In the Byzantine Church (both Catholic & Orthodox) it is the deacon who adds the Eucharistic bread to the consecrated wine. He is also permitted to distribute the intincted Eucharist.The reason why teshis is reserved to the “sacerdos”, bishop/priest, is that the mingling of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ is a priestly act. Although the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, he can distribute either the Sacred Body or the Precious Blood, but not both.
However, I think that the discussion here centers on what is done in the Latin/Roman Rite.In the Byzantine Church (both Catholic & Orthodox) it is the deacon who adds the Eucharistic bread to the consecrated wine. He is also permitted to distribute the intincted Eucharist.
My point is that it is NOT just a priestly act. And I have seen deacons distribute communion by intinction in the Latin Rite at St. Peters in the Vatican.However, I think that the discussion here centers on what is done in the Latin/Roman Rite.
Which points that it is a discipline rather than a doctrine. I think Ciero made a good comparison here of what is the norm in the East compared to what is the norm in the West. This points that the West can simply change this discipline to let the Deacon distribute by intinction.However, I think that the discussion here centers on what is done in the Latin/Roman Rite.
Regarding the question of intinction, I spoke to an official with the CDWDS concerning who can intinct. During the course of the conversation (it was very early in the morning, Texas time), the prelate explained that this was also a priestly action that is why the documents specifically use the word “Sacerdos”.My point is that it is NOT just a priestly act. And I have seen deacons distribute communion by intinction in the Latin Rite at St. Peters in the Vatican.
A good reason just to give both specicies seperatly.Regarding the question of intinction, I spoke to an official with the CDWDS concerning who can intinct. During the course of the conversation (it was very early in the morning, Texas time), the prelate explained that this was also a priestly action that is why the documents specifically use the word “Sacerdos”.
But as I mentioned, because the East does this it means that this is merely a discipline that the West can go back on and change. Its not unchangeable doctrine as part of Sacred Tradition.Regarding the question of intinction, I spoke to an official with the CDWDS concerning who can intinct. During the course of the conversation (it was very early in the morning, Texas time), the prelate explained that this was also a priestly action that is why the documents specifically use the word “Sacerdos”.
However, we are not talking about what the East does; the discussion centers around the Latin/Roman rite. The explanation given to me by the CDWDS makes sense.But as I mentioned, because the East does this it means that this is merely a discipline that the West can go back on and change. Its not unchangeable doctrine as part of Sacred Tradition.
I am not talking about what the East does. I am talking about the West. My point is that the West can change this because it is a changeable discipline. The explanation of the CDWDS is according to current discipline, it does make sense. Making sense doesn’t mean it cannot be changed. It can. That is what ciero and myself are saying here.However, we are not talking about what the East does; the discussion centers around the Latin/Roman rite. The explanation given to me by the CDWDS makes sense.
In my mind the real problem is receiving the Consicrated Host in the hand. I have personally seen people not consuming the Host. I had to watch where they went and talk to them after mass. The person had put the Holt in his pocket. I have talked to priests about this and they have stories about finding Hosts in pews, on the floor and where else they may be is anyone’s guess. We hear of satinic worshipers taking Hosts for satinic rituals. That is strange to me, because by them doing that, they must believe in the reaal presence??? The church doesn’t want to take the privledge of reeceiving in the hand away regardless the problems. Intinction would necessarily take that away.A good reason just to give both specicies seperatly.
I find little reason not to.
Not to throw this off-topic, but, the Church can rescind CITH. I believe that I responded to your concern in another thread, but, this reference from Redemptionis Sacramentum certainly bears repeating:In my mind the real problem is receiving the Consicrated Host in the hand. I have personally seen people not consuming the Host. I had to watch where they went and talk to them after mass. The person had put the Holt in his pocket. I have talked to priests about this and they have stories about finding Hosts in pews, on the floor and where else they may be is anyone’s guess. We hear of satinic worshipers taking Hosts for satinic rituals. That is strange to me, because by them doing that, they must believe in the reaal presence??? The church doesn’t want to take the privledge of reeceiving in the hand away regardless the problems. Intinction would necessarily take that away.
CITH is the exception, not the rule. Thus, it can be rescinded especially in cases involving what you have described.[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 thefaithful.179
Howver, both you and ciero brought up the practices of the East. That is fine; however, we are not talking about the East. We are discussing what is done in the Latin/Roman rite.I am not talking about what the East does. I am talking about the West. My point is that the West can change this because it is a changeable discipline. The explanation of the CDWDS is according to current discipline, it does make sense. Making sense doesn’t mean it cannot be changed. It can. That is what ciero and myself are saying here.
The practices in the East show us what is doctrine or not. The same reason the West cannot say that leavened bread is invalid matter. Because what is valid and invalid is not limited to one tradition, but to the entire Church. Thus only discipline in the West prohibits leavened bread in ordinary situations. The same with the practice on intinction. Because it happens elsewhere in the Church points to the fact that it is something disciplinary and not doctrinal. This means the West can change its discipline on the matter and adopt what the East does because it does not challenge any unchangeable doctrine in the Church.Howver, both you and ciero brought up the practices of the East. That is fine; however, we are not talking about the East. We are discussing what is done in the Latin/Roman rite.
Given the explanation from the CDWDS, I do not see a reason as to why it should change.
So are laity if needed. The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA has very strict guidelines. One additional distributor of communion for every 150 communicants.In the Byzantine Church (both Catholic & Orthodox) it is the deacon who adds the Eucharistic bread to the consecrated wine. He is also permitted to distribute the intincted Eucharist.
I honestly don’t believe it’s even that. If the pastor/priest is comfortable (and there is a legitimate need) then have a deacon and/or a layperson distribute via intinction. If there is concern about covering all bases, run it past the local bishop for approval.But as I mentioned, because the East does this it means that this is merely a discipline that the West can go back on and change. Its not unchangeable doctrine as part of Sacred Tradition.
I believe that the Ruthenian law states an additional distributor of communion for every 75 people. From what I have been told by one of the Ruthenian bishops that this will most likely be changed in the next edition of the church’s particular law as it has NOT worked out and has been pretty much rejected by the laity.So are laity if needed. The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA has very strict guidelines. One additional distributor of communion for every 150 communicants.