C
Corki
Guest
Can you point to the citation for that provision? Folks here at CAF have been debating that for years.
It would be nice to have it settled.
- Status
It would be nice to have it settled.
B
benedictgal
Guest
There are no provisions that state that an EMHC could do this. In fact, the GIRM and RS make it clear that it is the priest who is to do this. When Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect Emeritus for the CDWDS was posed this question back in 2003, here is what his response was:
Brendan reconfirmed that.
Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says about intinction:
The document does not indicate that the EMHC can even do this.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
sweet, I’m half Armenian myself!!! PAREV!!!I go to an Eastern Catholic Church and the priest does intiction everytime. I remember the first time I went to a Latin Rite, I was suprised to recieve only the body, because I was young and so used to both at the same time. (And we recieve on the tongue at my Church and when I went to the Latin one I recieved by hand)
Anyway, back to your question,
Luckily, I just looked at the people in front of me
If it were a no-no then the Church would not do it. After 2000 years I’m sure somebody would have thought about it.
But how could you make 2 things that are the purest things on Earth into something impure?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I may have been wrong here. The GIRM does seem to say intinction can only be administered by a priest (287). I’ve never participated in a liturgy where this means was used, I was just imagining that in the cases where it might be a regular practice, the ministry of distributing communion would not be necessarily limited to a priest. But, perhaps it is. Thanks for the question.Can you point to the citation for that provision? Folks here at CAF have been debating that for years.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
oooooooooooooooooooooooooohh… I didn’t know that…I knew he broke a piece in the chalice. I knew there was the sprinkling of holy water in keeping w. the gospel of John, but I never realized that there was bread in there. I learned something today. Father…thank you… SO, it makes no fundamental difference if you dip or (intinct) the host or not. Interesting. The chalice is such a distance from the distributer of the hosts, you kind of have to consume it right there. That’s pretty much charleston.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
a correction to my last, I knew there was the addition of holy water to the wine, but I DIDNT know there was host added to the wine as well. (somehow that got missed during RCIA.)
C
Corki
Guest
It’s not Holy Water. It’s just water.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
It changes nothing when the Host is intincted into the Blood of Christ before a person receives Holy Communion. It is forbidden for a person to self-intinct. Intinction is done by the priest prior to placing the Host on the tongue of the person. No one should ever walk away without first consuming the Host. By the way I’m not a priest for the record.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
There are many details about the Liturgy that seem to never be covered in RCIA catechesis.
P
paperwight
Guest
That’s an especial pity regarding this particular detail, as I’ve seen people react with horror or distaste if they look down into the Chalice and see a fragment of a Host floating in there.
I suppose they fear that the person before them has dropped it in from their mouth.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I have certainly seen a single celebrant to do so*, but cannot swear I’ve seen concelebrating priests do likewise.
(* And, not wanting to mislead the faithful, he always explained something along the lines of: As a priest, I am permitted to intinct the host and you all are not. As the celebrant, I am obligated to receive both species, but I also have a cold and do not wish to risk spreading germs to you all when the cup is offered. If anyone else among you is feelin flu-ish, I leave it to your judgment, but would recommend that you refrain from the common cup. You receive the fullness of the sacrament under the species of bread alone.)
tee
F
FrDavid96
Guest
This is a relatively new understanding of the liturgical law about intinction. Prior to RS in 2004, it was presumed that laypersons could distribute by intinction. Whether that was a misunderstanding of the norms at the time, or whether the norms have outright changed to prohibit it might make for an interresting discussion, but in any case, after Redemptionis Sacramentum, laypersons can’t distribute by intinction.
S
Stephen3970
Guest
This touches on a subject that bothers me a bit. Didn’t Christ say “take, eat” and “drink from it all of you”? Why then is not the cup given to all as he commanded? It seems that even after our Lord’s resurrection, they still distributed to all as suggested by St. Paul’s words “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
While I agree that Christ is fully present in both, his instructions where that both should be partaken of.
Thanks in advance for the time taken to answer.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
At the Masses I go to in a number of parishes in our area offer communion under both kinds. I’m not aware of any local parish that does not offer both.
B
Brendan
Guest
Christ is Risen and His Body and Blood are not longer seperate. When we recieve under any species, we recieve both the Body and Blood.
Since the Body is whole, we eat His Body, since His Blood is living, flowing blood, we drink His Blood. That is the only way to consume living blood.
Our bodies might not react to the accidents of the species in a way the the eating and drinking is obvious; but none the less, we DO both eat and drink, even if we recieve the Host alone or the Chalice alone.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
THANK YOU…>THANK YOU…THANK YOU…Sammy Davis Junior has entered the bldg…THANK YOU!!!>…MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!!! I find that yes, wholeness is in each, but YOU are absolutely correct. THANK YOU!!! I whole-heartedly agree with this. It makes the most sense!!! I cannot for the life of me see why we do one & walk past the other. It can be explained away, and there’s documentation here & there, but there’s documentation in Matthew 26:26-28 Douay-Rheims/Challoner "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: (ARE WE PAYING ATTENTION!!!)~~ Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. He didnt break the bread give thanks, say, eat this…he didnt take the cup & say here you go, but I really just want you to eat the bread, there um, isn;t enough wine to spare for everyone at the table, and I’m um, not going to have any uh, because yeah, I’ll drink it anew…um… THAT ISNT HOW IT WENT DOWN!!! Broke bread, gave thanks, eat this, all of you…poured the wine, gave thanks, said, drink this all of you…NOT SOME OF YOU, ALL OF YOU… I have beef w. my own peeps about this. This is the only issue I have with my faith. Actually, not MY faith, but catholicism. That’s it. That’s all. Of all the things, that is the one. I have attended several churches that gave host only & never went there again. They were missing something from communion. That is how it felt!!! I attend a cathedral that provides both. Only myself & GOD knows the way I feel about MATTHEW 26:26-28…I wish the RCC would see it that way as well. The problem with the rest is that they are content. Never really questioned or anything, and these are the same sort that make easy targets for fundamentalists & have a hard time defending their faith with scripture, BECAUSE THEY DONT SPEND THE TIME THEY SHOULD in scripture. I’m appalled at the amount of people I see bolting out the door once they receive communion. There are definitely barnacles to remove from the good ship Catholicism. Not only that, but BISHOPS need to start acting like BISHOPS…and if you KNOW what I’m talking about, then you KNOW what I’m talking about. If not, ask someone. I dont feel like spending the time to go into it. I’ll givce you a clue, canada, john kerry & pelosi. there. You said it though, and I am very happy at the cathedral I attend mass at because the priest who is a staunch teacher, very robust, takes the mass seriously, told the congregation to read The Epistle of James & Hebrews. He said to read it prayerfully, but try to have them read by next sunday because his sermon is going to cover that. I was in awe, shock, and in love. I love my new church. love it. The 1st priest I have ever heard of telling people to read scripture. 2 books!!! Granted, James isn’t that long, but still!!! That’s great we have a catechism to explain why & what the RCC does, but to me it’s an NFL rule book in comparison to scripture. I may sound like a protestant or a catholic about to leave, far from it. I am the first to tell people that Before there was a bible, there was a church, BUT,
John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And this is what we as catholics have to get back to. There are too many that are not scripture saavy. In 1611, the first KJV came out COMPLETE w. catholic books so they could quote scripture back at the catholics who could quote scripture in Latin & the vulgar tongues quicker than the protestants in that time. NOW it is the other way around. And it’s a shame. Sacraments…sacraments…YES< they are important. Vital. BUT SO IS SCRIPTURE!!! I’m lucky to be in the church I’m in. Catholicism is rooted in scripture. The sad thing is that many of them dont know why. And I’m spent!
J
japhy
Guest
Jason, I am having difficulty reading your posts, because you don’t break things into paragraphs (among other things).
I would suggest you read the Church’s explanation for Communion under one kind from the Council of Trent, Session 21.
I’ll toot my own horn here: I have a book (see below) that explains the liturgy of the Mass with a ton of Scriptural annotations (as well as quotes from the Catechism and Church Fathers). I wrote it to help people understand the Scriptural basis of the Mass, to help them overcome that common Catholic ignorance of Scripture and the liturgy. I want Catholics to understand their faith as much as they can, same as you.
The apostles at the Last Supper were, by the Lord’s words to “do this” (1 Cor 11:24-25), ordained priests of the New Covenant. And the priest celebrating Mass is bound to receive under both forms (i.e. bread and wine). Others are not so bound. In the first several centuries, hermits would reserve portions of the consecrated bread (but not the consecrated wine) to consume daily during the week until the next Divine Liturgy. On Good Friday, we still only receive under the form of bread alone. You’ll never see the Chalice at the Good Friday liturgy.
I would suggest you read the Church’s explanation for Communion under one kind from the Council of Trent, Session 21.
I’m sorry you felt that way, but they were not missing anything. Numerous saints were devoted the Eucharist, and receiving Holy Communion under the form of bread did not harm them or stunt their spiritual growth.
The problem I see is that you seem to believe that if a person DOES question the practice of Communion under one kind, they must come to the conclusion you have, that Communion must be received under both kinds or else it is “incomplete” somehow. You are putting your interpretation and understanding above that of the Church.
I spend a lot of time in Scripture now, and yet I am perfectly content to receive under one species or under both (though that’s rare for me, as I explained). My contentment is not ignorance or stupidity, but contentment in Christ and with the Church’s teaching.
Even those people who receive both Host and Chalice?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your comparison.
I’ll toot my own horn here: I have a book (see below) that explains the liturgy of the Mass with a ton of Scriptural annotations (as well as quotes from the Catechism and Church Fathers). I wrote it to help people understand the Scriptural basis of the Mass, to help them overcome that common Catholic ignorance of Scripture and the liturgy. I want Catholics to understand their faith as much as they can, same as you.
B
Brendan
Guest
Because there really is no ‘other’ to walk past. Both the ciborium and the chalice contain the exact same thing, namely, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The only difference, and I repeat here, the ONLY difference, is how it appears to our human senses.
One appears to be bread, the other appears to be wine, but they are, outside of those appearances, the EXACT SAME THING, or really, the exact same PERSON, full and complete.
Go back and read my post directly above yours.
You references Scripture, when Christ said “This is my body” did He mean that His body lacked blood, that it was dead flesh?
Or was is Christ Alive and His Body and Blood are in union?
You are treading closely to a heresy known as Utraquism.
S
Stephen3970
Guest
hmmm…learn something new everyday. Had to go do some reading about that one.
I will say for the record that I do not believe that salvation hangs on receiving in both kinds.
However, as I meditate on this, it seems to me that the idea of withholding the chalice out of reverence for the precious blood of Christ while saying that both are present in either of the accidents is contradictory. If the precious blood of Christ is also present in the wafer, then why not withhold that as well? Obviously that is unthinkable. So it is only proper that neither the chalice nor the host should be withheld.
J
japhy
Guest
I disagree. Christ is completely present in both species, but the accidents (properties) of the species are not like each other. The potential for accidents with wine is far greater than with portions of bread. That’s another reason why the “traditional” form of bread is small, individual hosts: so that there will be as little accidental (no pun intended) fragmentation as possible.
I’m sure one of the reasons the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has such precise rubrics for the priests motions and gestures (especially after the consecration) is to prevent him from knocking over the chalice and spilling the Precious Blood (i.e. under the form of wine) all over the altar and the floor.
- Status