Communion in both species

[tee_eff_em]

As I said before, it is forbidden in our Archdiocese. It’s not an option everywhere in the US

May I ask which archdiocese you belong to?

I’d missed [user]pianistclare[/user]'s post (it being sandwiched between my own).

This sounds extremely fishy. Does your archdiocese ignore other sections of *Redemptionis Sacramentum *as well?


tee

 

[pianistclare]

May I ask which archdiocese you belong to?

Well, our Archbishop used to be president of the usccb…
No intinction in any parish that I know of. Neither with the previous AB either. It’s been about 30 years since I’ve seen it here.

 

[Sirach2]

It is a *legitimate *option (always and everywhere, by my understanding).

But it’s not like you can process up to a priest distributing the host and request, *“I’d like to receive by intinction, please, thanks.” *The option needs be offered before one may partake of it.

Even though it may be a viable option, the reason it is no longer in use is because the Church has restored reception from the chalice as the desired option.

1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
   The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, [and they have seen fit in our dioceses of the USA] not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See.
2. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.

USCCB Guidelines

 

[Brendan]

As I said before, it is forbidden in our Archdiocese. It’s not an option everywhere in the US

Personal intinction, where the one receiving Holy Communion dipps the Host into the Chalice is forbidden everywhere.

Received intinction, where the priest intincts the Host, is an option everywhere. But the choice of the celebrant to offer that, the laity cannot demand it.

Cardinal Arinze, as then head of the CDW, issued the following letter to the US Bishops

1. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur209.htm

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

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

To correspond with R.S. the US bishops updated the Norms

USCCB Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion under Both Kinds

1. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “Each communicant, while holding a Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant replies, ‘Amen,’ receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws.”

1. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[Brendan]

Even though it may be a viable option, the reason it is no longer in use is because the Church has restored reception from the chalice as the desired option.

Your quote did state what you implied it stated.

Intinction IS a reception under both kinds. See my reference further into the USCCB Norms above.

The USCCB thus considers that to have the same value of sign as any other reception under both species.

So given that the Church considered it to be a reception under both kinds, where do you find that reception via the Chalice is a fuller sign than intinction?

And as far as not being used, check this out

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/09/intinction/

 

[Sirach2]

Your quote did state what you implied it stated.

So given that the Church considered it to be a reception under both kinds, where do you find that reception via the Chalice is a fuller sign than intinction?

In the same document as yours, where you cited Item #49.
It is found under item #20, as I had posted.

EDIT: It is also stated clearly in article 11.

As for Father Z’s article, this was an exceptional moment for the ceremony, which may have been requested by the couple. That, of itself, does not indicate it is being received as a desired option in the dioceses of the USA. Father Z tends to promote his own ideology as a norm, rather than an exception.

 

[Brendan]

In the same document as yours, where you cited Item #49.
It is found under item #20, as I had posted.

That did not answer my question, here is what you bolded.

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds

Intinction is a reception under both kinds, so #20 applies equally to Intinction as it does to the Chalice, does it not?

As for Father Z’s article, this was an exceptional moment, and most appropriate for the children to receive their first communion in that manner. That, of itself, does not indicate it is being received, or even a desired option in the dioceses of the USA.

I know three parishes in Detroit where it is commonly used. The pastors implemented it fro the reasons given Cardinal Arinze, it reduces the number of EMHCs needed.

And, of course, Intinction is the ONLY means generally allowed for the Byzantine Catholic Churches

 

[Sirach2]

Brendan:

That did not answer my question, here is what you bolded.

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds

Intinction is a reception under both kinds, so #20 applies equally to Intinction as it does to the Chalice, does it not?

I don’t understand your persistence. The part I bolded and which you requoted is from the USCCB’s #20. Are you overruling their directive in favor of intinction?
Yes, agreed, it is an* option*, but one that is very seldom used in the Ordinary Form of the liturgy [except in other rites of the Church] due to the importance of the “sign value” desired by US bishops.

Aha, I think I perceive your rationale, Brendan … “to reduce the use of EMHC’s”. This is a common complaint of traditionalists.

EDIT: The guidelines also counter that, where the instruction states:

1. When Holy Communion is to be distributed under both species, careful planning should be undertaken so that:

• a suitable number of ministers of Holy Communion are provided at each Mass. For Communion from the chalice, it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ, lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t understand your persistence. The part I bolded and which you requoted is from the USCCB’s #20. Are you overruling their directive in favor of intinction?

Right, let’s go throught this logically

, but one that is very seldom used in the Ordinary Form of the liturgy [except in other rites of the Church] due to the importance of the “sign value” desired by US bishops.

#20 does not state that only the Chalice has that sign value, but in the reception of Communion under Both Kinds

[/QUOTE]

 

[pianistclare]

Our Archbishop has a PhD in Liturgy, and he prefers we not do it for his own learned reasons. I’ll give him the credit of his scholarship myself being merely a layperson.
The good people on CAF certainly have their own opinions on the matter.

It’s not a hill I care to die on. The Church permits receiving on the hand and on the tongue. I receive on the tongue. Nobody in my parish bats an eye.
I don’t know why CAF members get so riled about this.
I’m out. My Advent is supposed to be peace filled and not stressed over matters I cannot change, and really, see no need to.

 

[Sirach2]

There is no ‘overruling’ their directive, only pointing out to you that Communion under Both Kinds, as mentioned in #20, INCLUDES intinction.

Your point would only be valid if intinction was NOT Communion under both kinds, is that your premise?

#20 does not state that only the Chalice has that sign value, but in the reception of Communion under Both Kinds

Technically, intinction IS reception under both species. However, Our Lord did not give it in that manner to His disciples. In that respect, I believe the Bishops are correct in striving to maintain the fullest “sign value” as it was instituted by Christ.

Your argument is not with me, as I am only repeating the guidelines. You may want to contact the USCCB in your attempts to change it to your liking.

1. The General Instruction then indicates that the Diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . .

 

[Phemie]

We were told by a Liturgy professor several years ago that intinction wasn’t an option in Canada because it removed the right of the communicant to receive in the hand. Somewhere else I read that it was indeed allowed if it wasn’t being used to prevent Communion in the hand – IIRC it was a footnote in the 1975 Canadian GIRM.

 

[Brendan]

Technically, intinction IS reception under both species. However, Our Lord did not give it in that manner to His disciples. In that respect, I believe the Bishops are correct in striving to maintain the fullest “sign value” as it was instituted by Christ.

Your argument is not with me, as I am only repeating the guidelines. You may want to contact the USCCB in your attempts to change it to your liking.

You are making a claim that is unsupported. Nowhere will you find the bishops claiming that reception from the Chalice has a greater sign value that reception of both species by Intinction.

I am the one who is going by what the USCCB stated. Simply put, Reception from the Chalice and Intinction are both reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds, and thus maintain the fuller form of sign that the bishops desire.

The USCCB said NOTHING about preferring reception by Chalice over reception by Intinction. Any claim that they did so is a false one.

Also, I would encourage you to take your claim of reception of Holy Communion under both species by Intinction to be simply a technicality to the Eastern Catholic Bishops.

It would be interesting to hear their reply.

 

[Sirach2]

You are making a claim that is unsupported. Nowhere will you find the bishops claiming that reception from the Chalice has a greater sign value that reception of both species by Intinction.

I am the one who is going by what the USCCB stated. Simply put, Reception from the Chalice and Intinction are both reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds, and thus maintain the fuller form of sign that the bishops desire.

The USCCB said NOTHING about preferring reception by Chalice over reception by Intinction. Any claim that they did so is a false one.

Also, I would encourage you to take your claim of reception of Holy Communion under both species by Intinction to be simply a technicality to the Eastern Catholic Bishops.

It would be interesting to hear their reply.

I perceive that you are getting testy over this, Brendan. As I said, my argument is not with you, who prefers apparently to receive by intinction to eliminate EMHC’s and CITH.

Yes, I agreed that technically, intinction is a viable option. But there is just too much written in the guidelines whereby one may discern the iunderlying intent of partaking from the chalice. As Phemie indicated, their bishops do not want to remove the communicant’s choice to receive in the hand, and thereby do not permit intinction.

It is the choice of the Bishops in each diocese to use the chalice, and it is most probably the reason the majority of parishes do not instinct.

1. Finally, when the one bread is broken, the unity of the faithful is expressed and through Communion they "receive from the one bread the Lord’s Bodyand from the one** chalice the Lord’s Blood in the same way** that the Apostles received them from the hands of Christ himself
2. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, [take and eat, take and **drink]

the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.

As Clare pointed out, it is not worth arguing over what cannot be changed.

 

[Brendan]

I perceive that you are getting testy over this, Brendan. As I said, my argument is not with you, who prefers apparently to receive by intinction to eliminate EMHC’s and CITH.

I am not making any claim one way or the other, simply what the USCCB states, that the fuller sign value is present, no less than with the chalice.

And no, not testy, just enjoy theological discussion

Yes, I agreed that technically, intinction is a viable option. But there is just too much written in the guidelines whereby one may discern the iunderlying intent of partaking from the chalice. As Phemie indicated, their bishops do not want to remove the communicant’s choice to receive in the hand, and thereby do not permit intinction.

If you investigate a bit more, intinction as mention in Redemptionis Sacramentum and in the USCCB Norms, is not banned anywhere. It is just not commonly used. It is permitted everywhere by the Universal Roman Law. The USCCB had to modify it’s norms when R.S. came out to permit it, because Rome required it to be always an available option.

Personal intinction, where the communicant does so themselves, is banned. Hence Norm #50

It is the choice of the Bishops in each diocese to use the chalice, and it is most probably the reason the majority of parishes do not instinct.

I agree that most parishes choose to offer both species via the Chalice. As to the reasons, that is probably up to each pastor and\or celebrant. as to how to offer that.

sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, [take and eat, take and drink]

that addemdum of your is a theological error. The Sacred Realities are that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

As Clare pointed out, it is not worth arguing over what cannot be changed.

 

[Sirach2]

If you investigate a bit more, intinction as mention in Redemptionis Sacramentum and in the USCCB Norms, is not banned anywhere.** It is just not commonly used.**

I have agreed that it is a valid option four times (Post 62, 67, 70, 72) and I’ll say it one more time just in case you misread them. It is an option that you agree with completely, since you have stated here that you believe intinction is the fullest sign of all. That is your personal opinion, but not one that is shared in the dioceses of the USA.

Furthermore, you have admitted it is only used in three parishes out of the 300+ in the Archdiocese, and these happen to offer the TLM on a weekly basis, so it is not surprising to find this option being used therein. And one of these happens to be your own parish, so naturally, you will be defensive. It is your choice to attend in order to receive in the manner you wish.

Bottom line,* it is not the norm* in any way, shape or form, and your persistence in making it appear that way is ignoble, as is your further comment:

that addendum of your is a theological error. The Sacred Realities are that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Kindly give me credit for having knowledge of this … it is well known by any informed Catholic, and is the wording specifically chosen by the USCCB, which you apparently distorted to make it appear that I had no knowledge of this.
"11. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies
You may have the floor, Brendan. I’m done.

 

[ProVobis]

We were told by a Liturgy professor several years ago that intinction wasn’t an option in Canada because it removed the right of the communicant to receive in the hand. Somewhere else I read that it was indeed allowed if it wasn’t being used to prevent Communion in the hand – IIRC it was a footnote in the 1975 Canadian GIRM.

I would be interested in the theological reasons for doing so. All we seem to be discussing are allowed or tolerated practices, which can change, of course.

 

[Gorgias]

Sirach2:

Technically, intinction IS reception under both species. However, Our Lord did not give it in that manner to His disciples. In that respect, I believe the Bishops are correct in striving to maintain the fullest “sign value” as it was instituted by Christ.

You are making a claim that is unsupported. Nowhere will you find the bishops claiming that reception from the Chalice has a greater sign value that reception of both species by Intinction.

Precisely, Brendan: the sign value (as addressed in “Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America”, #11) is in the species, not in the mode of distribution. You could distribute the Precious Blood in a child’s sippy cup, and the sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds would be ‘full’. (Horribly illicit, but valid and real and full of sign value.)

Reception of the Precious Blood from the chalice is the most common means by which this ‘fuller sign value’ is achieved, but nothing suggests that it is the only means (or even more acceptable means) by which reception of both species occurs.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Aha, I think I perceive your rationale, Brendan … “to reduce the use of EMHC’s”. This is a common complaint of traditionalists.

EDIT: The guidelines also counter that, where the instruction states:

1. When Holy Communion is to be distributed under both species, careful planning should be undertaken so that:

• a suitable number of ministers of Holy Communion are provided at each Mass. For Communion from the chalice, it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ, lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged.

The guidelines also don’t counter that, but rather, recognize that. Earlier:
24. …

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.



tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

Why is it not relevant? Is not intinction reception “under both kinds”, which is a *“more complete sign”**?

I understand that intinction ought not be imposed, in order to allow the option to receive in the hand – But why does offering the option to receive in the hand so frequently *eliminate *the option of receiving by intinction?

As Phemie indicated, their bishops do not want to remove the communicant’s choice to receive in the hand, and thereby do not permit intinction.

I repeat: I wish that offering one *option *did not prohibit another option?

I would not want to see intinction imposed, and thus eliminating the option to receive in the hand, but I know parishes where the two modes are offered side by side as – you know – *options *-- And wish that would happen more frequently.

:twocents:

tee