Communion

[Luke1_48]

Are priests allowed to dip the host in the precious blood when distributing communion? There is some confusion with the release of the GIRM

 

[JCPhoenix]

Yes, it is OK…in fact, there’s a term for it but I don’t remember what it is. I’m sure one of the more informed people here can assist with this.
In the Byzantine Rite, from what I understand, this is a common way to distribute Communion…anyone able to verify this?

Personally, I would prefer this option as I get cold sores. Sometimes, when I’m sure I’m healthy (and it’s not flu season) I will partake of the communal cup, but I’m so worried that any kind of disturbance, even a pimple around my lip could be the virus I usually abstain. I really would like to be able to recieve both species ALL the time…but such is the cross God gave me to bear.

Anyway, I KNOW this has been discussed before and I’m sure someone will be along soon with links to explain the best answer to your question!

 

[Luke1_48]

Can a Latin Rite Church reinstitute recieving communion kneeling at the altar rail?

 

[alyssa]

Are priests allowed to dip the host in the precious blood when distributing communion?

Isn’t it an indult?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The GIRM does not forbid reception while kneeling, but particular law of the United States does. Therefore while it is perfectly licit to kneel throughout most of the world, no Latin Rite churches in the US could receive in that manner.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JCPhoenix:

Yes, it is OK…in fact, there’s a term for it but I don’t remember what it is. I’m sure one of the more informed people here can assist with this.
In the Byzantine Rite, from what I understand, this is a common way to distribute Communion…anyone able to verify this?

QUOTE]

It’s called intinction. I think you have to have permission in the Latin Rite, but I’m not sure. The laity cannot just decide to do it. That is to say, I can’t take the Host from the priest, then go to the EMHC and dip the host in the Most Precious Blood before consumming the Sacred Species.

 

[JCPhoenix]

Andreas Hofer:

The GIRM does not forbid reception while kneeling, but particular law of the United States does. Therefore while it is perfectly licit to kneel throughout most of the world, no Latin Rite churches in the US could receive in that manner.

That is not true. According to the Vatican Document, “Redemptiomist Sacramentum” it states, “It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faith ful wholly on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to recieve the Eucharist kneeling.” This applies to the entire Church.

This does not differ in the US. If you have any other “law” to cite, please post it. I’m sure we all want to be sure to be informed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Luke1:48:

Are priests allowed to dip the host in the precious blood when distributing communion? There is some confusion with the release of the GIRM

Yes a priest may with the Bishops permission distribute Holy Communion and only a priest may do this. It must also be remembered that one may only receive directly into the mouth when this is done. In the US a person has the option of receiving either on the tongue or in the hand which means that the priest MUST accommodate either method of reception. No one can be forced to receive under this form either.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Andreas Hofer:

The GIRM does not forbid reception while kneeling, but particular law of the United States does. Therefore while it is perfectly licit to kneel throughout most of the world, no Latin Rite churches in the US could receive in that manner.

Rome has reminded the US Bishops that no one can be denied Holy Communion because they kneel to receive.

 

[Mysty101]

Both these documents, plus the questions I have sited are located on the USCCB site
usccb.org/index.htm

click departments on the left and then liturgy on the next screen
RS is Redemptionis Sacramentum in the documents section
from RS
**

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. 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 **.

Would it be considered refusing Communion, if the minister refused to allowed the communicant to intinct?

from GIRM (Roman Missal)

1. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

1. 
   *]If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants’ drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.
   *]If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

1. 1. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says, Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

   1. 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.

 

[Mysty101]

continued–

I did once see a document where it was permissible for the communicant to take the host over to the minister of the cup, and the minister of the cup would intinct the host and distribute. Of course this could not be allowed if the minister of the cup were an EMHC, but I’m not sure if the minister were a priest. Obviously self-intinction is out, since it would be self communication which is forbidden.

from rs
**

91.

In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”177 Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
(My comment–or wish to receive the Precious Blood by intinction)

92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.179

93. The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.180

94. It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.181 Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

**

 

[Deacon_Ed]

To all: communion by intinction is permitted in the United States. The communicant may not dip the Blessed Sacrament into the Precious Blood but must, rather, hand the host to the Minister of Holy Communion (bishop, priest, deacon, Extraordinary Minister) who will dip it and then place it on the person’s tongue.

And, no, it’s not refusing communion to one who is denied the action of self-intinction. That person has, in fact, already “received communion” when he or she was given the host. That communion has not been consumated by consumption is a secondary concern.

As for a Latin church installing a communion rail and returning to communion kneeling – that would be between the parish and their bishop. The altar rail is not the issue, but an entire parish kneeling might be considered a problem.

Deacon Ed

 

[kmktexas]

Many churches have reinstalled altar rails. I agree that it would be “iffy” for the priest to instruct the faithful as a group to kneel for communion at the rail. Having an altar rail serves many other purposes besides a place to kneel for communion.

On the other hand, I know of one parish where at certain Latin Rite (not TLM) Masses virtually everyone uses the altar rail. It is a historic building and the bishop’s effort to remove the rail was not allowed. I do not think that the Pastor instructs the parishioners one way or the other but I do know that almost everyone kneels to receive.

 

[Mysty101]

Deacon Ed:

To all: communion by intinction is permitted in the United States. The communicant may not dip the Blessed Sacrament into the Precious Blood but must, rather, hand the host to the Minister of Holy Communion (bishop, priest, deacon, Extraordinary Minister) who will dip it and then place it on the person’s tongue.

from RS 103

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

There is no provision for the procedure you suggest.

 

[Luke1_48]

I was wondering because there is a novous ordo parish near my house where the entire congregation still recieves communion at the altar rail.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mysty101:

from RS 103
There is no provision for the procedure you suggest.

First, you have misplaced the “only” – it refers to the “on the tongue” portion of the sentence. Secondly, the existing procedure in the United States is exactly as I have described it per the USCCB and the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

What you are seeing in RS is for cases where communion under both species is offered only by intinction. Even then the American Bishops have asked for clarification since the number of communicantes in the United States would preclude a single priest offering communion by intinction.

Deacon Ed

 

[Mysty101]

From the document you cited

1. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (53)

Where is the procedure you suggest? I see no documentation for this .

 

[puzzleannie]

Luke1:48:

Are priests allowed to dip the host in the precious blood when distributing communion? There is some confusion with the release of the GIRM

yes. the practice is called intinction. the priest or deacon may do it, but nobody else, and a paten is required. it is much easier to do with communicants kneeling at a communion rail. some, including Fr. Peter Stravinskis of Catholic Answers, prefers it as the optimal method of reception under both species, and I agree. What is forbidden is the communicant taking the host, dipping it in the chalice and thereby self-communicating. Ems or whatever they are called now may never do this practice.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mysty101:

From the document you cited
Where is the procedure you suggest? I see no documentation for this .

You are correct. The summary of the procedure is given as:

Other matters addressed in the document include planning and preparations for the liturgy to ensure sufficient quantities of bread and wine for the congregation; appropriate vessels for holding the Eucharist during the Mass; distribution of the Precious Blood by intinction, in which the minister dips the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and places it on the tongue of the communicant; the disposition of the consecrated hosts and the Precious Blood after the congregation has received Holy Communion; and the purification of the sacred vessels used for Holy Communion.

Note the reference to “minister” which is broader than “priest.” Deacons are, of course, ordinary ministers of Holy Communion and, thus, would be permitted to give communion by intinction without special permission. The paragraph above comes from a summary document issued by the USCCB.

And, as I said, the Bishops have asked for clarification on the restatment in RS because, in our American tradition, there are too many people going to communion to restrict intinction to the priest. Once again there is a different perception in Rome than we have here.

Deacon Ed

 

[Mysty101]

I still do not see that what you suggest is an approved procedure, Even before RS, EMHC were not allowed to pour the Precious Blood, or get the consecrated Hosts from the tabernacle. I cannot see how the instructions for intinction could be interpreted to allow a Communicant to take a consecrated host from one station to another.