“Consecrating” the Eucharist outside closed parish?

18 comments

• Where did she get the chalice and the hosts?

  Did she steal them?

  Were they already consecrated hosts?

  Did a sacraledge take place or not?

• The article doesn’t say, but since it says she’s a Eucharistic minister at another parish in Lynn, I’m guessing she got them there. Whether they were consecrated or not is unknown.

• Clearly, AT THE VERY LEAST, she should be stripped of her status as an EMHC immediately.

  … and I hate it when reporters/editors get the stuff wrong, or don’t ask all the necessary questions to write a solid story or caption!

• St. Pius V parish in Lynn, MA welcomes and supports groups like VOTF, “We Are The Church”, etc. Most likely she had already consecrated hosts.

• Aack!  You’re right!

  http://www.stpiusvlynn.org/

  A parish that needs closure …

• Consecrated or not, the party deliberately mimics a sacred act, at the entrance to a sacred house. She should be removed as an extraordinary minister for that reason alone. There is no more appropriate act of charity through correction, nor is there any other remedy for scandal.

  That, and it’s just plain juvenile—and in the case of someone that age, really REALLY pathetic!

• There was a time before we were drowning in sentimentality, posturing, and touchy-feely political correctness that Lois Bragan and her friends and any supportive religious could have been seen and identified for what they are:  crackpots.  Scandalous crackpots, sacrilegious crackpots, but crackpots.  Still, I will bet that the vast majority of Catholics still look at Mrs. Bragan, et al, as just that.  May the Merciful Lord forgive her as she is an ignorant and very stupid woman.

• Is she doing the Agnus Dei as part of a communion service?

• i do not claim knowledge of the case, nor support for the image, but it seems to me that these people are fighting to keep their church open…..

  doesn’t anyone ask about the actions of dioceses that are closing parishes without due process?

• Why assume that due process has not been observed in the closing of this or other Boston parishes? Does it justify sacrilege or disobedience toward liturgical norms?

• Because due process has not been followed and the vatican has had to, over and over again, encourage dioceses to follow due process.

• At the risk of getting into a circular argument, please point out a specific instance of where due process was not followed in the closing of this parish and then please explain how that justifies this action?

  Apparently you are not a regular reader of this blog, but I have consistently pointed out the problems with the parish closing process in Boston where they have occurred, but we have to also recognize that most of the parishes were closed properly and with appropriate due process. And the fact is that many of them needed to be closed.

  I’ve said time and again that in my small city there were seven parishes all within about a mile of each other and most of them with barely enough parishioners to support them. The city of Lynn is in the same situation. All these old cities had too many parishes that used to serve a much higher population density and individual ethnicities, two situations that don’t prevail today.

  But I’m not going to re-argue this whole thing again. I’ve got three or four years of blog posts on this subject. Feel free to browse them.

• The feminized church to the point where it is now seemingly a separate church.

  I’m wondering if someone may be able to answer a question I have about a recent “procedure” at my parish.  We now have the precious blood also offered by additional EMs.  When they are finished they place the cups on the small table that holds the cruets, etc.  I don’t think they themselves drink any of the remaining blood beforehand, but even if that were so there still would be some remaining in the cups.  The cups are not cleansed and I am assuming that they are used for the next mass’s consecration – unless they are removed after the mass separately and cleansed.  I haven’t seen that.  The remaining hosts in their separate chalices are placed back in the tabernacle (although I witnessed the pastor quickly consuming an additional 2 or 3 from his chalice, then dumping any others from this chalice into another chalice and closing the tabernacle door. Again, I’m wondering if perhaps he’s consuming the angular portions left from the main host used in consecration – perhaps to prevent corners from breaking off.  Is any of this proper procedures?  Just leaving the uncleansed cups of precious blood out in the open after mass bothers me.  Anyone?

• Last point first, yes I believe he’s supposed to consume all of the pieces from the priest’s host.

  As for the cups, how sure of you of your assumption that they are not cleansed before the next Mass? Perhaps they’re just taken out after Mass, which is what they’re supposed to do I think.

• St. Pius V parish in Lynn, MA welcomes and supports groups like VOTF, “We Are The Church”, etc. Most likely she had already consecrated hosts.

  I’m sure Pope Pius is so proud.  He saved the West from Islam only to have us rot from within.

  St. Pius V, pray for us.

• Christine, the EEMs are no longer supposed to doing the purifying of the cups/chalices.  The priest is the only one who should be doing it.  One of our priests does it right at the altar immedidiately after they’re finished with Communion.  The other priest does it over by the side at the little table.  Both do it before the end of the Mass.

• If the chalices of the precious blood are not purified after each mass (I’ve never seen it done at least before the end of the mass) is it forbidden for unconsecrated wine to be co-mingled?

• You can’t re-use the chalices until they’re purified.