Groo the Wanderer Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Had a visiting priest this morning at Mass. During just before the consecration, I noticed something odd. I looked over at my kiddo who was serving (yes a SHE, egad. get over it) and she looked back at me and cocked her eyebrow for a moment. She saw it too. The priest did not fill all the chalices...just his own. The rest of the wine he left in the decanter...on the altar. He ended up doing the consecration this way and then poured the Precious Blood into the remaining chalices! Luckily two of the acolytes were serving as EMHCs that Mass. I flagged one of them as they came forward to line up and pointed out that he now needs to purify the decanter as well following Holy Communion. How odd. Glad I caught it, otherwise the EHMCs would have been rinsing Jesus down the sink after Mass while setting up for the next Mass and not even knowing it. Anyone else every seen this? The priest was from India, but I doubt that would be the norm there - too hard to purify a decanter...not to mention it is not a sacred vessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I've seen priests forget things. They get distracted, or get performance anxiety. I saw a priest pour water into the chalices by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithcecelia Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I have seen this at New Dawn conferences, but there the chalices are filled as well. There are usually 3000-5000 people for Mass and 12 groups of priests/eucharistic ministers distributing communion. The chalices are topped up as required from the decanters. I have never looked closely, but given the reverence that is shown for the Blessed Sacrament there I have no doubt whatsoever that they purify them correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeresaBenedicta Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I've seen this happen regularly at a friend's parish. It is an abuse- the Precious Blood is not meant to be poured after consecration. I'd let your pastor know what happened when he returns and then let him decide whether to say anything to the visiting priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1306712367' post='2247540'] I've seen this happen regularly at a friend's parish. It is an abuse- the Precious Blood is not meant to be poured after consecration. I'd let your pastor know what happened when he returns and then let him decide whether to say anything to the visiting priest. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1306706325' post='2247512'] Had a visiting priest this morning at Mass. During just before the consecration, I noticed something odd. I looked over at my kiddo who was serving (yes a SHE, egad. get over it) and she looked back at me and cocked her eyebrow for a moment. She saw it too. The priest did not fill all the chalices...just his own. The rest of the wine he left in the decanter...on the altar. He ended up doing the consecration this way and then poured the Precious Blood into the remaining chalices! Luckily two of the acolytes were serving as EMHCs that Mass. I flagged one of them as they came forward to line up and pointed out that he now needs to purify the decanter as well following Holy Communion. How odd. Glad I caught it, otherwise the EHMCs would have been rinsing Jesus down the sink after Mass while setting up for the next Mass and not even knowing it. Anyone else every seen this? The priest was from India, but I doubt that would be the norm there - too hard to purify a decanter...not to mention it is not a sacred vessel. [/quote] Where are you going to church now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306730221' post='2247586'] Where are you going to church now? [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306730221' post='2247586'] Where are you going to church now? [/quote] Same as the last 10+ years. St. Matthew in Arlington. Today's Mass was the visiting priest's last though....he was only in town for 2 weeks to visit family. Other than the decanter thing - he chanted the entire Mass - it was VERY beautiful and reverent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If the sink in the sacristy is a sacrarium (which it almost certainly would be), pouring the Precious Blood down the sink is not an abuse. I'm not saying it's desirable, either, as the preferable way of dealing with too much wine is to consume it. So, it's good you gave the servers a heads up, but unless your sacristy lacks a sacrarium, you probably don't have to worry about that should it ever happen again. [url=http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2505bi2.html]Sacrarium[/url] If the wine was on the altar and the priest intended to consecrate it, then definitely the transubstantiation happened (so no worries there). Not that it sounded like you were questioning that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306811132' post='2247955'] If the sink in the sacristy is a sacrarium (which it almost certainly would be), pouring the Precious Blood down the sink is not an abuse. I'm not saying it's desirable, either, as the preferable way of dealing with too much wine is to consume it. So, it's good you gave the servers a heads up, but unless your sacristy lacks a sacrarium, you probably don't have to worry about that should it ever happen again. [url=http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2505bi2.html]Sacrarium[/url] If the wine was on the altar and the priest intended to consecrate it, then definitely the transubstantiation happened (so no worries there). Not that it sounded like you were questioning that part. [/quote] [i]NO[/i]! The Precious Blood cannot simply be thrown down the sink!! can. 1367: Qui species consecratas abicit aut in sacrilegum finem abducit vel retinet in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrit; clericus praeterea alia poena, non exclusa dimissione e statu clericali, puniri potest … A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose [i]incurs a latae sententiae excommunication[/i] reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.. It [i]absolutely must[/i] be first diluted until it no longer has the characteristics of wine. This cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) *double post* Sorry! Edited May 31, 2011 by MithLuin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Yes...the vessel would be rinsed out and the remnants poured down the sink - if the sink is a sacarium. I didn't mean to pour it down directly! That's why I said that you should drink it first. From his description, it sounded like the decanter was empty, having been poured into the other chalices, so I was referring to [i]some[/i] of the Precious Blood being poured down the sink during the process of rinsing it out, not recommending that people dispose of a chalice full that way. But thank you for clarifying, since I was not clear. Anyway, for anyone who is curious, further information is given in [i]Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts[/i] from 1999. [quote]In contrast to such profound veneration for the true Bread come down from heaven, not only can deplorable disciplinary abuses occur, sometimes have occurred and still occur, but even acts of contempt and profanation on the part of individuals who, under almost diabolical inspiration, dare to oppose in this way whatever the Church and the faithful hold, adore and love as most sacred. In order to deter those who let themselves be misled by such sentiments, [b]the Church not only urges the faithful to avoid any form of disgraceful carelessness and negligence, but also considers the most unfortunate case of deliberate acts of hatred or contempt for the Blessed Sacrament.[/b] These actions certainly constitute — by reason of their matter — a very grave sin of sacrilege. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in fact that sacrilege "is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us" (n. 2120). Moreover, in certain cases these sacrileges constitute true and real offenses, according to the canons of both Latin and Eastern Church law, to which a penalty is attached. ... [b]The verb [i]abicit[/i] should not be understood only in the strict sense of throwing away, nor in the generic sense of profaning, but with the broader meaning of to scorn, disdain, demean. [u]Therefore, a grave offence of sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Christ is committed by anyone who takes away and/or keeps the Sacred Species for a sacrilegious (obscene, superstitious, irreligious) purpose, and by anyone who, even without removing them from the tabernacle, monstrance or altar, makes them the object of any external, voluntary and serious act of contempt.[/u] Anyone guilty of this offence incurs, in the Latin Church, the penalty of excommunication [i]latae sententiae[/i] (i.e., automatically), the absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See; in the Eastern Catholic Churches he incurs a major excommunication [i]ferendae sententiae[/i] (i.e., to be imposed).[/b] It is helpful to remember, as was mentioned above, that the sin of sacrilege should not be confused with the offence of sacrilege; in fact, not all sins committed in this area are offences. Canonical doctrine teaches that an offence is an external and imputable violation of an ecclesiastical law, to which a penal sanction is ordinarily attached. Therefore, all the norms and attenuating or excusing circumstances given in the Latin and Eastern Codes apply here. In particular, it should be noted that the offence of sacrilege we are discussing also involves an external, but not necessarily public, act. [url=http://en.romana.org/art/29_2.2_1](source)[/url][/quote] Based on that, I seriously doubt the excommunication referred to above would apply to someone who accidentally cleaned the sacred vessels incorrectly - there is no sacrilegious purpose or intent there, and no one is acting in a way that would imply contempt. Obviously, the Church does not encourage negligence or carelessness in dealing with the Eucharist, so you are right to emphasize the importance of how the Most Precious Blood is handled. But such negligence, while unfortunate, does [i]not[/i] result in an automatic excommunication. I honestly have no idea what the final paragraph means, because I don't know enough about canon law (or law in general) to parse it out....but I think it is differentiating between levels of offense. Edited May 31, 2011 by MithLuin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) It's such an important matter, I felt that I couldn't leave any chance for ambiguity. I figured that's what you intended, but I felt obligated to say that in case anybody misunderstood. Also I apologize for appearing to jump on you. I was trying to get the reply out as quickly as I could. Edited May 31, 2011 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 No worries! Besides, it gave me the opportunity to look up the official answer to 'what if a bug gets in the chalice?' [And yes...the Church has a detailed answer to the correct way to proceed in that event.] Are we surprised? [quote]34. If anyone fails to consume the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he is guilty of very grave sin. 35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium. 36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated. 37. If anything poisonous touches the consecrated host, the priest is to consecrate another and consume it in the way that has been explained, while the first host is to be put into a chalice full of water and disposed of as was explained regarding the Blood in paragraph 36 above. [i]De Defectibus,[/i] Pope St. Pius V[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I wonder what kind of poisonous things might touch the Host that prompted St. Pius to consider that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now