Wine in a chrystal/class dispenser on the alter?

[benedictgal]

No. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not suggesting that anyone received (or did not receive) written permission from the CDW. The Church is quite clear (as I think we all agree) that we are not (for example), to pour the Precious Blood. I have not and would not argue that.

What some here cannot seem to comprehend is that in some cases individual bishops have the authority to grant exceptions to certain Church rules. While obviously I don’t know for sure, I strongly suspect the pouring of the Precious Blood falls within that authority based on the actions of more than one bishop.

As soon as someone starts cutting and pasting from the GIRM or RS they are doing nothing but underscoring the fact they don’t understand what I’m talking about. On the other hand if they can show where a bishop formally gave permission to pour the Precious Blood and the Holy See then formally reversed their permission, I would agree that’s strong evidence that bishops do indeed lack the authority to grant this exception.

Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting it would be good for any bishop to grant such exceptions – only that they have the authority to do so in many cases.

I don’t think some like the idea of a bishop having that much authority – particularly bishops they dislike and particularly on issues that bother them. That doesn’t change the fact that individuals have a great deal of authority that is not always well understood by their critics.

Actually, boatbearer, you are the one who is not understanding the authoritative documents of the Church. You have yet to produce anything in writing from the authoritative documents that backs up your assertion. Again, this is only your interpretation, not the Church’s.

Furthermore, I have already noted in the GIRM what the bishop can and cannot do. Setting aside the authoritative documents of the Church is not one of those acts. Therefore, the burdern of proof is on you and it is something that, with all due respect, you have consistently failed to produce. Instead, you have chosen to insult those who have an understanding of the documents.

 

[FrDavid96]

There are some things that are written which an individual bishop can give relief to. The use of a crystal chalice would be an excellent example. There are some things which no one (including the Pope) can. Those things which contravene the sacred deposit of faith is the prime example.

The difficulty is that you or I usually do not know what an individual bishop can or cannot grant exception to until relief is granted and the matter becomes a point of discourse. Some people may claim they know but for the most part they do not and that leads to frustration and anger.

The best (and admittedly still weak analogy) I can use is the military. There are some things that come from the Pentagon that CAN be ignored in the field. There are also things that can never be ignored. Try as they might even the military has not defined and documented every instance that may or may not be ultimately ignored. Instead the entire chain of command is given a great deal of education, training and experience. They are then given some level of autonomy. Some (special forces commandos) more than others. The military doesn’t want pre-programmed robots. I suspect that’s doubly true of the Catholic Church and Her Teaching Magisterium.

If you had an individual issue that you were concerned about I would urge you to talk to your bishop about it and really listen to their response.

We’re not discussing a military analogy, we’re discussing the reality of the liturgical laws of the Church.

What you don’t seem to understand is that a local bishop cannot over-rule an authoritative interpretation of liturgical law (such as Redemptionis Sacramentum), in a matter which the Holy See has defined as “objectively grave matter.” This is not an issue of liturgical practice, although it might seem that way at first.

What you are offering to support your position here is your own opinion, and your own analogy to the military. If you were to present your position from the point of view of the Church’s liturgical and/or canon law, things might be different. But so far, you’ve offered nothing other than personal opinion about what you “think” the bishop can and cannot do.

A bishop can dispense from a “merely ecclesiastical law” (canon 85) meaning that he can dispense from certain “procedures” (for lack of a better term here) in liturgical matters. However, he cannot dispense from that which is “objectively grave matter” because that goes beyond being merely a law.

 

[boatbearer]

Wow! The answer to the question was answered I think 15 or 20 times. You cannot pour the species… Period. That is this persons answer. To dispute what is a sacrilege is of no concern of ours except to not it to the proper authority to change this Priest’s idea of what is acceptable.

To suggest the use of a crystal chalice is a “sacrilege” is nothing more than hyperbole.

Would it still be a “sacrilege” if a priest wanted to celebrate the Mass while illegally incarcerated in a GULAG and all he had was a glass jar?

If a priest was on week long hike with a youth group and found he had forgot to pack a chalice would he really have to skip daily Mass for a week because it was a “sacrilege” to use a plastic drinking cup in place of the chalice?

How about in a mission someplace in Africa where the only decent vessel they had of any kind was a glass chalice? Would it be a “sacrilege” to use it to celebrate the Mass?

“Sacrilege”

 

[Aramis]

No. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not suggesting that anyone received (or did not receive) written permission from the CDW. The Church is quite clear (as I think we all agree) that we are not (for example), to pour the Precious Blood. I have not and would not argue that.

What some here cannot seem to comprehend is that in some cases individual bishops have the authority to grant exceptions to certain Church rules. Notice I never suggested it was not a standing rule! While obviously I don’t know for sure, I strongly suspect the pouring of the Precious Blood falls within that authority based on the actions of more than one bishop…

RS makes it plain and clear that nothing in the GIRM is in the category of “up to the local bishop to indult” (except where the indult is permitted by the GIRM), and any previous exemptions have been abrogated. What constitutes “precious” is left not to the bishop, but the national conference.

It calls for all bishops to adhere to the GIRM, and for the faithful to report violations of the GIRM. First to the pastor, then the bishop, then the CDF.

RS sets an authentic liturgy as approved by Rome as a right of the Catholic faithful.

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.[57]ibid.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.ibid.

Note that it says fully in accord.

 

[boatbearer]

RS makes it plain and clear that nothing in the GIRM is in the category of “up to the local bishop to indult” (except where the indult is permitted by the GIRM), and any previous exemptions have been abrogated. What constitutes “precious” is left not to the bishop, but the national conference.

It calls for all bishops to adhere to the GIRM, and for the faithful to report violations of the GIRM. First to the pastor, then the bishop, then the CDF.

RS sets an authentic liturgy as approved by Rome as a right of the Catholic faithful.

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.[57]ibid.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.ibid.

Note that it says fully in accord.

Actually it doesn’t. Neither the GIRM nor the RS goes into detail about exactly how much authority a bishop actually has in all situations.

I certainly don’t know for certain if a bishop has the authority to grant exceptions to the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of non-metal sacred vessels. But I strongly suspect they do given the actions of some bishops. All of which who know a heckuva lot more about this subject than anyone here posting. I also know with absolute certainly that no one here is offering an opinion that carries any authority within the Church.

And I suppose that’s the whole reason I posted. People don’t realize the actual authority of individual bishops (no matter what their personal interpretations of Church documents might suggest to them) and they get alarmed, frustrated and ultimately angry because they identify something the know to be wrong and the cannot find out why it does not get fixed.

 

[Brendan]

. All of which who know a heckuva lot more about this subject than anyone here posting. ** I also know with absolute certainly that no one here is offering an opinion that carries any authority within the Church**…

Can you explain why Fr. David’s postings carry no Church authority?

 

[Newbie2]

The Church, through her Magisterium, bishops, and by extension, the General Instruction, is in a position to state what is offensive to Our Lord.

My point is that use of crystal has not been shown to be either a sacrilege or offensive to the Lord. So unless you have documentation to show otherwise, can we agree that the claim in an earlier post was over the top? Sacrilege? No. Disobedient? Yes.

Heaven forbid one should sound legalistic. Jesus says in the fifth chapter of Matthew, “say ‘yes’ when you mean ‘yes,’ and ‘no,’ when you mean ‘no’ because anything else is from the Devil.” Sometimes the truth offends people who prefer things circumspect and nebulous for their own advantage. The problem with modern Catholics, especially American ones, is that they deeply resent anyone telling them what they should or should not do. Perhaps they should try that attitude on a police officer the next time they’re pulled over for speeding.

Yeah, us Amercian Catholics are the worst.

I agree, Heaven forbid one should sound legalistic. I think Catholics deserve more than “This document says this…” and “The GIRM says that…” as an end-all. That’s what I mean by legalism, and it goes on all the time in the CAF.

That being said, on the other hand I think CAF forumites for the most part do a good job of fleshing out and explaining the ***whys ***of liturgy and other topics that come up…including in this thread.

It’s not a matter of Truth or not, IMHO, it’s how that truth is presented. The Pharisees taught the truth…at least their interpretation of it, right out of the book. Jesus didn’t seem to like that way of teaching. I don’t like the legalistic way of explaining or discussing modern day liturgy, as I think there’s a fair comparison sometimes to the emphasis on the adherence of liturgical “law” and the loss of the meaning behind it. In this thread, I’ve seen a bit of that i.e. some over-emphasis on the vessel and not what’s inside it.

So yeah, Heaven forbid. I think we Catholics deserve better than a legalistic sounding POV.

 

[bluerose]

To suggest the use of a crystal chalice is a “sacrilege” is nothing more than hyperbole.

Would it still be a “sacrilege” if a priest wanted to celebrate the Mass while illegally incarcerated in a GULAG and all he had was a glass jar?

If a priest was on week long hike with a youth group and found he had forgot to pack a chalice would he really have to skip daily Mass for a week because it was a “sacrilege” to use a plastic drinking cup in place of the chalice?

How about in a mission someplace in Africa where the only decent vessel they had of any kind was a glass chalice? Would it be a “sacrilege” to use it to celebrate the Mass?

“Sacrilege”

Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? We thought you were speaking about a church in a modern country with modern conveniences with access to resources that can provide proper vessels. In other words, with no excuse to NOT follow the GIRM or RS.

And priests, when traveling, carry a Mass “kit” with them to celebrate Mass… a little box that locks and it has a paten, candles, glass bottles to hold water and wine, a pyx of hosts, a crucifix, and–wait for it–a chalice! All the necessities to celebrate Mass. Unless he goes to the trouble to take the chalice out prior to the hike, there’s no reason not to have one.

At least that’s what my brother-in-law told me… he’s never taken a youth group on a hike and not carried the proper vessels for Mass… he’s celebrated Mass from the back of a van, on a tree stump, on a boulder… but never with a plastic cup.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? We thought you were speaking about a church in a modern country with modern conveniences with access to resources that can provide proper vessels. In other words, with no excuse to NOT follow the GIRM or RS.

I don’t think the poster in question is saying that glass should be used or that the GIRM shouldn’t be followed. What seems to be in question is whether or not its sacrilege to use a glass chalice or to pour the consecrated wine. No matter where we are or what our circumstances are we should not commit sacrilege. However some Church laws, on the other hand, can be bent in dire circumstances.

 

[Corki]

What some here cannot seem to comprehend is that in some cases individual bishops have the authority to grant exceptions to certain Church rules. Notice I never suggested it was not a standing rule! While obviously I don’t know for sure, I strongly suspect the pouring of the Precious Blood falls within that authority based on the actions of more than one bishop.

What you don’t seen to comprehend is that IF an individual Bishop had been granted the authority to grant exceptions to priests regarding a promulgated Church document, he would have that authority in writing. The Vatican knows that these documents are widely dispersed and read. RS, for example is addressed to all the faithful. If the rules are promulgated in writing, any exceptions to those rules will also be in writing. IF an individual Bishop has been given that authority, a polite inquiry should result in that information in the form of a copy or reference to the document that granted the authority.

 

[bluerose]

I don’t think the poster in question is saying that glass should be used or that the GIRM shouldn’t be followed. What seems to be in question is whether or not its sacrilege to use a glass chalice or to pour the consecrated wine. No matter where we are or what our circumstances are we should not commit sacrilege. However some Church laws, on the other hand, can be bent in dire circumstances.

But the poster in question is NOT talking about dire circumstances. Indeed, priests have used leavened bread to celebrate the Mass when they were imprisoned and had nothing else. The poster in question is defending practices because he “thinks” or “believes” that the bishops have the authority to disregard the GIRM in everyday situations where it is possible to have the proper materials needed to celebrate the Mass licitly and validly.

This is reminding me of a problem my niece is having with her daughter’s school. The school dress code SPECIFICALLY states that hoodies are not permitted to be worn. Yet, my niece’s daughter (she’s 14), despite a closet chock full of other articles of clothing, wore a hoodie to school and got disciplined. Now my niece is up in arms because she believes it’s wrong for her daughter to be disciplined for breaking the rule because the rule she broke is “stupid” and there are more important discipline problems that should be addressed.

Well, maybe if the smaller, “less important” problems are addressed, then maybe there wouldn’t be bigger, “more important” problems down the road.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually it doesn’t. Neither the GIRM nor the RS goes into detail about exactly how much authority a bishop actually has in all situations.

I certainly don’t know for certain if a bishop has the authority to grant exceptions to the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of non-metal sacred vessels. But I strongly suspect they do given the actions of some bishops. All of which who know a heckuva lot more about this subject than anyone here posting. I also know with absolute certainly that no one here is offering an opinion that carries any authority within the Church.

And I suppose that’s the whole reason I posted. People don’t realize the actual authority of individual bishops (no matter what their personal interpretations of Church documents might suggest to them) and they get alarmed, frustrated and ultimately angry because they identify something the know to be wrong and the cannot find out why it does not get fixed.

You keep insisting that you “know” things which you obviously do not know. On contrast, people who actually understand what authority the local bishop has to dispense from certain liturgical practices are trying to explain this to you. It’s become very clear that you’re only guessing at your responses. You do not understand what authority the bishop has or doesn’t have. That authority is defined by canon law and the liturgical laws of the Church, yet you refuse to acknowlege that simple fact. This isn’t a matter of what you think you know about the bishop’s ability to dispense. It’s about how the Church defines that authority.

Once again, I’ll invite you: instead of saying what you think you know about the bishop’s authority to dispense, please quote for us the canon law and/or liturgical law of the Church to support what you say. Otherwise, we will all understand that you’re simply guessing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you explain why Fr. David’s postings carry no Church authority?

It’s not the posts themselves that carry any authority. It’s the canon and liturgical laws of the Church which are being quoted in the post. (just for clarity)