Monday, January 15, 2007

Purification of Vessels

UPDATE 2 (4/27/07): I've noticed that someone from Boise with a Velocitus account keeps coming back to this page. It's been three months since I posted this message, and frankly, I've moved on, and I hope others from the parish have as well. If you simply want to read what I'm posting, I'm happy that you've dropped by. You can see my most recent posts by going here. If you're looking for some new complaint or offense, well, I certainly hope not to offer it, but I would encourage you to move on, too. We have more important things to do than dwell on past errors. There's a world that needs to know Christ, and we should be focusing on that.

Pax Christi.


UPDATE: If you are on the parish staff, please feel free to read the rest of the blog, particularly this.

I've been doing some reading to follow up on yerterday's dust-up at Mass. In addition to rereading the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II, I also went to the USCCB site to read a copy of Cardinal Arinze's letter to Bishop Skylstad. You can find it here.

I sent a copy to some friends from our parish and added the following thoughts on the content of the letter:

- The indult that has not been renewed only came into effect in 2002. It apparently was only in effect in the U.S.

- The GIRM outlines who is permitted to purify the vessels and has done so since long before Vatican II. Given that the document refers to the current GIRM, Vatican II clearly did not abrogate the normative restrictions.

- The normative practice for receiving the Eucharist under both species is via intinction. Moving to the practice of intinction would reduce the number of extraordinary ministers, as well as the number of vessels required for the distribution of the Eucharist.

- Receiving in the hand, which is not the normative means but is permitted, is not possible with intinction.

The ending of the indult appears to be intended to reduce the nonnormative practices of having so many extraordinary ministers and of receiving in the hand. Given that both practices are nonnormative, it seems to me a wise decision meant at curbing abuses and restoring reverence to the reception of the Eucharist.

Another thought that occurred to me is that there could very well be two means provided to the faithful. Those who wish to receive communion in the hand would receive under one species only. Those who wished to receive under both species would receive by intinction on the tongue.

In any case, I saw the deacon's presentation yesterday as a temper tantrum. All this talk about being the body of Christ is absurd if the members rebel against the head. What's more, disciplines of the Church are not up to the whims or desires of individuals; they're up to the people who safeguard the teachings and practices of the Church, those who have been given the Apostolic authority and the heavy duty that that role entails.

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot about yesterday's incident. I just pray that the faith is served appropriately by our leaders.

[Technorati tags: Christianity, Catholic, Catholicism, Church History]
Post a Comment