Deacons and intinction

[benedictgal]

Gal, you always tend to lean to the extreme interpretation of everything. What you say “clearly indicates” sometimes to others indicates something totally different, like the last issue you and I discussed, the deacon going to the tabernacle in the mass.
You were wrong in your interpretation that time, and I think you are backing yourself into the proverbial corner again. For whatever reason, you always try to minimize the deacon’s role. You disguise it by the reasoning, “the documents say so”, but it’s funny how it always goes against the deacon playing a larger role than 40 years ago.

There are many actions by the priest in the liturgy which are mentioned and treated as “presidential” in the rubrics of celebrations; this is not one of them. If it is, please provide that documentation.

Don’t get me wrong, I too am assigned to a parish that does not employ intinction as the norm, only at daily mass and only with the pastor as celebrant. That is his decision. I have no ambition to distribute by intinction, I am the deacon, according to the GIRM I “should” be the minister of the cup with the celebrant and that’s where I serve every time I am at mass.

But again, you would receive more respect for your knowledge and contacts if you would be a little less rigid and legalistic in your interpretations.

PS. I would comment that your UNDERSTANDING of the prefect’s words is in question, not his words. Sometimes when we want to hear something, we hear it. Try using an unbiased ear. JMHO. God bless.

In the previous case, it’s too early for you to call for victory, since I am awaiting my response from the USCCB.

In the matter of intinction, I was told by the CDWDS that intinction is for the priest. Again, what you seem to ignore is that the Latin text of the GIRM bears the word “sacerdos” and not “diacono”. That is a huge difference.

If you and the rest are in doubt, why don’t you contact the CDWDS yourselves? I am not trying to denigrate what the deacon does, but, he is not at the same level as the priest and bishop. There are certain things that are exclusive to the priest and bihsop during the Mass; intinction is one of them.

By the way, I have had lengthy conversations with the CDWDS about this matter during the course of several months. I needed o get the correct information to report back to the parish and the priests in question.

Before you start accusing me of not listening to things correctly or claiming victory because you think you are right and I am wrong, I would, as I stated before, invite you to contact the CDWDS yourself.

 

[Lapey]

I find that it interesting that it is written as such and interpeted as such, yet as a deacon I was never istructed not to do intinction and it is not because I was not properly formed.
There are several oversights in the GIRM when it comes to deacons. Facilities that we do have, but not expressly spelled out.
Case in point, during the purification of vessels, the deacon or preist has a private prayer he says, in the revised rite it omited thast the deacon is to say the prayer which has changed, and yes we are to still say the prayer when the revised missal goes into effect.
Another point is that the GIRM indicates that the Deacon distributes the precious blood, since by his office he is the keeper of the cup, it does say that the preist distributes the precious body, but yet, the deacon is permited in his faclities is allowed to distribute both.
Despite the translation you got, this could very well be the same case. An oversight.

Agreed 100%. There are many ommisions in the GIRM, the permanant diaconate is newly reinstituted. Mother Church is learning how to use the deacons to the fullest of their abilities and faculties. Many in the Church world who wold onto the “old way” tend to send the deacon off to the side, but this is changing. The new generation of PDs are quietly showing the Church that we are needed, in the places appropriate to this office.

As I have said many times, I have no ambition to be a mini-priest, all I want is to be the deacon God has called me to be!!!

 

[benedictgal]

Agreed 100%. There are many ommisions in the GIRM, the permanant diaconate is newly reinstituted. Mother Church is learning how to use the deacons to the fullest of their abilities and faculties. Many in the Church world who wold onto the “old way” tend to send the deacon off to the side, but this is changing. The new generation of PDs are quietly showing the Church that we are needed, in the places appropriate to this office.

As I have said many times, I have no ambition to be a mini-priest, all I want is to be the deacon God has called me to be!!!

Again, you need to look at the Latin text before you make the claim that this is an omission. As I stated in my initial reply to you, if the words “diacono/diaconus” appeared in the Latin, then that would mean that the deacon can administer Holy Communion by intinction. However, the only word that appears is “sacerdos”. This means that it is only for the priest/bishop.

It would do well for this new generation of PDs to read the GIRM and the accompanying documents before making claims about people wanting to shove them off the side. Each member of the clergy has his particular role in the Mass. According to the GIRM, intinction is not one for the deacon.

 

[FAB]

Again, you need to look at the Latin text before you make the claim that this is an omission. As I stated in my initial reply to you, if the words “diacono/diaconus” appeared in the Latin, then that would mean that the deacon can administer Holy Communion by intinction. However, the only word that appears is “sacerdos”. This means that it is only for the priest/bishop.

It would do well for this new generation of PDs to read the GIRM and the accompanying documents before making claims about people wanting to shove them off the side. Each member of the clergy has his particular role in the Mass. According to the GIRM, intinction is not one for the deacon.

Benedical, there are other places in the latin that omit “diacono/diaconus” in the roles of the liturgy which are part of the facilities of the deacon as I pointed out. It appears that many see this as the same case. The writers of the documents are not infalable.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedical, there are other places in the latin that omit “diacono/diaconus” in the roles of the liturgy which are part of the facilities of the deacon as I pointed out. It appears that many see this as the same case. The writers of the documents are not infalable.

However, even the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion in the United States only mention the word “priest” in the section that treats intinction. When I asked the CDWDS if they could put the interpretation in writing, the prelate gave me all of the citations. He even went on to say that in our own norms (the ones for the United States), it is clearly indicated that it is for the priest/bishop to intinct.

This is not a maatter of “accidental” omission, as you claim. There are some things within the Mass that are simply not within the purview of the deacon to do. Intinction is one of them. This is also not something that the local Ordinary can change since it would have to take an adaptation made by the entire national episcopal conference and approved by Rome.

Why is it so hard for folks to understand?

 

[MarkThompson]

Point still stands. In the Latin, Deacons are overlooked. It is perhaps that the numbers of deacons is the largest in the United States and Rome is use to have transitional and not permenant deacons. Even here, I have found liturgist and preist who have a lack of knowlegde as to the role of deacons in the liturgy.
I think that if the method of communion was change to intinction, the interpetation would change very quickly. Right now its just a side issue since most church’s give communion under both species which is the perfered method in the GIRM.

Good point, FAB. There are a number of omissions in the GIRM. For instance, at Mass without a deacon, the GIRM (#134) states that when the priest announces the Gospel and makes the sign of the cross on his forehead, mouth, and breast, the people all do the same. But at Mass with a deacon, the instruction (#175) says that the deacon makes the sign of the cross on his forehead, mouth, and breast, but it says nothing about the people. I guess somebody determined to “obey the documents” as closely as possible would have to insist that the presence of the instruction for the people in one case, and its omission in the other, signifies that the people should make these signs of the cross only when a priest, but not a deacon, is announcing the Gospel. Such a person might even invent a pseudotheological rationale to justify making such a distinction, perhaps holding that only the sacerdos is important enough that people ought make the sign of the cross when he does, and that the diaconus is clearly inferior in this regard.

Obviously nobody would propound such a crazy theory! It’s just an omission in the writing of the GIRM, that’s all (the fault is in the Latin, by the way, and carries through into the English). I guess the lesson is that we sometimes have to take the seemingly authoritative dictates of the GIRM cum grano salis, and derive the authentic interpretation from the overall mind of the Church rather than clinging for dear life to the letter of an occasionally flawed document.

 

[Lapey]

In the previous case, it’s too early for you to call for victory, since I am awaiting my response from the USCCB.Not a victory, just the way it is. The document would be in direct conflict with the cerimonial of bishops if otherwise and we both know that is not acceptible.

In the matter of intinction, I was told by the CDWDS that intinction is for the priest. Again, what you seem to ignore is that the Latin text of the GIRM bears the word “sacerdos” and not “diacono”. That is a huge difference.

If you and the rest are in doubt, why don’t you contact the CDWDS yourselves? I am not trying to denigrate what the deacon does, but, he is not at the same level as the priest and bishop. Noone here has ever tried to put the deacon on the level of the priest. But you and many have constantly tried to seperate the levels of the hierarchy of the Church more than it is.There are certain things that are exclusive to the priest and bihsop during the Mass; intinction is one of them.You are right here, except on intinction for the reason you say it is. This is not a presidential action reserved to teh priest. Is it most often held to the priest and bishop, yes. But it is the local ordinary, then the pastor’s discretion to allow it. This is my understanding from formation.

By the way, I have had lengthy conversations with the CDWDS about this matter during the course of several months. I needed o get the correct information to report back to the parish and the priests in question.

Before you start accusing me of not listening to things correctly or claiming victoryagain, you and I are on the same side, there is no victory or defeat. because you think you are right and I am wrong, I would, as I stated before, invite you to contact the CDWDS yourself.

sacerdos…quick search of a definition. I found two; first the priest or priestess; second, sacred, as in office of minister. So if I have a rigid belief as you, I would think a priestess can intinct, but a deacon cannot. Do I have it right? The term used to describe the sacred office of a minister, applies to priest, bishop and deacon; not just the first two.

 

[Cristiano]

Benedical, there are other places in the latin that omit “diacono/diaconus” in the roles of the liturgy which are part of the facilities of the deacon as I pointed out. It appears that many see this as the same case. The writers of the documents are not infalable.

That does not mean that deacons are included. I think that deacons should be included in the distribution by intinction; however, I stand with Benedictgal and her interpretation of the GIRM. The document is quite clear and it leaves not room for the deacons at this point in time, the usage of the Latin words is quite specific. You are quite right when you say that the compilers of the documents are not infallible but the one that authorizes them should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that what you are suggesting is true, and if it is true then you should make an effort to get a document from the CDWDS to support your thesis.

 

[Lapey]

Why is it so hard for folks to understand?

Because we live in this ministry that you claim to know so much better than the Church and it’s ministers.

There is no need to keep pointing out everything that a deacon cannot do, we know what we cannot do. Try teaching what the true role of a deacon is, in and out of liturgy.

 

[Cristiano]

sacerdos…quick search of a definition. I found two; first the priest or priestess; second, sacred, as in office of minister. So if I have a rigid belief as you, I would think a priestess can intinct, but a deacon cannot. Do I have it right? The term used to describe the sacred office of a minister, applies to priest, bishop and deacon; not just the first two.

No, you have it completely wrong! The Catholic Church uses the term sacerdos from its true Latin origins “sacere” that is a combination of sacer, sacra, sacrum and facio, facere (to make sacred). The Catholic Church recognizes that only a priest or a bishop can make the species sacred. Deacons, “priestess”, or anyone else cannot make the species sacred. Please use Catholic dictionaries to discuss Catholic lingo.

 

[benedictgal]

Because we live in this ministry that you claim to know so much better than the Church and it’s ministers.

There is no need to keep pointing out everything that a deacon cannot do, we know what we cannot do. Try teaching what the true role of a deacon is, in and out of liturgy.

There is also no need to be rude. Why are you criticizing me when I have taken the trouble to do as much accurate research as I can do?

 

[puzzleannie]

Honestly? Many Catholics LOVE to be the arbiters of what is right or wrong, allowed or not allowed rather than put their trust in the Church. Many simply cannot be obedient to their pastor and their bishops because their personal interpretations of their dog-eared and high-lighted copies of the GIRM and RS simply don’t allow them to be.

have you noticed we sometimes use the GIRM and RS the way some apologists use scripture, picking and choosing the sections we want to prove a point, and proof-texting to support our own views.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

I know that currently deacons are not allowed to distribute Holy Communion under both species by intinction. However, I don’t see much logic to that. Anyway, I want to know what you all think about it. Remember, it’s clear that deacons currently are not allowed to distribute Holy Communion under both species by intinction. This discussion is about whether they should or should not be allowed to do so in the future.

---

Not ponly are deacons not allowed intinction,l neither are the lay people. It is forbidden by the CHurch.

jr

 

[Lapey]

There is also no need to be rude. Why are you criticizing me when I have taken the trouble to do as much accurate research as I can do?

I don’t mean to be rude or criticize, but you always comment on everything as you are the all knowing and the only one who can use reason, only your opinions matter; and, quite frankly, you do not serve in the role that you attempt to legislate. You have not gone through the five years of formation to serve in this role. Sometimes a different tone on your part would recieve a different tone on my part; it takes two to tango…

Even after we get an easy to see explanation of the other case, you still choose to “question” because the word deacon does not show up. Well this Church we call Mother Church has not had deacons serve in this role that we permanent deacons currently serve in for hundreds of years.

I say you question because you feel you have to “put the deacon in his place” so to speak. It seems you have decided in some instances to back the deacon down to his level, when it is not necessary.

My only point is, the fact that intinction is hardly ever employed, is because most bishops do not give permission, and if he would most priests do not use this method of distribution. My pastor does at daily mass, he serves alone almost always, when I serve he distributes without useing intinction. I believe this is in fact the proper way, the priest only, but not because it is a presidential “co-mingling” action held only to priest and bishop. It is just the norm from years back when there were no PDs and intinction was used to allow one priest to communicate both species.

PS. Accurate research is one thing, but the legalistic and extreme interpretation of that research is different; as was illustrated in the other topic.

 

[Lapey]

No, you have it completely wrong! The Catholic Church uses the term sacerdos from its true Latin origins “sacere” that is a combination of sacer, sacra, sacrum and facio, facere (to make sacred). The Catholic Church recognizes that only a priest or a bishop can make the species sacred. Deacons, “priestess”, or anyone else cannot make the species sacred. Please use Catholic dictionaries to discuss Catholic lingo.

This was just a poor way of being silly. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.

 

[Lapey]

There is also no need to be rude. Why are you criticizing me when I have taken the trouble to do as much accurate research as I can do?

Gal, part of the problem here is the fact that I probably did not explain myself in my opinion very well. Heck, I may have even said the deacon could use this method, or alluded to that. I am not going back to see what I wrote.

I do believe in what the GIRM states, the priest is the only minister who can utilize this method; I simply disagree with the reason given by you. Therefore, it is in my opinion that this discipline could be changed, and probably will in the future. But we all know that our Holy Mother Church, rightfully and thankfully works in centuries, not days, weeks, months, or years. In other words, I agree without a doubt that to confect the Eucharist is a sacred and presidential action, as is all of the Eucharistic prayer through the doxology, the fraction rite and communion rite is different and not a presidential action. The fraction rite does allow the deacon to assist if needed. The communion rite can be done entirely by the deacon if the priest were to become ill at that point; furthermore is done entirely by the deacon in a communion service. I understand intinction is never a part of a communion service.

My only point is, intinction is not prohibited by the “presidential” level of the action, but by discipline; that is all.

That may amplify the appearance of rudeness and criticism. If I didn’t make my total opinion apparent I am sorry.

 

[Newbie2]

I do not want to speak for Brendan so I will let him do it himself through quoting him. Pay particular attention to the part I have bolded.

Thanks!

Newbie, to be more clear,

In our parish, the normal way that both species of the Eucharist is offered is by intinction.

My parish is within the Archdiocese of Detroit.

FYI,

Here is a picture of my daughter’s First Holy Communion, you can see what I mean

(In this thread)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7753072&postcount=7

:doh2: I indeed missed “in my parish”. Obviously, I haven’t visited there yet…

Why is it so hard for folks to understand?

There is also no need to be rude. Why are you criticizing me when I have taken the trouble to do as much accurate research as I can do?

Well, BG, maybe it’s because:

you always comment on everything as you are the all knowing and the only one who can use reason, only your opinions matter; and, quite frankly, you do not serve in the role that you attempt to legislate. You have not gone through the five years of formation to serve in this role. Sometimes a different tone on your part would recieve a different tone on (our) part; it takes two to tango…

…with which I make similar observations. It seems that much of the time it’s your way or the highway when it comes to interpretation, and, no offense, but anybody nowadays can cut and paste off the internet. Tone goes both ways, M’dear.

 

[FAB]

What is always interesting in these typ of threads, and I’ve stated this before, the final decision is up the the local ordianry. I know this sends many into a tailspin, but it is his responsiblity to make such calls.
As I said, inmy formation, we were warned of a number of things that we do not have the facilities to do, intinction was not one of them. A parsih not to far from me uses intinction, the deacons perform it. There is often real world considerations that needto be taken into account.
I gave serveral examples in the liturgy that says priest, and also mean deacon because other documents, other than the GIRM give the deacon his facilities.
The survey is at fault because we as deacons already practices this faciltity. It is actually a not so well ruse to suggest intinction is a way to stop communuion in the hand.

 

[benedictgal]

What is always interesting in these typ of threads, and I’ve stated this before, the final decision is up the the local ordianry. I know this sends many into a tailspin, but it is his responsiblity to make such calls.
As I said, inmy formation, we were warned of a number of things that we do not have the facilities to do, intinction was not one of them. A parsih not to far from me uses intinction, the deacons perform it. There is often real world considerations that needto be taken into account.
I gave serveral examples in the liturgy that says priest, and also mean deacon because other documents, other than the GIRM give the deacon his facilities.
The survey is at fault because we as deacons already practices this faciltity. It is actually a not so well ruse to suggest intinction is a way to stop communuion in the hand.

No. It is not up to the local Ordinary. He cannot set aside what is in the GIRM, especially when the language specifically states one thing. This is beyond his competency. If he wants to make and amendment, he would have to submit it to the USCCB as an adaptation, get it approved by 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops and then send it to Rome for recognitio. At this stage, Rome will either grant or deny the recognitio.

Whenever folks do not agree with something, they always bring up the “real world”. Well, the documents exist for a reason. They are not meant to be up in a vacuum. They are meant to provide guidance. If one does not have an extra priest around for the distribution of Holy Communion by intinction, then you don’t distribute Holy Communion in that mode, unless the priest is the only one who will be distributing Holy Communion.

 

[Lapey]

No. It is not up to the local Ordinary. He cannot set aside what is in the GIRM, especially when the language specifically states one thing. This is beyond his competency. If he wants to make and amendment, he would have to submit it to the USCCB as an adaptation, get it approved by 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops and then send it to Rome for recognitio. At this stage, Rome will either grant or deny the recognitio.

Whenever folks do not agree with something, they always bring up the “real world”. Well, the documents exist for a reason. They are not meant to be up in a vacuum. They are meant to provide guidance. If one does not have an extra priest around for the distribution of Holy Communion by intinction, then you don’t distribute Holy Communion in that mode, unless the priest is the only one who will be distributing Holy Communion.

But is it prohibited because it is in the GIRM, or is it prohibited in the GIRM because it is a presidential function? You still ignore this. It is not a PF, my opinion.