

And please, people, please learn to spell CRYSTAL.

Unfortunately, such statements also run the risk of antiquarianism. What we need to do, as you rightly pointed out, is to read the documents and heed them.

 

[boatbearer]

It really doesn’t matter what you feel is or is not offensive to the Lord. The GIRM is meant to be obeyed, not debated. The use of glass or pottery vessels and consecration in flagons are no longer permitted, regardless of “what they did in the early Church.” The early Church also practiced exomologesis (public confession and severe public penances). Should we perhaps go back to that?

And please, people, please learn to spell CRYSTAL.

So is your bishop. I have absolutely no doubt that my bishop had the authority to use that crystal chalice. Using it DID NOT increase the possibly of profaning the Precious Blood. Given that fact and his own inherent authority as a bishop I’m sure my bishop had the authority to do what he did.

Those that might have fixated on him deviating from the GIRM/RS on that day ARE taking things too far and that’s on them. They would be better off making contact with the bishop and politely asking why he did what he did.

Not following what the Church documents direct is one source of liturgical problems in the Church. Not understanding where authority rests in the Church and over reacting are two other sources.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Glass or crystal chalices are not to be used due the fact that they break easily but that’s a far cry from being a sacrilege or offense against the Lord. Not to mention that early Christians seemed to indeed use glass chalices.

So, Father, this sounds as if not using glass chalices is a prudential suggestion, but not a requirement? The presider at one parish I attend uses all glass chalices, all the same size. Obviously one is raised at the consecration, the others distributed at communion. I knew it was not “standard,” but I’ve read a lot of outraged comments on previous threads in the L&S forum here, and it now appears that maybe it’s not such an alarming practice?

 

[Elizabeth502]

And please, people, please learn to spell CRYSTAL.

…That would be a good idea, but so would altar. (No “e”) Everybody, the spell check button is above the smilies on the right hand side of your text box. (abc with check-mark)
Minor point, but since it was brought up …

 

[boatbearer]

I’m not sure that pouring the wine into chalices before the consecration lessons the possibility of profaning the Precious Blood in all situations. In fact comparing how they do it in Los Angeles at Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral where they pour the Precious Blood and St. Patrick’s in NYC where they do not I find that pouring the wine before the consecration might actually increase the possibility of profaning the Precious blood because the altar becomes so crowded:

While I can see how the Holy See must definitely set some rules I am seeing clearer and clearer why so much authority is bestowed locally onto individual bishops. I think the ewers also have better sign value.

 

[boatbearer]

So, Father, this sounds as if not using glass chalices is a prudential suggestion, but not a requirement? The presider at one parish I attend uses all glass chalices, all the same size. Obviously one is raised at the consecration, the others distributed at communion. I knew it was not “standard,” but I’ve read a lot of outraged comments on previous threads in the L&S forum here, and it now appears that maybe it’s not such an alarming practice?

Keep in mind three things.

First, the authority rests with the Holy See and the local bishop and not the local priest. If a priest wanted to deviate from what is written, I believe he would need to get the permission of his bishop.

Second, there are an infinite number of different situations and conditions where the GIRM/RS are practically applied. A bishop using a crystal chalice that was a gift of a local benefactor in a way that will not increase the possibility of profaning the Precious Blood IS different than using cheap stemware from Wal*Mart to distribute communion. Sadly, some people do not see those differences. They see black and white and will never differentiate between the letter of the law and the actual intent of the law.

Third, it’s praiseworthy to use a larger chalice as the “main” chalice during the Mass.

 

[centurionguard]

Sometimes a disobedience could be a sacrilege. But in general, I think of sacrilege as something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

Using glass and/or breakable vessels may not be inherently wise but it’s still neither inherently evil, disrespectful, nor against natural law. If by some fluke of nature all the precious metals were to disappear from the face of the earth then the Church would change the laws to permit some other kind of vessels. And she wouldn’t even need such a cataclysmic event to do so. To the best of my knowledge pouring the Precious Blood from one vessel to others is not inherently wrong. The prohibition is to guard against spillage.

Calling an offense against a law that could be changed sacrilege seems a bit much.

**I have a serious problem with priest using crystal and glass ciboria, chalices, and carafe. But its not strictly from the good reason you listed here. Seems today in the liberal minds of priests in bishops that its not enough that Catholics have faith in the miracle of Transubstantiation that takes place on the Holy Altar. As if parishioners want to see the species of water and wine being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. As if to say like Saint Thomas: I will not believe unless I can place my fingers on the wounds of Jesus hands, feet and side.

What ever happen to Jesus words: Blessed are they who have not yet seen the Lord but believe.

Are we to be Catholics of so puny of faith like this that we have to throw out are precious metals inlaid in gold and silver within our sacred vessels so we can visualized the species of water and wine through glass.** What puny minds do we have boasting of pride.

This all makes me sick and gets my blood boiling.