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.
Redemptionis Sacramentum addressed these circumstances.
[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.
One sad thing is that there would not even be a problem if we hadn’t stubbornly pushed for both species on Sunday. There are so many vessels to clean that it is hard for a priest to do it all alone. They should be limiting Communion to the Host only. Using extraordinary means (EMHC’s) to acheive a merely “encouraged” action (both species) is, in my opoion, unjustified. Also, Rome has called for “habitual use of EMHC’s at Mass to be eliminated”. Doesn’t get any clearer than that.
This mess with EMHC’s will be cleaned up only when EMHC’s realize that THEY are the ones putting the pressure on the clerics to maintain this parallel hierarchy of “clericalized lay” EMHC’s. It really is a perverted spirituality to look at EMHC’s as an encouraged method of lay participation in the liturgy. It’s a temporary duty that is taken on with a certain reluctancy, and it also assumes that people will be praying for more vocations so that, hopefully, one day they will happily relenquish their duty to a priest or deacon who can fill the spot. People are actually starting to develop a spirituality around the whole thing. So much so, that if a priest tried to limit the # of EMHC’s at Mass, the people would revolt because they’d feel their rights were being violated, or their Catholic “identity” being destroyed.
As much as we want to point the finger at the hierarchy, this mess is lay-driven.
according to one of my readers, the indult actually ended in March 2005 so it didn’t come over night, if that info is correct.
I would like to see this (I have no expectations, of course) spur a common usage of the ministry of instituted acolyte in our dioceses, as Paul VI intended. It would solve the problems of EMHC’s purifying and the band of children “servers” making our liturgy look like a campy elementary school play.
Wow. They did a pretty good graphic of the cathedral. What was that episode of South Park about?
Cardinal Mahony makes me sick. I wonder if he realizes how much of a tool he is.
No surprise here.
>…a letter written on Oct. 23 by Bishop William S. Skylstad… notifying bishops of a change in the indult — or church permission — in effect since 2002…
A “change” in the indult “in effect since 2002..” ?!?? Sorry, Monsignor, but this is no “change” in the indult. The indult expired over a year ago. It hasn’t been “in effect since 2002”, except in those dioceses whose bishops are either too limp-wristed to enforce the liturgical norm throughout the world, or are wilfully disobedient to the lawful authority designated by Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
I think this is the announcement we want to see post haste from the Holy See Press Office:
Il Santo Padre ha accettato la rinuncia al governo pastorale dell�arcidiocesi metropolitana di Los Angeles (USA), presentata dall�Em.mo Card. Roger Mahony, in conformit� al can. 401 � 1 del Codice di Diritto Canonico.
Il Papa ha nominato Arcivescovo Metropolita di Los Angeles (USA) il Rev.do Padre Jay Scott Newman, Parroco nella Parrocchia di “Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus” in Greenville, South Carolina (USA) ….
OK, LAers and OCers,
Get those emails over to the Congregation for the Liturgy, with a CC to our Holy Father. Although Cardinal Arinze always complains that the US sends too many emails about liturgical abuses, he has to see ’em to complain about ’em. Something tells me Benedict XVI seem them, too. I don’t think Mahony is one of Benedict’s favorites, either.
At least the use the proper title for the Extraordinary Ministers, but cups and plates? Pleeease! I can almost hear the announcement at the beginning of Mass
“Welcome to our fraternal banquet, after sharing our meal please recline and wait for our staff to wash the dishes. Mr. Smith…. Mrs. Jones, you all have KP duty after brunch is served.”
and I remember the indult was supposed to expire in the fall of 2006. This indult was an exception to the changes in the GIRM back in 02
Comments are closed.