Communion

[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.

Prior to RS all those things were permitted to EMHCs. There was an indult to allow them to pour the precious blood, and they could and still can get the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle (although it is preferred that a cleric do so).

Deacon Ed

 

[Mysty101]

Do you have documentation for this indult?

Also, even if this is the case, there is still no documentation to support the intinction procedure you suggest.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mysty101:

Do you have documentation for this indult?

Also, even if this is the case, there is still no documentation to support the intinction procedure you suggest.

All I can find now is the denial of the indult when requested in 2002. Prior to that there had been an approved indult, but it seems to have been removed from the USCCB website with the denial of the most current request. BTW, the bishops again requested an indult and the second request is still pending, but will probably be denied for the same reason the first request was denied.

And I cannot find documentation to support what I presented. This was (and is) the procedure in my diocese. What is covered in RS and in the GIRM refers to the case where intinction is the only means of distributing communion. It does not cover the specific of when a communicant wants to use intinction but that is not the method being offered. I’ll have to follow up on that.

Deacon Ed

 

[kmktexas]

And I cannot find documentation to support what I presented. This was (and is) the procedure in my diocese. What is covered in RS and in the GIRM refers to the case where intinction is the only means of distributing communion. It does not cover the specific of when a communicant wants to use intinction but that is not the method being offered. I’ll have to follow up on that.

Deacon Ed,

The document you referenced includes:

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.

If there was a communicant who wanted to intinct at a Mass where intinction was not being offered, the communicant would have to hand the host to the Minister (ordinary or EMHC), who would intinct the host and then the communicant would receive. This seems to be problematic if unplanned for. First, the Minister of the Cup usually has his hands full with the cup and the purifier. Second, it is not usual to have a paten in use at the Communion stations for the Cup. It seems like the paten is mandatory - as well as prudent.

 

[Mysty101]

Deacon Ed:

All I can find now is the denial of the indult when requested in 2002. Prior to that there had been an approved indult, but it seems to have been removed from the USCCB website with the denial of the most current request. BTW, the bishops again requested an indult and the second request is still pending, but will probably be denied for the same reason the first request was denied.

And I cannot find documentation to support what I presented. This was (and is) the procedure in my diocese. What is covered in RS and in the GIRM refers to the case where intinction is the only means of distributing communion. It does not cover the specific of when a communicant wants to use intinction but that is not the method being offered. I’ll have to follow up on that.

Deacon Ed

I have seen the procedure you suggest documented on a diocesean level, but not found documentation on a national or vatican level.

I am trying to discern this whole process, and which instruction to follow. I personally think that if our first priority is ascertaining that either sacred species in not to be profaned, (which is my first priority) how could you use intinction (by any minister) without using a paten? I have actually felt as if I had been struck when I caught a drop of the Precious Blood on a purificator.

But aside from my personal feelings RS states:
**

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.

No matter what anyone says, I am accountable if I allow this .
**

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Yes, self-communication and self-intinction is prohibited. Of that there can be no doubt.

Deacon Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Several posts have stated when “intinction is the only means of distributing Communion.” In the US Intinction cannot be the only means of distributing Holy Communion. Because with intinction one can only receive on the tongue. In the US everyone has the option of receiving in their hand. Now I believe that intinction could be the only means of receiving under both forms, but it could never be the only means of receiving.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Br. Rich SFO:

Several posts have stated when “intinction is the only means of distributing Communion.” In the US Intinction cannot be the only means of distributing Holy Communion. Because with intinction one can only receive on the tongue. In the US everyone has the option of receiving in their hand. Now I believe that intinction could be the only means of receiving under both forms, but it could never be the only means of receiving.

Br. Rich,

You are correct. In fact, the bishops have said that if a priest were to use this so as to suppress the possibility of the communicant receiving on the tongue it would be reprehensible!

At the same time, the rules were written in Rome where, technically, there is no indult to receive in the hand. As a result, the use of intinction for giving communion under both species is acceptable (but not common). It is usually found in very small parishes where a single priest can handle the load.

Deacon Ed