Deacons and intinction

[ciero]

My point is that if it is done in the East it CANT be “wrong” in the west. It may not be the norm in the west but it is not “wrong”.

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.

 

[ElToro]

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.

By golly you are correct:

"§2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

 1o. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy."

I have no idea what you mean when you say it hasn’t worked out. I also didn’t know it was up to the laity to accept or reject those who distribute communion. It’s up to the Church. Long before I even knew about the particular law, we had one elderly priest distributing Holy Communion to about 125 or so communicants each week. There was nothing safe or pretty about that.

 

[ElToro]

like all other polls that ask for opinions on church teaching, doctrine and discipline, this one is worthless as my opinion and yours are irrelevant.

If this is a concern of yours in your work–which means you are a bishop or pastor–refer to the relevant documents and follow them.

If it is not, why are we discussing it?

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.

 

[ElToro]

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.

It’s not clear at all. Go ask your local bishop if he allows it in your diocese. He’ll probably tell you it’s up to your pastor for his parish.

 

[ElToro]

My point is that if it is done in the East it CANT be “wrong” in the West. It may not be the norm in the west but it is not “wrong”.

Precisely.

 

[ciero]

It’s not clear at all. Go ask your local bishop if he allows it in your diocese. He’ll probably tell you it’s up to your pastor for his parish.

As I stated earlier in this thread…I have witnessed it at St Peters in the Vatican…are you saying it was an abuse there?

 

[Newbie2]

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.

The reason for change is another discussion. We are not arguing “why”. We are just saying the for whatever reason, it can be done if the Church so wills it.

Exactly; the facts are that the practice could be changed, precisely because as you point out, C, it’s a disclipine and not a doctrinal matter.

Nobody here is arguing that it **should be **changed or is likely to be changed, BG. I don’t see why you’re arguing against what Constantine is saying. He makes an excellent, valid point.

 

[benedictgal]

I distributed Holy Communion last Sunday as a layman via intinction.

Bishops, priests, deacons and qualified laity are all allowed to distribute Holy Communion. No one disputes when it’s one species at a time. The only additional consideration for intinction would be if the distributor had the necessary physical ablity to handle it.

You are not allowed to administer via intinction. According to the GIRM and the Norms for Distributing Holy Communion in the United States, only Sacerdos (bishop/priest) is to do this. The only time a “minister” comes into play is when it comes to holding the chalice.

 

[Te_Deum]

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.

This is not personally against you, but what I have observed in general… namely that somehow everything that is done is the East is somehow superior to that of the Latin West. You say that this is simply a discipline that the Latin West can go back on… well likewise I say you to that this is just a discipline that the East can go back on.

We afford rightful respect for the ancient traditions of Eastern Christendom. Please afford the Latin West the same respect.

 

[Newbie2]

This is not personally against you, but what I have observed in general… namely that somehow everything that is done is the East is somehow superior to that of the Latin West. You say that this is simply a discipline that the Latin West can go back on… well likewise I say you to that this is just a discipline that the East can go back on.

We afford rightful respect for the ancient traditions of Eastern Christendom. Please afford the Latin West the same respect.

I think you’re missing C’s point; merely that it is a changable thing. I don’t see any disrespect towards the west, nor have I seen any of the past in any of C’s posts

I find the comparisons interesting, myself now knowing many of the details of the East.

 

[ciero]

This is not personally against you, but what I have observed in general… namely that somehow everything that is done is the East is somehow superior to that of the Latin West. You say that this is simply a discipline that the Latin West can go back on… well likewise I say you to that this is just a discipline that the East can go back on.

We afford rightful respect for the ancient traditions of Eastern Christendom. Please afford the Latin West the same respect.

That’s right…beat up on the Easterner! When many folks on this thread are complaining about Latin practice…beat up on the Eastern guy who actually has something constructive to say!

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not clear at all. Go ask your local bishop if he allows it in your diocese. He’ll probably tell you it’s up to your pastor for his parish.

This is beyond what the local bishop can do. Per the CDWDS, only the bishop/priest can distribute via intinction.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s right…beat up on the Easterner! When many folks on this thread are complaining about Latin practice…beat up on the Eastern guy who actually has something constructive to say!

We are not beating up on the Eastern Rite. Please do not mischaracterize this as such. Things get thrown into confusion when we are discussing something liturgical that pertains to the Latin/Roman rite and when someone posts something about the Easter Rite, which deos not seem germaine to the discussion, this breeds unintended confusion.

 

[Newbie2]

We are not beating up on the Eastern Rite. Please do not mischaracterize this as such. Things get thrown into confusion when we are discussing something liturgical that pertains to the Latin/Roman rite and when someone posts something about the Easter Rite, which deos not seem germaine to the discussion, this breeds unintended confusion.

I think most of understand the reason for the comparison. It’s a very valid point; it’s not one of the few things that separates east from west, and is a good illustration of doctrine vs. discipline.

It seems a bit uncharitable, methinks, to deem something as not germaine to the discussion, claiming that it will cause unintended confusion, simply because one does not like the “something” that another posted. Please do not underextimate the forumites here, the rest of us are perfectly capable of understanding the points made in this thread in regard to the Eastern Rite.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion on intinction…

So far, we have agreed that it is not allowed by deacons, but that it COULD be changed if Rome so decided. As well, it seems that that there not sufficient reasons to consider such a change.

 

[benedictgal]

like all other polls that ask for opinions on church teaching, doctrine and discipline, this one is worthless as my opinion and yours are irrelevant.

If this is a concern of yours in your work–which means you are a bishop or pastor–refer to the relevant documents and follow them.

If it is not, why are we discussing it?

My sentimens exactly, puzzleannie. Unfortunately, as I have read this thread, a lot of misinformation regarding intinction (at least from the Latin/Rite persepctive) is being given without consulting the relevent documents.

This only serves to cause more confusion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s right…beat up on the Easterner! When many folks on this thread are complaining about Latin practice…beat up on the Eastern guy who actually has something constructive to say!

The problem is instead of acknowledging the sophia that the East is providing the West, people here develop Orientaltitis when faced with a teaching from the East. Didn’t Blessed Pope John Paul II tell Latins to familiarize themselves with the Eastern traditions and that some teachings in the Church are better expressed in the East (and in the same breath, the other teachings are better expressed in the West, to be clear lest I be accused of saying the East is superior to the West again).

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is not personally against you, but what I have observed in general… namely that somehow everything that is done is the East is somehow superior to that of the Latin West. You say that this is simply a discipline that the Latin West can go back on… well likewise I say you to that this is just a discipline that the East can go back on.

We afford rightful respect for the ancient traditions of Eastern Christendom. Please afford the Latin West the same respect.

Please point me to where and when I made the pronouncement that the East is superior to the West. I don’t know why Latins are so afraid to make a comparison between East and West. Its only through appreciation of one another’s traditions that we can grow the faith and move the Church into the future. Read Orientale Lumen if you don’t want to take my word for it.

 

[Newbie2]

My sentimens exactly, puzzleannie. Unfortunately, as I have read this thread, a lot of misinformation regarding intinction (at least from the Latin/Rite persepctive) is being given without consulting the relevent documents.

.

It would seem to me that the notion of intinction is a moot point under normal circumstances in a Roman Catholic mass.

 

[benedictgal]

It would seem to me that the notion of intinction is a moot point under normal circumstances in a Roman Catholic mass.

Intinction is a valid form of distribution of Holy Communion. In fact, in order to reduce/eliminate the use of EMHCs, this is what the Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion in the United States says:

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.

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.”

The way it was explained to me by the CDWDS was that if a parish had two priests, the one who was not celebrating could come in for the distribution of Holy Communion wearing either an alb with a stole or a cassock, stole and suprlice and both would distribute Holy Communion by intinction.

 

[Cristiano]

I voted yes saying that the Deacons should be allowed. The first reason is that we are just dealing with a discipline and not a doctrine, discipline can be changed. Second we are not dealing with the mingling of the Body of Christ with the Precious Blood because that has already happened during the liturgy, claiming that we are doing it a second time with intinction would be poor theology. Third it would reduce the number of chalices being used, thus decreasing the risk of spillage.