Can we receive a consecrated host dipped in consecrated wine?

[qmvsimp]

I’ve seen it done before: a consecrated host is dipped into the consecrated wine just prior to despensing to the faithful. (I just received it like this yesterday.) Some have told me this is a liturgical abuse.

What’s the truth here. Is it permissible or isn’t it? Please help.

 

[Fergal]

Communion by inction is not licit if it is carried out by the recipient. When it is carried out by the Priest it is ok.

 

[YachtsMan]

Holy Communion by intinction (“dipping”) is most certainly licit! Distribution by intinction should only be done by a cleric and one must receive on the tongue in this case but it is most certainly licit! One cannot self-intinct, but that’s another story altogether.

P.S. It’s the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood at that point – not the “consecrated host” and “consecrated wine.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

As long as the person receiving does not do the dipping, it is perfectly valid and licit.

 

[Timidity]

P.S. It’s the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood at that point – not the “consecrated host” and “consecrated wine.”

There is nothing wrong with what the OP said, and, in fact, your language is problematic. The OP was trying to describe the process of intinction. If he were to have said that the Body of Christ was dipped into the Precious Blood, some other poster would have pointed out that no such thing occurred, because both species fully represent both aspects. The bread does not become the body and the wine does not become the blood, as your wording seems to imply. So to follow your wording and the desire to be technically correct, one would have to say that “the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ was dipped into the the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ”, which is far from clear.

 

[YachtsMan]

There is nothing wrong with what the OP said, and, in fact, your language is problematic. The OP was trying to describe the process of intinction. If he were to have said that the Body of Christ was dipped into the Precious Blood, some other poster would have pointed out that no such thing occurred, because both species fully represent both aspects. The bread does not become the body and the wine does not become the blood, as your wording seems to imply. So to follow your wording and the desire to be technically correct, one would have to say that “the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ was dipped into the the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ”, which is far from clear.

“Consecrated host and consecrated wine” are poor descriptions for the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We could discuss how the wheat host and grape wine no longer exist, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

 

[drforjc]

“Consecrated host and consecrated wine” are poor descriptions for the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We could discuss how the wheat host and grape wine no longer exist, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

Yet they are frequently used in Church documents.

 

[MusicMan]

Intinction is allowed, however, the minister intincts the Host into the Precious Blood. You cannot receive the Host from the Priest, take it to the Deacon with the Chalice, and dip it in the Chalice, nor can you have the Deacon intinct it for you.

You can also only receive an by intinction on the tongue. It is not permissable to receive an intincted host in the hand.

Self-intinction is akin to self-communion, thus it is not allowed. You cannot take the host to the minister of the Chalice to be intincted because you are to consume the host in front of the minister who distributed it to you.

Therefore, Communion by intinction is only allowed when the Priest decides to have it by intinction.

 

[YachtsMan]

Yet they are frequently used in Church documents.

Oh? Whereabouts?

 

[TimOliv]

I’ve seen it done before: a consecrated host is dipped into the consecrated wine just prior to despensing to the faithful. (I just received it like this yesterday.) Some have told me this is a liturgical abuse.

What’s the truth here. Is it permissible or isn’t it? Please help.

They mix both species of communion in Eastern Churches. Just has to be done by the priest.

 

[John_Lilburne]

They mix both species of communion in Eastern Churches. Just has to be done by the priest.

I believe it can also be done by an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or deacon as well as a priest.

If Communion under both kinds is permitted, then this method is permitted. This was made clear in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

“[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains.”

The method of receiving by intinction is explained in the the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

 

[Brendan]

Here is Redemptionis Sacramentum on the subject

The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord **may be received **either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]

[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

Note that recieving an intinced host in the hand is forbidden.

FYI, this is the normal way both species are offered in our parish. Intinced by the priest or deacon and offered in the mouth only, with a paten under the chin.

 

[TimOliv]

I believe it can also be done by an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or deacon as well as a priest.

If Communion under both kinds is permitted, then this method is permitted. This was made clear in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

“[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains.”

The method of receiving by intinction is explained in the the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

I refuse communion from Eucharistic Ministers in the first place. My communion comes from clerics only

 

[Timidity]

Oh? Whereabouts?

I’ll let the poster give his own citations, but I will add that both the GIRM and the Eucharistic Prayers call it bread even after consecration.

 

[contemplative]

Communion by inction is not licit if it is carried out by the recipient. When it is carried out by the Priest it is ok.

I found this to be true…about a year ago. Since then… I’ve been wondering why all Catholics can’t recieve this way from priests.

 

[MusicMan]

I believe it can also be done by an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or deacon as well as a priest.

There are no EMsHC in the East. I also believe that the Sacred Species can only be mixed by a Priest, but I am not certain about this. I am certain that EMsHC are not allowed in the East, both in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

And before anyone uses this fact as a reason to climb on the high moral horse about abolishing EMsHC in the West, the reason is simple… Eastern parishes typically have significantly fewer Communicants than Western ones do. There is simply no need to have EMsHC in the East to ease the amount of time that the distribution of Communion takes, because it doesn’t take that long in the first place.

 

[djrakowski]

FYI, this is the normal way both species are offered in our parish. Intinced by the priest or deacon and offered in the mouth only, with a paten under the chin.

Occasionally, we have a few extraordinary ministers (I’ve noticed that more and more as Fr. has been travelling lately). My wife received from one at the 1:30 Holy Mass on Sunday (which was celebrated by the excellent Fr. Norbert, and assisted at the Eucharist by our dear Fr. Val).

I’ll have to ask her if the extraordinary minister inticted. It seems that anyone other than the priest or deacon offers only the host.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I refuse communion from Eucharistic Ministers in the first place. My communion comes from clerics only

I suggest a review of terminology in the light of the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
"[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.
“[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. …”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ve seen it done before: a consecrated host is dipped into the consecrated wine just prior to despensing to the faithful. (I just received it like this yesterday.) Some have told me this is a liturgical abuse.

What’s the truth here. Is it permissible or isn’t it? Please help.

A Consecrated Host should NEVER be dipped in wine. That would be a sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[demerzel85]

A Consecrated Host should NEVER be dipped in wine. That would be a sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament.

Umm isnt the dipping intinction? Intinction is 100% permissible. And well it forces people to receive on the tongue.