Gerald Augustinus has the text of a memo sent out in the Diocese of L.A. regarding the revoking of the indult for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion from purification of the sacred vessels.
The memo is truly maddening. The diocesan version of "Carry on."
…notifying bishops of a change in the indult — or church permission — in effect since 2002 which allows extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to help cleanse cups and plates when there are not enough priests or deacons to do so.
Notice the reference to "cups and plates." Not sacred vessels or chalice and platen, but the most mundane terms possible. For just"cups and plates" they could install a dishwasher in the sanctuary.
But the kicker is the last paragraph.
Until Cardinal Mahony and the auxiliary bishops have the opportunity to discuss the new recommendations, both locally and at the general meeting of the USCCB in November, no changes will be made regarding the present policy for the distribution of Holy Communion and/or the purification of the sacred vessels.
Well at least they said sacred vessels here, but these are not "recommendations", but it seems that everything issued by the Vatican is considered in this diocese to be only a "recommendation." There are many items that the local ordinary does have the authority to issue a dispensation on. This is not one of them. The reason that this required an indult from the Vatican in the first place is because it is not within the authority of the bishop’s conference or the local ordinary to change. Just as Cardinal Mahony issued a dispensation which he had no authority to issue in regards to consecrating the Sacred Blood in a pitcher I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen again.
"Indult? We ain’t got no indult! We don’t need no indult. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ indult!"
*Screen capture that Gerald got from the last South Park.
Update: The Diocese of Orange locksteps in dissent by issuing their own memo of which Gerald has a copy.
The memo speaks of the present norm of purification of the sacred vessels. The funny thing is that you do no need an indult from a norm. Having an EMHC purifying the sacred vessels was never classified as a norm. The indult was a temporary dispensation from the norm. As with the L.A. memo they once again talk about Communion under both kinds as if this has anything to do with the indult. Surely if you have a priest in the first place to celebrate Mass then he can do the purifying.
Now the question is why is this such an important indult for some diocese? The problem for them of course is that so much of the Sacred Blood is consecrated that one person cannot really consume the Sacred Blood not given in Communion. Thus having extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion helping out is considered essential.
[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicantsthat it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
So essentially they need this to help with a situation that is illicit in the first place. The same diocese that wants to crack down on kneeling has zero problems with liturgical dissent when it suits them. That these diocese are willing to do delaying tactics on something that there is no room to quibble about is just plain shameful.