Can we receive a consecrated host dipped in consecrated wine?

[djrakowski]

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

Does that mean that all parishes in which the host is intincted are guilty of sacrilege?

Posts #11 by John Lilburne and #12 by Brendan quoted Redemptionis Sacramentum para. 103, in which the procedure for receiving by intinction is described. So it would seem that it isn’t a sacrilege if conducted in accordance with that document.

 

[Brendan]

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

Br. Rich,

While dipping a Consecrated Host in plain wine might certainly be considered sacrildge, that is not what the person you quoted actually said.

Qmvsimp specifically said that the Host is dipped in “Consecrated wine”, in other words, the Real Presence in the species of wine.

That practice is a perfectly licit method of offering the Eucharist under both species as evidenced in Redeptonis Sacramentum, and the historical practice of the Eastern Churches.

Do you hold a opinion to the contrary, or did you just misunderstand the poster’s statement?

 

[Brendan]

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.

It has been my experience that anyone other than one of the priests or deacons offer only the Host.

For Sunday Mass, we normally sit in the “Extention”, one of the senior diaconate canidates is the usual emhc to that area, so we normally recieve the Eucharist in a single species.

In fact, I think the parish only has 3 of the ciboria that have the chalice insert that are used for both species. That would cover the celebrant, the deacon and whichever priest comes out to assist at Communion. Any other ministers would therefore have to use regualr ciboria.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

So when you become elderly, ill or homebound and unable to go to church, will you give up receiving communion completely if a cleric is not available to bring it to you (as mostlikely will be the case) or will you then receive from an EMHC?

 

[drforjc]

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.

Precisely.

 

[wcknight]

I recently saw a young girl dip the host and I was sorely tempted to say something to her after mass (I’m an usher at our parish).

I think it is really tackly to do so. The Holy Euchaist is NOT meant to be dipped like some oriole cookie in milk. IF there were not already some rules against it, there should be. It looks terrible and disrespectful.

 

[TimOliv]

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. …”

And yet every single church in the Diocese has a Ministry dedicated to their “Lay Eucharistic Ministers”

 

[Brendan]

I recently saw a young girl dip the host and I was sorely tempted to say something to her after mass (I’m an usher at our parish).

I think it is really tackly to do so. The Holy Euchaist is NOT meant to be dipped like some oriole cookie in milk. IF there were not already some rules against it, there should be. It looks terrible and disrespectful.

A Communicant is prohibited from intincting a Host they have recieved.

A shown above, a priest or deacon may use intinction to offer the Eucharist under both species to the faithful.

This is symbolically the most complete way of presenting the Eucharist to the faithful.

 

[TimOliv]

So when you become elderly, ill or homebound and unable to go to church, will you give up receiving communion completely if a cleric is not available to bring it to you (as mostlikely will be the case) or will you then receive from an EMHC?

I am a member of a religious order, we do not HAVE EMHCs.

 

[Brendan]

And yet every single church in the Diocese has a Ministry dedicated to their “Lay Eucharistic Ministers”

Then they are wrong.

The minister of a Sacrament is the one who calls the Sacrament into being.

In Baptism, the Minister is the person who pours the water and pronounces the Tritarian formula.

In Marriage, the Ministers are the Couple themselves.

In the Eucharist, the only Minister is a validily Ordained priest. Only a man who has been validly Ordained to the priesthood can be a Minister of this Sacrament. The term “Lay Eucharist Minister” is therefore an oxymoron.

A deacon, or a lay person, can minister the Communication of the Sacrament, it’s distribution to the people.

A deacon, therefore, would be an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion (not of the Eucharist)

A layperson may be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, the communiucation of the Eucharist, not it’s confection.

Anyone who say anything to the contrary either does not understand Catholic Sacramentology or is choosing to violate the instructions of the Vatican on this subject, possibly both.

 

[TimOliv]

Then they are wrong.

The minister of a Sacrament is the one who calls the Sacrament into being.

In Baptism, the Minister is the person who pours the water and pronounces the Tritarian formula.

In Marriage, the Ministers are the Couple themselves.

In the Eucharist, the only Minister is a validily Ordained priest. Only a man who has been validly Ordained to the priesthood can be a Minister of this Sacrament. The term “Lay Eucharist Minister” is therefore an oxymoron.

A deacon, or a lay person, can minister the Communication of the Sacrament, it’s distribution to the people.

A deacon, therefore, would be an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion (not of the Eucharist)

A layperson may be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, the communiucation of the Eucharist, not it’s confection.

Anyone who say anything to the contrary either does not understand Catholic Sacramentology or is choosing to violate the instructions of the Vatican on this subject, possibly both.

I never said they were right, just what they do.

 

[Corki]

It has been my experience that anyone other than one of the priests or deacons offer only the Host.

For Sunday Mass, we normally sit in the “Extention”, one of the senior diaconate canidates is the usual emhc to that area, so we normally recieve the Eucharist in a single species.

In fact, I think the parish only has 3 of the ciboria that have the chalice insert that are used for both species. That would cover the celebrant, the deacon and whichever priest comes out to assist at Communion. Any other ministers would therefore have to use regualr ciboria.

The GIRM (or maybe it’s RS) gives the procedure for Communion by intincture. The special ciborium (also called an intinction set) isn’t mentioned but is the way I have usually seen it done. The mentioned procedure is for one Minister (usually the priest or deacon) to dip the host into a chalice that is held by another minister. There is a requirement for a paten to be used as well. I do not see why this “other minister” for the chalice couldn’t be a EMHC but this seems like the long way around. Still, it could result in Communion being offered by intiction to more people if you don’t have enough intiction sets to go around.

A Communicant is prohibited from intincting a Host they have recieved.

A shown above, a priest or deacon may use intinction to offer the Eucharist under both species to the faithful.

This is symbolically the most complete way of presenting the Eucharist to the faithful.

I agree this is symbollically the most complete and also my favorite way to receive Holy Communion. Unfortunately, there is only one parish near me that does this regularly and only on weekdays.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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

Intinction is when a Host is dipped in the Precious Blood and received on the tongue, it is only permitted for a priest to offer Holy Communion in this manner.

P.S. I answered before looking at any other posts. The issue seems to be the language used by the OP.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Does that mean that all parishes in which the host is intincted are guilty of sacrilege?

Posts #11 by John Lilburne and #12 by Brendan quoted Redemptionis Sacramentum para. 103, in which the procedure for receiving by intinction is described. So it would seem that it isn’t a sacrilege if conducted in accordance with that document.

Only if they are dipping the Host in WINE.
I now realize that I misread the OP.'s use of “Consecrated wine” and just read it as wine.

I have seen where people believe the mixing of Consecrated Hosts and un-Consecrated hosts makes the un-Consecrated hosts become the Body of Christ. I was thinking that this is what they were refering to dipping the Blessed Sacrament into regular wine.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich,

While dipping a Consecrated Host in plain wine might certainly be considered sacrildge, that is not what the person you quoted actually said.

Qmvsimp specifically said that the Host is dipped in “Consecrated wine”, in other words, the Real Presence in the species of wine.

That practice is a perfectly licit method of offering the Eucharist under both species as evidenced in Redeptonis Sacramentum, and the historical practice of the Eastern Churches.

Do you hold a opinion to the contrary, or did you just misunderstand the poster’s statement?

You are correct I misread the OP. Around here we NEVER refer to the contents of the chalice asanything but the Precious Blood or Blood of Christ. I think that “Consecrated wine” is a sloppy reference.

 

[Timidity]

The issue seems to be the language used by the OP.

What language would that be? The OP’s terms were fine. Maybe you misread.

 

[Timidity]

You are correct I misread the OP. Around here we NEVER refer to the contents of the chalice asanything but the Precious Blood or Blood of Christ. I think that “Consecrated wine” is a sloppy reference.

Your thoughts aside, “Consecrated wine” is the language of the GIRM, and is technically correct. The “Precious Blood” is also a common usage, but technically inaccurate.

 

[djrakowski]

Only if they are dipping the Host in WINE.
I now realize that I misread the OP.'s use of “Consecrated wine” and just read it as wine.

I have seen where people believe the mixing of Consecrated Hosts and un-Consecrated hosts makes the un-Consecrated hosts become the Body of Christ. I was thinking that this is what they were refering to dipping the Blessed Sacrament into regular wine.

Cool… thanks for the explanation. Sorry if I seemed to jump on you for that one.

Dan

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight;1486322:

TimOliv;1484634:

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

So when you become elderly, ill or homebound and unable to go to church, will you give up receiving communion completely if a cleric is not available to bring it to you (as mostlikely will be the case) or will you then receive from an EMHC? I am a member of a religious order, we do not HAVE EMHCs.

And what about the MAJORITY of people who do not belong to a religious order? What should they do when they get old, ill and/or homebound? Should they give up receiving communion completely if a cleric is not available to bring it to them (as mostlikely will be the case)?

The Church teaches us that frequently receiving the sacraments is beneficial to our souls and we should utilize every opportunity. Not receiving from an EMHC is not a valid reason to stay away from the sacrament. And if a person can receive from an EMHC when they are ill, elderly or homebound; then there is no reason why they can not receive from that same EMHC when they are young, healthy and in church. And if other faithful can receive from EMHCs, then there is no valid reason why you can not either if the situation presented itself. Yes? No?

 

[qmvsimp]

Thanks to you all for your help. I now understand so much better.

The parish I went to has special communion plates where the host is on the side of the cup that is a part of the plate. The only thing is that all the “ministers” give out communion in this way, whether priest, deacon or “lay Eucharistic Minister.” I may not be using the correct terminology here.

Are you sure only the priest can administer the Sacrament in this manner? Some previous posters said priest or deacon and some also said extraordinary ministers can as well.

On the terminology: “consecrated bread and wine.” I was trying to use accurate terminology while not picking terminology that was too long. I didn’t want to use “Precious Blood” or “Precious Bread” because after the consecration, there is no longer any distinction between them in this regard and I was trying to make the distinction between the species of bread and wine. I didn’t use “body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the species of bread” because that was too long. The best I could come up with that would be 100% theologically accurate, would get across the bread and wine distinction, and be as brief as possible was “consecrated bread.”