DF: They won’t understand your intention.

DWF: But it’s not complicated. I just have a question. Questions are what academics do.
DF: But it’s a politicized issue, and people will think you’re advocating one thing or denying another
thing.
DWF: But surely I can raise an observation.
DF: It’s your skin. Go ahead.
DWF: Well, all I said was it dawned on me one day that in the twenty years since I became a Catholic I’ve
only seen the rite of purifying the vessels about half a dozen times.
DF: So you are agitating for a return to the Latin mass!
DWF: Where did you get that? I just made the observation that something that used to be a part of the
rite has quietly disappeared.
DF: Not so quietly. Remember the headlines in 2006: “Extraordinary ministers of Eucharist barred from
purifying vessels.”
DWF: Yes, and that was from the Catholic News Service, not even a blog site.
DF: Exactly. The U.S. Bishops asked for an indult in 2002 permitting extraordinary ministers to help
cleanse the Communion cups and plates when there were not enough priests or deacons to do so.
DWF: Yes, and the indult expired and was not renewed. That’s the background behind the word
“barred” in the headline.
DF: Don’t you realize that the distribution of roles to ministers – even when appropriate – is always
freighted?
DWF: I do, but I just have this question.
DF: Okay, okay. Ask it.
DWF: My point is, that I have hardly ever seen a priest or deacon purify a chalice at the altar …
DF: Ah, I see you’re using the new translation “chalice”.
DWF: Stop sidetracking. I have rarely seen the chalice purified at the altar. All the chalices are taken by
extraordinary ministers into the sacristy.
DF: That’s because a distinction was made between “purifying” and “cleansing.” “In accord with the Holy
Father’s recent decision, as reported in Cardinal Arinze’s letter of October 12, 2006 (Prot. no. 468/05/L),
an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion may not assist in the purification of sacred vessels. After
the vessels have been purified, the extraordinary minister(s) of Holy Communion may cleanse and dry
the vessels.”
DWF: I know. And I don’t think extraordinary ministers should be barred. They are clearly allowed to
cleanse the vessels.
DF: So your question is what happened to the distinction between purifying and cleansing?
DWF: No, more accurately, my question is whether we should care that the distinction exists?
DF: Well, let’s explore your train of thought. Why might we care?
DWF: I recall once reading a British convert’s story that was begun by the care with which the vessels
were treated after communion.
DF: So you think that purifying the cup is a more important ritual action than receiving from the cup?
DWF: Ah, I see you’re using the old translation “cup.”
DF: Stop sidetracking. Isn’t the prayer over the bread and wine of primary importance, and the
purification and cleansing of the vessels that hold the body and blood of secondary, or even tertiary
importance?
DWF: Yes. I agree entirely. I’m only asking whether even secondary and tertiary symbols are somewhat
important. No, more accurately, I’m not asking anything, I’m observing something.
DF: What?
DWF: That the symbol doesn’t happen anymore.
DF: Maybe it happens in the sacristy.
DWF: Maybe. Except the clarification was that an extraordinary minister (EM) does not purify.
DF: So you are a rubrical legalist.
DWF: Stop sidetracking. We can have the discussion about the value of rubrics and liturgical legislation
another day. Right now I’m asking a question of ritual symbolism.
DF: Which is?
DWF: Should some act of purification take place at the altar or credence table, before the vessels are
cleansed in the sacristy.
DF: At our parish we have 4, 8, 16, 32 cups …
DWF: Stop exaggerating.
DF: Okay, but we have quite a few cups, and it would really needlessly delay the mass if they all had to
be purified by Father at the altar. That’s how we struck on this practical solution.
DWF: So it was about time? But I thought liturgists objected to making decisions about liturgical symbol
on the basis of utility.
DF: Well (sputter), yes, that was a lesson taught by Guardini and Jungmann.
DWF: What if at least one chalice was purified at the altar?
DF: You mean for nostalgia’s sake? Just to give that ol’ medieval feeling again?
DWF: No, it’s a hypothesis. Suppose it was Christian instinct to reverentially purify the chalice. Suppose
we believed it inappropriate to simply jettison what our ancestors knew by instinct. Suppose we
included a ritual of purification.
DF: That would make the people into be passive spectators.
DWF: True, they would be watching, and I suppose that’s the definition of “spectator.” And they would
not have their hands in soap suds, if that’s your definition of “passive.”
DF: Now you’re being sarcastic.
DWF: Mea culpa. But I think there’s a better objection.
DF: You’re helping me out? What is it?
DWF: Is it acceptable to purify only one chalice while the rest are taken into the sacristy? That seems to
put the word “just” into “just a symbol.”
DF: What do you mean?
DWF: There’s a difference between doing a real action symbolically, and doing a symbolic thing instead
of the action. Is it inappropriate if Father is not purifying all the chalices, but only purifying one “as just a
symbol.”
DF: But we already have an action like that in the mass. Father performs a fraction rite on one host,
though he doesn’t do so on any others.
DWF: You’re helping me with an argument?
DF: Sorry. I got confused. What are we doing again?
DWF: We’re only observing that everyone talks about how liturgy forms, and symbol expresses. Once
there was an act which was a part of the liturgical activity at the altar, and it has disappeared. And its
disappearance was not the result of a conscious decision, it just sort of slipped in there, and for what
appears to be utilitarian reasons, and then after the fact it became a politicized issue about power
struggle. And I wanted to ask if we’re satisfied with that.
DF: So you don’t propose a solution?
DWF: I don’t know if there’s a problem to solve. I’m just observing.
DF: That’s the trouble with you.