Can we receive a consecrated host dipped in consecrated wine?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.”

A deacon may be allowed to offer intinction? I’m not sure without looking. However an EMHC cannot.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

It may be in the ecumenical language world of today. But it leaves too much to be misinterpreted. The contents of the Chalice is no longer “wine” in substance, It is the Blood of Christ. I wonder what the Latin version of the GIRM uses? Anyway “Consecrated Wine” is also what is offered in many Protestant services of the Lord’s Supper, Wine that has been Blessed, nothing more.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

Musicman:

You’ve actually got this half wrong and half right. You are correct when you say that the communicant is NEVER allowed to take the Body of Christ and dip it into the Sacred Blood at ANY time. However, you are wrong about the communicant being required to eat the Body of Christ in front of the Sacred Minister (I’m assuming a priest or deacon and not an EMHE). The communicant is allowed to take himself or herself and the Body of Christ to the Sacred Minister with the Sacred Blood who would then take the host from the hands of the communicant, dip into the Sacred Blood and place it onto the communicant’s tongue saying the words, “The Body and Body and Christ.” To which the communicant would respond, “Amen.”

This mimics the scene which used to occur at ALTER RAILS before the Council of Trent decried that laypeople receive communion under only ONE SPECIES. At that time, most communicants would receive the Body of Christ on the tongue, except for those who were ill (or who prefered to receive by Intinction), who held out their hands and then held the Body of Christ in their hands until Deacons came by. The Deacons then picked the Host from the hands of these communicants, dipped them into the Sacred Blood and placed them back on the grateful communicants’ tongues.

Actually, I prefer the scene I just described to how we do it now. It’s more reverent and has less chance of “spillage” than the way we do it nowadays.

Although Priests offer the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving for the Living and the Dead, Deacons have custody of the Cup and of the Book of the Gospels. This means it’s the Deacons job to distribute the Sacred Blood (not some EMHE), and the Deacon’s job to Read the Gospel and, if necessary, Preach the Gospel (not some layperson’s as some are trying to do).

You’ll find this is a very conservative position and explaination.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

A deacon may be allowed to offer intinction? I’m not sure without looking. However an EMHC cannot.

Br. Rich:

Priests and Deacons are both ORDAINED Sacred Ministers. There are NO such things as LAY Eucharistic Ministers - The GIRM and the Popes have all called them “Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist” or “Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion”. It’s only the American Catholic Church which insists on callin them LAY EM. But, Please be assured that that usage is not supported by the Vatican.

Because they are Ordained Sacred Ministers, Deacons may offer and give the Lord’s Body and Blood by Intinction to Communicants who want to receive Him that way.

I hope that answers your question and clarifies the answers you were given.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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?

Sir Knight:

The American Church is the only Church that insists on the need for EMHC. Hopefully, the Church will begin to recruit more Deacons and will get to the reasons why so many seminaries discourage and often expell seemingly worthy orthodox seminarians.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_060328.asp

When we stop doing that, and start directing orthodox pius men to our seminaries instead of kicking them out, we won’t need EMHC.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[qmvsimp]

Br. Rich:

Priests and Deacons are both ORDAINED Sacred Ministers. There are NO such things as LAY Eucharistic Ministers - The GIRM and the Popes have all called them “Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist” or “Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion”. It’s only the American Catholic Church which insists on callin them LAY EM. But, Please be assured that that usage is not supported by the Vatican.

Because they are Ordained Sacred Ministers, Deacons may offer and give the Lord’s Body and Blood by Intinction to Communicants who want to receive Him that way.

I hope that answers your question and clarifies the answers you were given.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

So are you saying that EMHC’s can intinct?

 

[Joe_Monahan]

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.

MM,

Actually, the right to have the equivalent of Extraordinary Ministers exists in the East under Canon Law, if the Synod or Council of Hierarchs chooses to allow it.

I am aware of one Church sui iuris which does so and know of at least one parish in that Church that has such (the pastor and deacon are both elderly and/or physically unwell, as I understand). It is, however, not a favored practice among our Churches and our Orthodox brethren permit no such practice.

Joe

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So are you saying that EMHC’s can intinct?

As I thought it would be.

Priests being Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist may offer Holy Communion by intinction.

Deacone being Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion may offer Holy Communion by intinction.

Extra-Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) are prohibited from doing so.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight:

The American Church is the only Church that insists on the need for EMHC. Hopefully, the Church will begin to recruit more Deacons and will get to the reasons why so many seminaries discourage and often expell seemingly worthy orthodox seminarians.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_060328.asp

When we stop doing that, and start directing orthodox pius men to our seminaries instead of kicking them out, we won’t need EMHC.

Yes, but until that happens, EMHCs are filling a very important void ESPECIALLY when it comes to ministering to the sick, elderly and homebound.

 

[John_Lilburne]

As I thought it would be.

Priests being Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist may offer Holy Communion by intinction.

Deacone being Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion may offer Holy Communion by intinction.

Extra-Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) are prohibited from doing so.

Do you know of any official documents that support this position – that a deacon can give communion by intinction but an EMHC cannot?
Obviously an EMHC can give the Body of Chirst. Obviously an EMHC can give the Blood of Chirst. What reason could there be for them not being able to give the Body and Blood of Christ by intinction?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

So are you saying that EMHC’s can intinct?

qmvsimp:

I now that Deacons can give the Lord’s Body and Blood by Inctintion, and that is the ordinary way things are to be done. If EHME’s are allowed to distribute the Lord’s Body and Blood by Intinction, it is by Indult and is not the regular way it is to be done.

The sooner we follow the recommendations in the letter I cited earlier, the sooner we can begain to end this crisis and the sooner we can return to the way things were are to be done regularly.

YBIC, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Do you know of any official documents that support this position – that a deacon can give communion by intinction but an EMHC cannot?
Obviously an EMHC can give the Body of Chirst. Obviously an EMHC can give the Blood of Chirst. What reason could there be for them not being able to give the Body and Blood of Christ by intinction?

John:

The reason is self-evident if you understand the difference between ORDINARY Ministers of the Holy Eucharist (these men are ORDAINED) and laypersons who have not been ordained but are permitted to distribute the Body and Blood of our Lord because of a temporary INDULT.

Priests and Deacons as Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distribute the Eucharist as part of their office and that includes Intinction. Because there is no Ordained Ofice of Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist, EMHE only do what they do under an Indult.

I hope this makes it clear. Whatever EMHE do they do under an Indult. If they are allowed to give our communion by Intintion at any time, it will have to be under the Indult. At the same time, if the Indult were to end, EHME would have to stop doing their duties,

They are Laypeople - Not ordained ministers, and there is and must be a difference.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[qmvsimp]

qmvsimp:

I now that Deacons can give the Lord’s Body and Blood by Inctintion, and that is the ordinary way things are to be done. If EHME’s are allowed to distribute the Lord’s Body and Blood by Intinction, it is by Indult and is not the regular way it is to be done.

The sooner we follow the recommendations in the letter I cited earlier, the sooner we can begain to end this crisis and the sooner we can return to the way things were are to be done regularly.

YBIC, Michael

Thanks for the info. I feel much better about the parish that does this now.

 

[palmas85]

John:

The reason is self-evident if you understand the difference between ORDINARY Ministers of the Holy Eucharist (these men are ORDAINED) and laypersons who have not been ordained but are permitted to distribute the Body and Blood of our Lord because of a temporary INDULT.

Priests and Deacons as Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distribute the Eucharist as part of their office and that includes Intinction. Because there is no Ordained Ofice of Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist, EMHE only do what they do under an Indult.

I hope this makes it clear. Whatever EMHE do they do under an Indult. If they are allowed to give our communion by Intintion at any time, it will have to be under the Indult. At the same time, if the Indult were to end, EHME would have to stop doing their duties,

**They are Laypeople - Not ordained ministers, and there is and must be a difference.
**
Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Boy are you ever going to get some folks mad at you for that one. I just answered a post in which the poster said that we are all called to the universal priesthood and therefore all of our hands are consecrated. You my friend are walking on thin ice in claiming a difference in the ordained and the laity.

 

[John_Lilburne]

John:

The reason is self-evident if you understand the difference between ORDINARY Ministers of the Holy Eucharist (these men are ORDAINED) and laypersons who have not been ordained but are permitted to distribute the Body and Blood of our Lord because of a temporary INDULT.

Priests and Deacons as Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distribute the Eucharist as part of their office and that includes Intinction. Because there is no Ordained Ofice of Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist, EMHE only do what they do under an Indult.

I hope this makes it clear. Whatever EMHE do they do under an Indult. If they are allowed to give our communion by Intintion at any time, it will have to be under the Indult. At the same time, if the Indult were to end, EHME would have to stop doing their duties,

They are Laypeople - Not ordained ministers, and there is and must be a difference.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Any document forbidding intinction by an Extraordinary Minsiter of Holy Communion?

I accept there is a difference between a ordinary minister and extraordinary minister. But where is this “temporary indult” idea from? Take the example of a instittuted acolyte. According to the 1972 Motu Proprio MInisteria Quaedam, n. 6:

“… he is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. …”.

As is says “their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution”. They are lay people. But this is not a temporary indult.

The permanence of an instituted acolyte is highlighted by:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 903: “Lay people who possess the required qualities can be admitted permanently to the ministries of lector and acolyte.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1671: “Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use. Among those blessings which are intended for persons - not to be confused with sacramental ordination - are the blessing of the abbott or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins and widows, the rite of religious profession and the blessing of certain ministries of the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.).”

Code of Canon Law, canon 230: “Lay men whose age and talents meet the requirements prescribed by decree of the Bishops’ Conference, can be given the stable ministry of lector and of acolyte …”.

Incidentally a deacon is not a “minister of the Eucharist”. The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 154 highlights this: " 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 …".

 

[Podo2005]

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

You refuse to recieve Christ from an Eucharistic minister… dude grow up