Deacons and intinction

[benedictgal]

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.

There is still a co-mingling of the Sacred Species, which is still a priestly action. Are you saying that the interpretation that I received from the prelate with the CDWDS is incorrect?

This is not a slight against deacons; however, we need to look at the why part of this issue. I voted no simply because having researched the matter first-hand, I am satisfied with the explanation given to me and I trust the Holy See’s reasoning.

 

[Cristiano]

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?

I beg to differ on this one. Polls about Teachings are not meaningful because teachings cannot change, however, disciplines can change and do change depending on different reasons including pastoral care. Saying that the opinions of the faithfuls are irrelevant when it comes to disciplines shows a disregard for pastoral care initiatives and does not show the proper understanding of the Church that I am quite sure you have. When we accept the fact the the pope calls himself the “servant of servants” we also accept that the Church is much more uniform than the hierarchical structure that we want to attribute to her, especially in the Latin Church.

 

[benedictgal]

Deacons are not permitted to distribute by intinction. The Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion do not say that. In another thread, I posted the Latin GIRM 287:

1. Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem, qui calicem tenet et ad cuius latus sistit minister qui vas cum sacris particulis sustinet. Sacerdos hostiam accipit, partem eius in calicem intingit et eam ostendendo dicit: Corpus et Sanguis Christi; communicandus respondet: Amen, a **sacerdote **Sacramentum ore recipit, ac postea recedit.

Nowhere in the Latin does it use the words diacono, diaconus.

The reference to the involement of the deacon applies only when one Species, namely, the Sacred Host, is distributed, not when intinction is used.

 

[Cristiano]

There is still a co-mingling of the Sacred Species, which is still a priestly action. Are you saying that the interpretation that I received from the prelate with the CDWDS is incorrect?

This is not a slight against deacons; however, we need to look at the why part of this issue. I voted no simply because having researched the matter first-hand, I am satisfied with the explanation given to me and I trust the Holy See’s reasoning.

The co-mingling is not a mere mixture of accidents, it is about substance. Its theological and sacramental purpose is much more complicated. When it comes to the distribution time both are equally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, the liturgical co-mingling has already happened. This is not more than “co-mingling” the happens in the stomach of the faithful. Yes I think that the interpretation that you understood from the prelate is wrong! I can understand the Church’s concern about confusing people in term of roles and priestly actions between the co-mingling during the liturgy and intinction during distribution. I see that the same confusion is coming here on this thread. Why do you think that it is called communion by intinction and not communion by co-mingling? The two are theologically different.

 

[benedictgal]

The co-mingling is not a mere mixture of accidents, it is about substance. Its theological and sacramental purpose is much more complicated. When it comes to the distribution time both are equally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, the liturgical co-mingling has already happened. This is not more than “co-mingling” the happens in the stomach of the faithful. Yes I think that the interpretation that you understood from the prelate is wrong! I can understand the Church’s concern about confusing people in term of roles and priestly actions between the co-mingling during the liturgy and intinction during distribution. I see that the same confusion is coming here on this thread. Why do you think that it is called communion by intinction and not communion by co-mingling? The two are theologically different.

All that I am saying is that, while your post seems to indicate that the response I got was not good, I am satisfied.

 

[Brendan]

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.

BG,

You have just proved that it is an act that is not strictly reserved to the sacerdotal priesthood, and thus why Eastern Deacons may intinct with no theological error.

The Body and Blood of Christ are already mingled in each species. The distinction of the species are reserved to Accidents alone.

 

[Brendan]

There is still a co-mingling of the Sacred Species, which is still a priestly action. .

BG, as Constantine pointed out, the Church does not consider this to be theologically restricted to Sacrerdotal Orders alone.

So it, the more precise way of phrasing that would to state that it is, in the Latin Rite, a priestly action.

This is a matter of discipline, as there is clearly no theological bar to Deacon performing this act.

 

[Brendan]

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

Newbie, that is the normative way of recieving both species in my parish ( which is in the same diocese as you)

 

[benedictgal]

BG, as Constantine pointed out, the Church does not consider this to be theologically restricted to Sacrerdotal Orders alone.

So it, the more precise way of phrasing that would to state that it is, in the Latin Rite, a priestly action.

This is a matter of discipline, as there is clearly no theological bar to Deacon performing this act.

While there might not be a theological bar to a Deacon administering via intinction, the documents for the Latin/Roman rite clearly indicate that it is up for the priest/bishop to do. It is interesting that this is the one form of distribution of Holy Communion that is reserved solely to the priest/bishop.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie, that is the normative way of recieving both species in my parish ( which is in the same diocese as you)

Wait…Brendan, are you saying that it is the norm for everyone to receive both species through intinction is the norm in our diocese?

 

[Newbie2]

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:

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.

Of all the parishes I’ve been to in the Archdiocese of Detroit, I’ve never once seen a communicant receive by intinction. I see how it might reduce the need for EMHCs, though.

Maybe I gotta get out more.

It also probably has to do with the fact that I’ve never been to a parish in the AOD that didn’t use at least a couple EMHCs.

 

[FAB]

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.

Yes, all this has happened and can happen, that is the reason that both the ordained and the EMHC be observant and correct people when this happens. Those is pew should do the same.

 

[ElToro]

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?

Was what an abuse?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Wait…Brendan, are you saying that it is the norm for everyone to receive both species through intinction is the norm in our diocese?

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.

Newbie, that is the normative way of recieving both species in my parish ( which is in the same diocese as you)

 

[FAB]

While there might not be a theological bar to a Deacon administering via intinction, the documents for the Latin/Roman rite clearly indicate that it is up for the priest/bishop to do. It is interesting that this is the one form of distribution of Holy Communion that is reserved solely to the priest/bishop.

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.

 

[ElToro]

The co-mingling is not a mere mixture of accidents, it is about substance. Its theological and sacramental purpose is much more complicated. When it comes to the distribution time both are equally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, the liturgical co-mingling has already happened. This is not more than “co-mingling” the happens in the stomach of the faithful. Yes I think that the interpretation that you understood from the prelate is wrong! I can understand the Church’s concern about confusing people in term of roles and priestly actions between the co-mingling during the liturgy and intinction during distribution. I see that the same confusion is coming here on this thread. Why do you think that it is called communion by intinction and not communion by co-mingling? The two are theologically different.

Absolutely.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

Although, the Latin is quite clear on who can do what. When I spoke to the CDWDS, I was told that it was for the priest/bishop to do. Furthermore, a priest friend of mine who knows Latin told me to give him both the English and Latin citations. He recommended that it is best to see what the Latin says.

The GIRM reference that I provided is from the revised version. This section retains the langauge. By the way, this revised GIRM is now in effect. The older translation was a provisional one.

 

[Lapey]

While there might not be a theological bar to a Deacon administering via intinction, the documents for the Latin/Roman rite clearly indicate that it is up for the priest/bishop to do. It is interesting that this is the one form of distribution of Holy Communion that is reserved solely to the priest/bishop.

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.

 

[Brendan]

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

 

[FAB]

Although, the Latin is quite clear on who can do what. When I spoke to the CDWDS, I was told that it was for the priest/bishop to do. Furthermore, a priest friend of mine who knows Latin told me to give him both the English and Latin citations. He recommended that it is best to see what the Latin says.

The GIRM reference that I provided is from the revised version. This section retains the langauge. By the way, this revised GIRM is now in effect. The older translation was a provisional one.

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.