Deacons and intinction

[benedictgal]

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.

It is a priestly function as the GIRM only lists the sacerdos as the one who is to do it, not the diacono. The GIRM specifies this quite clearly: Sacerdos, Priest, Sacerdote. I could list all of the languages where No. 287 uses the word “priest”.

 

[Lapey]

It is a priestly function as the GIRM only lists the sacerdos as the one who is to do it, not the diacono. The GIRM specifies this quite clearly: Sacerdos, Priest, Sacerdote. I could list all of the languages where No. 287 uses the word “priest”.

You still are not hearing me. That does NOT MEAN THAT IS A PRESIDENTIAL FUNCTION!

 

[John_Lilburne]

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.

As I have posted in another thread (#21 of forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=593313&page=2 ):

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“287. 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.”

Here is the description of the normal manner of receiving Communion, from the GIRM:

“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.”

In both cases the Communion Minister is described as “the priest”. But lay people can also be the communion ministers. From the GIRM:

“100. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.”

So my understanding is that lay people can distribute communion, including by intinction, as extraordinary ministers.

Newly posted:

Maybe tomorrow the Pope will approve a document saying something like deacons and extraordinary ministers, in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, may distribute the Precious Blood and the consecrated hosts, but not the two together in the form of intinction. But I am not aware of an official document that has this very specific instruction, the reasoning of which would be difficult to understand given the Eastern Rite practice.

 

[benedictgal]

As I have posted in another thread (#21 of forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=593313&page=2 ):

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“287. 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.”

Here is the description of the normal manner of receiving Communion, from the GIRM:

“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.”

In both cases the Communion Minister is described as “the priest”. But lay people can also be the communion ministers. From the GIRM:

“100. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.”

So my understanding is that lay people can distribute communion, including by intinction, as extraordinary ministers.

Newly posted:

Maybe tomorrow the Pope will approve a document saying something like deacons and extraordinary ministers, in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, may distribute the Precious Blood and the consecrated hosts, but not the two together in the form of intinction. But I am not aware of an official document that has this very specific instruction, the reasoning of which would be difficult to understand given the Eastern Rite practice.

John, what the CDWDS official told me was that intinction was reserved to the priest/bishop. I even posted the Latin original of No. 287. The wording specifically states “sacerdos”.

What the Eastern Rites do is one thing: this discussion centers around the practice for the Latin/Roman Rite.

 

[FAB]

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.

Benedictgal, I know you have made this augumement before. I have made the augument, that in the canon gives the ordinary the right to make adjustments to the law based on local custom and need. This includes the GIRM. This is one of the first things we were taught in canon law.
As a specific example. When the deacon approached the priest to request his blessing before proclaiming the Gospel, the GIRM instructs that the deacon is to kneel. Also at the time of epiclesis the deacon is also to kneel. Because of pastal reasons, recongizinng the physical limitations of older deacons, my ordianry allows the deacon to bow for the blessing and to stand at the epiclesis.
By your reasoning he cannot do this because he is changing specific sections of the GIRM. You and I both know differently.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, I know you have made this augumement before. I have made the augument, that in the canon gives the ordinary the right to make adjustments to the law based on local custom and need. This includes the GIRM. This is one of the first things we were taught in canon law.
As a specific example. When the deacon approached the priest to request his blessing before proclaiming the Gospel, the GIRM instructs that the deacon is to kneel. Also at the time of epiclesis the deacon is also to kneel. Because of pastal reasons, recongizinng the physical limitations of older deacons, my ordianry allows the deacon to bow for the blessing and to stand at the epiclesis.
By your reasoning he cannot do this because he is changing specific sections of the GIRM. You and I both know differently.

FAB, you are using the straw man argument here. Nice try, but, it does not apply. Your analogy is like comparing apples to jalapenos. It does not work. The bishop has limited authority. He cannot strike out parts of the GIRM because he does not like them, nor is there a compelling reason as to why the deacon should administer Holy Communion via intinction. The GIRM, in just about every language, notes that it is the priest, sacerdos, sacerdote who is to do this. That is the point that you are trying to not see, as I read your posts…

 

[FAB]

FAB, you are using the straw man argument here. Nice try, but, it does not apply. Your analogy is like comparing apples to jalapenos. It does not work. The bishop has limited authority. He cannot strike out parts of the GIRM because he does not like them, nor is there a compelling reason as to why the deacon should administer Holy Communion via intinction. The GIRM, in just about every language, notes that it is the priest, sacerdos, sacerdote who is to do this. That is the point that you are trying to not see, as I read your posts…

Either instructions are are they are not. If the ordianary can give dispinasation on the items I mentioned, why not on intinction? Intructions to instruction, apples to apples.
I go back to my original point, there are a number of places that the GIRM says preist anf exludes deacon even though it falls within the deacon facilities.
Back to the orinial poll. If intiction were made the only option for recieving both species because the recieving on the tongue crowd were to win out, not only would it change from preist and include deacons formally, it would include EMHC. There would be a 2/3 vote.

 

[benedictgal]

Either instructions are are they are not. If the ordianary can give dispinasation on the items I mentioned, why not on intinction? Intructions to instruction, apples to apples.
I go back to my original point, there are a number of places that the GIRM says preist anf exludes deacon even though it falls within the deacon facilities.
Back to the orinial poll. If intiction were made the only option for recieving both species because the recieving on the tongue crowd were to win out, not only would it change from preist and include deacons formally, it would include EMHC. There would be a 2/3 vote.

FAB, your comparisons are stil not applicable. The GIRM specifically states “sacerdos”, not “minister”, not “diacono/diaconus.” What part of the word “sacerdos” do you think applies to deacon or minister? “Sacerdos” is priest.

The Ordinary cannot supercede something like that. It seems to me that you put the Ordinary on the same level as the Holy See in this instance. However, it does not work that way. Furthermore, the Ordinary is bound to ensure the liturgical integrity of his diocese, not try and circumvent the rubrics and take things upon himself that are beyond his competency.

 

[MarkThompson]

Either instructions are are they are not. If the ordianary can give dispinasation on the items I mentioned, why not on intinction? Intructions to instruction, apples to apples.
I go back to my original point, there are a number of places that the GIRM says preist anf exludes deacon even though it falls within the deacon facilities.
Back to the orinial poll. If intiction were made the only option for recieving both species because the recieving on the tongue crowd were to win out, not only would it change from preist and include deacons formally, it would include EMHC. There would be a 2/3 vote.

That’s very true. It’s just like John Lilburne showed above, where, for instance, ¶ 161 of the GIRM says sacerdos (“the Priest”), but it really means “the priest, deacon, or lay minister”). So, obviously, we cannot trust that anyplace the GIRM says sacerdos this means “the priest only and nobody else ever, or else anathema sis!!!” That would be foolishness. Sometimes, like when it talks about distributing Holy Communion, the GIRM just uses “the Priest” as a shorthand, and doesn’t really intend to exclude other ministers, ordinary or extraordinary.
161. Si Communio sub specie tantum panis fit, sacerdos hostiam parum elevatam unicuique ostendit dicens: Corpus Christi. Communicandus respondet: Amen, et Sacramentum recipit, ore vel, ubi concessum sit, manu, pro libitu suo. Communicandus statim ac sacram hostiam recipit, eam ex integro consumit. Si vero Communio fit sub utraque specie, servetur ritus suo loco descriptus (cf. nn. 284 -287 ).

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it. If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is to be followed.
   A deacon or lay minister can, as we all know, distribute Holy Communion under the species of bread and say “The Body of Christ,” just as ¶ 161 describes, even though the instruction itself would appear (to a blind surface reading) to limit the job to the sacerdos only. It thus naturally follows that ¶ 287, which similarly looks on the surface as though it would limit distributing through intinction to the sacerdos, need not be interpreted in such a silly and inflexible way. Anybody seeking to show the opposite would have to find some way to explain how sacerdos in ¶ 161 includes anybody – priest, deacon, or lay minister – while sacerdos in ¶ 287 means a priest and only a priest.

 

[Lapey]

FAB, your comparisons are stil not applicable. The GIRM specifically states “sacerdos”, not “minister”, not “diacono/diaconus.” What part of the word “sacerdos” do you think applies to deacon or minister? “Sacerdos” is priest.

The Ordinary cannot supersede something like that. It seems to me that you put the Ordinary on the same level as the Holy See in this instance. However, it does not work that way. Furthermore, the Ordinary is bound to ensure the liturgical integrity of his diocese, not try and circumvent the rubrics and take things upon himself that are beyond his competency.

I removed my post. sent it to Gal in a PM. Don’t think it needed to keep this disagreement public.

 

[benedictgal]

I would actually challenge those who insist that sacerdoes does not mean priest to perhaps write to the CDWDS. You don’t have to take my word for it. The CDWDS is the rule-making authority here and their interpretation is that the minister of intinction is the priest, the sacerdos, not a deacon (diacono) nor a minister (which can mean either ordinary or extraordinary). I went to the trouble of contacting the CDWDS myself and yet, their answer and interpretation is not sufficient for people. This is sad.

 

[Lapey]

I would actually challenge those who insist that sacerdoes does not mean priest to perhaps write to the CDWDS. You don’t have to take my word for it. The CDWDS is the rule-making authority here and their interpretation is that the minister of intinction is the priest, the sacerdos, not a deacon (diacono) nor a minister (which can mean either ordinary or extraordinary). I went to the trouble of contacting the CDWDS myself and yet, their answer and interpretation is not sufficient for people. This is sad.

I’m not surprised.

At least entertain, just for kicks, Deacon Fab’s argument. What is different in the two sections of the GIRM? If both use the same wording and mean two different things, how do we know which to use where? Is only the priest is the ordinary minister, or refered to as sacerdos ministers, sacred ministers? Deacons Priests and Bishops are sacred ministers by virtue or their ordination, not all are Eucharistic ministers, nor do all have faculties to ordain and/or absolve sin, but all are sacred offices.

What about the point I made about after the doxology? If the priest drops dead, God forbid, at the exact moment after the doxology, can the mass be completed in it’s entirety by the by Deacon Fab and Deacon Lapey who were assisting the late Father so and so? Who will perform the fraction rite, or communicate the deacons and EMHC if any are used?

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not surprised.

At least entertain, just for kicks, Deacon Fab’s argument. What is different in the two sections of the GIRM? If both use the same wording and mean two different things, how do we know which to use where? Is only the priest is the ordinary minister, or refered to as sacerdos ministers, sacred ministers? Deacons Priests and Bishops are sacred ministers by virtue or their ordination, not all are Eucharistic ministers, nor do all have faculties to ordain and/or absolve sin, but all are sacred offices.

What about the point I made about after the doxology? If the priest drops dead, God forbid, at the exact moment after the doxology, can the mass be completed in it’s entirety by the by Deacon Fab and Deacon Lapey who were assisting the late Father so and so? Who will perform the fraction rite, or communicate the deacons and EMHC if any are used?

I do not know if you are being sincere or sarcastic with your line of questioning. There seems to be an opinion in this particular thread that the local Ordinary is the prevailing authority here and not the Holy See. There are other posters who seem to twist the definition of sacerdos to try and make it not mean priests.

The deacon is not at the same level as the priest. He cannot finish the Mass because it does not pertain to him to do. In the event that the priest is incompacitated, another priest needs to finish the Mass. Furthermore the sacrifice is not complete until the priest consumes the Sacred Species. Thus, whether you meant this for sarcasm or not, the question you pose seems to me to be an entrapment of some sort.

Either sacerdos is priest or it is not. The GIRM in practically every language translates 'sacerdos" as priest. That is the point that you and FAB seem to miss. Again, it matters not to me if both of you disregard what I have to say. What is sad is when even the opinion of the CDWDS is thrown out.

The deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, meaning that he distributes either Sacred Species, but, not both simultaneously.

 

[MarkThompson]

At least entertain, just for kicks, Deacon Fab’s argument. What is different in the two sections of the GIRM? If both use the same wording and mean two different things, how do we know which to use where? Is only the priest is the ordinary minister, or refered to as sacerdos ministers, sacred ministers? Deacons Priests and Bishops are sacred ministers by virtue or their ordination, not all are Eucharistic ministers, nor do all have faculties to ordain and/or absolve sin, but all are sacred offices.

Yes, those are good points, Lapey. Obviously sacerdos doesn’t simply mean “the Priest” everywhere it’s used. The same kind of person who would say “My eyes can’t look beyond the borders of paragraph 161; it says sacerdos and that just obviously means Priest” is probably still stuck trying to make sure that they “call no man Father” – after all, how much clearer can you get, right? Call. No. Man. Father. Boom, issue closed. What part of no man didn’t you understand? Don’t start telling me I have to “interpret” such a passage in terms of a “broader context”!

I guess this could all be cleared up if the CDWDS ever cared enough to issue an interpretation, but I’ve never seen anybody provide an authoritative protocol number for such an interpretation so that I could look it up. You must always take recourse to the authoritative documents. If it’s not in the documents it might as well not exist, you know what I mean? Only with a protocol number could such an interpretation be authentic.

 

[ElToro]

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.

Amen.

 

[ElToro]

Benedictgal, I know you have made this augumement before. I have made the augument, that in the canon gives the ordinary the right to make adjustments to the law based on local custom and need. **This includes the GIRM. This is one of the first things we were taught in canon law. **

As a specific example. When the deacon approached the priest to request his blessing before proclaiming the Gospel, the GIRM instructs that the deacon is to kneel. Also at the time of epiclesis the deacon is also to kneel. Because of pastal reasons, recongizinng the physical limitations of older deacons, my ordianry allows the deacon to bow for the blessing and to stand at the epiclesis.
By your reasoning he cannot do this because he is changing specific sections of the GIRM. You and I both know differently.

You’re absolutely right. If you step back and take a look at this matter it’s fairly amusing. First the language is not so crystal clear that it does not require some level of interpretation. So what’s the solution? Contact your local ordinary. He may or may not consult others in his decision but if one of his priests or deacons asked him to rule on this I am certain he would – and he has the authority to do so.

He would probably also rule on a parish by parish basis on something like this. I suspect he would also prefer something like this be first be handled by the pastor and that he would be consulted only if there was a practical problem/objection.

To suggest a local ordinary is not competant to rule on something like this borders on the offensive. Bishops have a gret deal of power – more than many realize.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps we can find some clarification in Cardinal Arinze’s own words.

This was an oral response to litugural questions given my an audience, so it is not a definitive document.

But given, that, I have never heard Cardinal Arinze make statements in opposition to Church teaching on the liturgury in similar circimstants.

However, I noticed in this country many people insist on receiving under two forms – that means, the form of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. If the bishop has approved it, that’s all right. But it means it demands a lot of care because it is so easy to spill the Precious Blood.

It is so easy, and, as you mentioned earlier, in these days of disease, some people are worried if there are up to 50 people drinking from the same cup. Some people are hesitant.

Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the Precious Blood and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.

adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

 

[ElToro]

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.

Of course. What really gets interesting is when the GIRM or RS is extremely clear about defining something the liturgical technician does not like. Some are experts are finding the 1942 letter from some diecastery at the Vatican (that was only addressed to a small, terribly isolated community during WWII) that gave permission to do something under extraordinary circumstances as “proof” that their preference is right – even if it contravenes their beloved GIRM and RS.

 

[Lapey]

I do not know if you are being sincere or sarcastic with your line of questioning. There seems to be an opinion in this particular thread that the local Ordinary is the prevailing authority here and not the Holy See. Speaking of red herring… There are other posters who seem to twist the definition of sacerdos to try and make it not mean priests.

The deacon is not at the same level as the priest. Thanks for puting me in my place, AGAIN. This was never implied or stated, please stop lecturing, you’re off subject. He cannot finish the Mass because it does not pertain to him to do. In the event that the priest is incompacitated, another priest needs to finish the Mass. Furthermore the sacrifice is not complete until the priest consumes the Sacred Species. Thus, whether you meant this for sarcasm or not, the question you pose seems to me to be an entrapment of some sort.You did catch the trap, good job. I’ll adjust the situation a bit; what if he passes directly after communicating the two deacons? Can we not complete the mass?

Either sacerdos is priest or it is not. Thats the whole point you won’t listen to. It is inconsistant to say yes in the instance you site, then no in the one Deacon Fab sites, then ignore the difference and inconsistancy.The GIRM in practically every language translates 'sacerdos" as priest. That is the point that you and FAB seem to miss. Again, it matters not to me if both of you disregard what I have to say. What is sad is when even the opinion of the CDWDS is thrown out.

The deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, meaning that he distributes either Sacred Species, but, not both simultaneously.

I was in agreement with your last statement, mostly I guess because it is something that is raley used. But I believe I am starting to see more the way that Deacon Fab thinks is the correct way to think. Especially after reading the words of the cardinal.

Sorry Gal, you don’t make a good case by saying, “because I said so”, while continuing to ignore the points made by others simply because you feel you are the authority.

 

[benedictgal]

Perhaps we can find some clarification in Cardinal Arinze’s own words.

This was an oral response to litugural questions given my an audience, so it is not a definitive document.

But given, that, I have never heard Cardinal Arinze make statements in opposition to Church teaching on the liturgury in similar circimstants.

adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

However, Brendan, this was done off the cuff and before the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was published in 2004. RS reiterated that it was the priest.

The interpretation that the CDWDS gave me was that the document specifically states “priest”. Since there seems to be so much opposition about this interpretation, maybe I should go ahead and request this in writing even though, at the time of my conversation, I was told by the official that even though they would respond with the same information given to me, it was already stated in the rubrics.