Do we dip the eucharist

[the_walrus]

i am a eucharist minister and a person that has received the eucharist came to me for the cup of his blood. instead of drinking for the cup this person dipped the eucharist in the cup of his blood. is this action approved by the catholic church?

 

[tee_eff_em]

No.

Such self-intinction is equivalent to self-communication, which is not approved to the laity.

tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

the walrus:

i am a eucharist minister and a person that has received the eucharist came to me for the cup of his blood. instead of drinking for the cup this person dipped the eucharist in the cup of his blood. is this action approved by the catholic church?

No This is not allowed. Self-intinction. The best way to handle this is to simply pay attention as people receive the host. Those who do not consume the host should not be presented the chalice. If necessary place your hand or purificator over the chalice indicating to them that you will not present the chalice to them until they consume the host.

 

[palmas85]

I thought I read that under the terms of the indult given for reception of communion in the hand that a person could take the host from the paten or ciborum without the use of either a priest or minister. If that is allowed, why would doing the same or self intinction not be allowed. Maybe I am wrong but I was sure I saw that somewhere. maybe someone who knows more about this could point me in the right direction

 

[Madia]

I thought I read that under the terms of the indult given for reception of communion in the hand that a person could take the host from the paten or ciborum without the use of either a priest or minister.

A person doesn’t “take” Holy Communion, they receive it. Taking it is a litrugical abuse. Please read #94 of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwrdsac.htm

 

[JimG]

Self-intinction is never permitted.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Jesus is not a doughnut. The Holy Eucharist should be consumed before someone approaches the chalice!

 

[Timidity]

paramedicgirl:

Jesus is not a doughnut.

It’s not a good analogy seeing that intinction is approved. It’s only self-intinction that’s prohibitted.

Speaking of self-intinction, seeing that there isn’t a paten in use, what stops a drop from forming off of the saturated Host and falling to the ground as the communicant moves it to his mouth?

 

[otm]

paramedicgirl:

Jesus is not a doughnut. The Holy Eucharist should be consumed before someone approaches the chalice!

Or, the minister of the Cup could intinct.

 

[otm]

Timidity:

It’s not a good analogy seeing that intinction is approved. It’s only self-intinction that’s prohibitted.

Speaking of self-intinction, seeing that there isn’t a paten in use, what stops a drop from forming off of the saturated Host and falling to the ground as the communicant moves it to his mouth?

Something very practical. First, the Host is not submerged, but only partly dipped in; then it is held so that any immediate drops drip off; then it is rotated 180 degrees so that the part inticted is at the top; any reamining liquid will be absorbed by the Host. One then moves the Cup forward with the intincted Host until alsmost at the mouth of the recipient, and the intincted Host is placed on the tongue.

It really is not as difficult or as hazardous as some would have it to be. And it certainly is not as potentially messy as receiving, say, in the Byzantine rite, where the Host is on a spoon, which is then submerged; one has to tip their head back at an awkward angle and the spoon is rotated in the open mouth to deposit all on the tongue.

 

[Timidity]

otm:

Something very practical. First, the Host is not submerged, but only partly dipped in; then it is held so that any immediate drops drip off; then it is rotated 180 degrees so that the part inticted is at the top; any reamining liquid will be absorbed by the Host. One then moves the Cup forward with the intincted Host until alsmost at the mouth of the recipient, and the intincted Host is placed on the tongue.

But I was speaking specifically about self-intinction. I don’t think most self inticters (intinctors?) are that meticulous, are they?

 

[kr2005]

A few years back, I was practicing self-intinction (gasp - I didn’t even know it was a no-no) and I mentioned it to our parish priest and he said not to do this as you may drop the Precious Blood. I never did that again!

 

[Kielbasi]

the walrus:

i am a eucharist minister and a person that has received the eucharist came to me for the cup of his blood. instead of drinking for the cup this person dipped the eucharist in the cup of his blood. is this action approved by the catholic church?

That’s not copasetic in the Catholic Church.

I have heard that this practice became widespread with our Episcopalian friends.

Episcopalians traditionally drink from the chalice, but they were reaching out and trying to serve the population of aids victims and were concerned about communicable diseases.

So they popularized this method of receiving the sacrament.

Its still not allowed in the Catholic Church, however.

 

[otm]

Timidity:

But I was speaking specifically about self-intinction. I don’t think most self inticters (intinctors?) are that meticulous, are they?

You are right; I re-read your post. And you are probably right about the last comment too. I suspect that almost all who try to self-intinct do not know the rule. As to carelessness, I don’t know that I would necessarily go that far; I suspect that they simply don’t think things through.

 

[palmas85]

I don’t receive the Precious Blood, but I have to ask, why is self intinction not allowed? It is allowed to recieve in the hand, and to put the Eucharist in your own mouth, and it is allowed to take the Chalice and drink from it, so what is the reasoning behind not allowing the self intinction method? It seems to me to a logical step. I have heard self communion is a no no, but if I put the Eucharist in my own mouth and drink from the Chalice from my own hands, wouldn’t they also qualify as self communion?

 

[Brendan]

the walrus:

i am a eucharist minister

And picking nits here.

Unless you are a priest or bishop, you are NOT a Eucharistic Minister.

A Eucharistic Minister is one who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist (say Mass)

Not even a deacon is a Eucharistic Minister.

The role you are describing is that of “Minister of Holy Communion”, which is distributes the Sacrament to the faithful.

A priest, deacon or bishop is a Minister of Holy Communion, a lay person in this role is a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

It’s a minor point, but it generally does help to use the correct terms

 

[mercygate]

the walrus:

i am a eucharist minister and a person that has received the eucharist came to me for the cup of his blood. instead of drinking for the cup this person dipped the eucharist in the cup of his blood. is this action approved by the catholic church?

Walrus, Beloved. You got some good answers here. Somewhat off topic I am wondering how you were commissioned as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (that’s the technical term) without knowing the details about intinction? How were you trained?

 

[tee_eff_em]

mercygate:

Walrus, Beloved. You got some good answers here. Somewhat off topic I am wondering how you were commissioned as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (that’s the technical term) without knowing the details about intinction? How were you trained?

We might just as well ask: *“Who [mistakenly] taught this communicant to self-intinct?” *Of course we can only ask such rhetorically, since the party in question is not known to be a participant in this thread.

Was anyone here [mistakenly] taught that they may do this? Was anyone explicitly taught not to? (I don’t recall ever being *taught *not to, though I did learn of it later (not that I ever attempted self-intinction))

tee

 

[palmas85]

palmas85:

I don’t receive the Precious Blood, but I have to ask, why is self intinction not allowed? It is allowed to recieve in the hand, and to put the Eucharist in your own mouth, and it is allowed to take the Chalice and drink from it, so what is the reasoning behind not allowing the self intinction method? It seems to me to a logical step. I have heard self communion is a no no, but if I put the Eucharist in my own mouth and drink from the Chalice from my own hands, wouldn’t they also qualify as self communion?

No response to this one? I thought there would have been an answer really quick.

 

[Brendan]

palmas85:

I don’t receive the Precious Blood,

Actually, you do. Each species is the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The only difference is how they appear to our senses.

but I have to ask, why is self intinction not allowed?
It is allowed to recieve in the hand, and to put the Eucharist in your own mouth, and it is allowed to take the Chalice and drink from it,

No, one is not allowed to take the chalice, one is allowed to recieve the chalice. That is were the difference lies.

so what is the reasoning behind not allowing the self intinction method? It seems to me to a logical step. I have heard self communion is a no no, but if I put the Eucharist in my own mouth and drink from the Chalice from my own hands, wouldn’t they also qualify as self communion?

One recieves the Host from the Minister of Holy Communion, once it is in your hand, you have recieved it. Moving it from your hand to your mouth is not an act of self communication.

When one intincts the Eucharist, one has not yet recieved the Chalice, one is, in effect, taking the Eucharist themselves.

And there is the biggest reason of all why we can’t self intinct - Rome said so.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

That reason alone should be enough.