Experience with/thoughts on intinction

  • Thread starter Thread starter PBWY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PBWY

Guest
I came into the Church on Easter of this year, and because of that, I don’t have a lot of experience attending Mass at other parishes. Other than my home parish, I’ve been to 3 others, so it wasn’t until a recent conversation with an old friend who is also a convert (having joined the Church in 2016 and attended Mass all over the US since then because of the nature of her work) that she pointed out to me how rare it is to attend a Latin Rite OF parish that uses the Eucharistic practice of intinction - that she has only ever seen it done at an Eastern Church, but that she loved the idea of it so long as it’s practiced correctly.

After this conversation, I asked one of our deacons why it has been the decision at our parish to have the Eucharist by intinction - given that it’s almost unheard of, apparently, at parishes like ours. He told me that it was implemented by a priest who celebrated Mass at our parish for 3-4 years (about a decade ago), because of the level of reverence required to carry out the practice of intinction properly. Our parish has altar rails, so everyone who can receives kneeling and on the tongue, and a paten is always used. After this priest left our parish to explore becoming a diocesan hermit, the practice stuck as all of the parishioners had absolutely fallen in love with it.

In doing a little reading about intinction, I came to learn that there are some areas which have actually banned it, which was a bit surprising to me. While it is not commonplace in our diocese, it isn’t banned and my parish does have a letter from the Bishop giving us permission to practice it.

A detail I must add among this is that our parish is quite small - really one step above a mission - so we don’t have an assigned priest. We rely on guest priests from the area, scheduled by the aforementioned deacon/our Church administrator, and the fact that we practice intinction means that some priests simply will not celebrate Mass here.

Honestly, I love receiving the Eucharist in this way. It’s foreign for me to experience it differently, though I absolutely don’t have a problem with it done otherwise as long as it’s done reverently. I do sort of understand some of the criticisms of the practice, but I’m not privy to too many opinions on it primarily just because I’m only ever surrounded by other people who love it and practice it alongside me.

So, CAF, what are your experiences with and thoughts on intinction, especially in the Latin Rite where, as it’s been brought to my attention, the practice is pretty rare?

Side note: If you would please, include my aforementioned friend in your prayers as she is discerning religious life with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Sadly my only experience with intinction was about 8-9yrs ago, when I sought out a certain priest for spiritual guidance, then attended Mass they were holding (priest is a chaplain for a particular group of Catholics). It was there that individuals were permitted to intinct the host themselves. So when it came to be my turn, I received the host in my hand from Father, and then proceeded to walk past the lady with the Precious Blood (because I knew it was wrong to intinct ourselves) - who halted me and questioned Father about my refusal to intinct - only for him to tell her it was ok for me to not and to let me go.

NEVER AGAIN.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under both kinds
" under #24 … 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: "Each communicant, while holding a Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant replies, ‘Amen,’ receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws.
  2. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion."
continued below
 
continuing on

Redemptionis Sacramentum
#103 The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.
#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.

This has come up before on CAF, if you do a search you’ll find it’s been discussed before.

Prayer offered for your friends discernment.
 
Thank you so much. I’m really sorry that was your experience with it!! How awful 😩
 
Yes it was. Never went back there again. But apart from that one time, there hasn’t been anywhere else that does offer it as far as I’m aware - not in my city at any rate. We offer the Chalice using EMHCs alongside the Blessed Sacrament in the OF Masses. Only the Blessed Sacrament in the EF Mass.
 
I don’t blame you. But yes that’s been my experience elsewhere too: the large OF parish in the city nearest to here offers the Chalice by EMHCs alongside the Blessed Sacrament, and the nearest EF to here has the Blessed Sacrament only. I came to learn through my friend that that is generally just how it is. Big takeaway: I need to get out more, ha.
 
I’ve personally never experienced intinction; as an extraordinary minister, I’ve had to deny people who’ve tried to self-intinct. We have a diocesan policy established 25 years ago by a previous archbishop that states intinction can only be used by clergy in rare circumstances because it denies the communicant the right of choosing his/her manner of receiving (tongue or hand) as provided by the GIRM.
 
If you want to receive both the Body and Blood in our parish your only option is intinction.

I don’t like it one bit.

The Gospels and the Eucharistic prayer both specifically say after supper was ended he took the cup… Thus indicating to me they should be received separate from one another.

I know lots will defend the practice, and try to give me grief over my comments. That is your right, I could care less what you think.

My only comment is and will remain, read the words, it is very clear how it was intended to be received.
 
I like intinction, and used to receive that way from time to time, though it is rarely practiced anymore. As another poster notes, receiving in the hand is impossible when intinction is used. And a paten would almost certainly have to be used as well — while the possibility of unseen particles of the Host sloughing off and being subjected to unknown sacrilege is ignored these days (why is this?), no one is going to ignore a drop of the Precious Blood falling to the floor or onto someone’s clothes. At least I would hope not.
 
I do definitely understand the above criticism and diocesan decision about this practice. It does deny the communicant the right to receive by hand if they wish to receive both the Body and the Precious Blood. Personally, I don’t feel that I am worthy to hold the Body of Christ in my hands.

At my parish, it is only ever instituted by clergy and it is widely known there that you do not self-intinct. Four people at a time come up and kneel at each altar rail. A deacon, the priest, and an altar boy come to each communicant one-by-one. The altar boy holds the paten in place while the deacon holds the chalice and the priest holds a bowl with the sacred particles. Taking a host, the priest carefully dips it about halfway into the chalice, holds it up and says, “The Body and Blood of Christ.” The parishioner says “Amen”, receives it on the tongue, says a silent prayer, and then stands to humbly return to their pew once all of the communicants on that rail have received. In my short time there, I’ve only seen a couple visitors stand and receive in the hand, but they were not denied a host, though it was not dipped in the Precious Blood and they were not offered the chalice.
 
Last edited:
Last weekend I was a Eucharistic Minister of the blood and two people self-indicted on me
 
I used to attend in one diocese, and intinction was one option. During flu season, I want to say that it was pretty much mandatory— they had a specific set of eucharistic vessels to allow for it to be done at a single station.

The vessels looked like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

and there would be an altar server with a communion plate to make sure there were no drips or crumbs.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
People would self-intinct if they wanted to year-round (perhaps if they were ill but wanted to receive?), and everyone was familiar with the process. It was a little odd the first time I saw someone carrying off the host instead of immediately consuming, but you caught on pretty quickly that they were proceeding to the cup. It didn’t happen very often, though.

In my current diocese, intinction is not allowed, period. During flu season, we only receive under a single species.
 
Thanks so much for sharing your experiences.

It’s really unfortunate to read these tales of self-intinction, but I guess that helps me understand why the practice probably isn’t more common per various diocesan decisions made to safeguard against Eucharistic abuses.
 
Last edited:
If done well I would like to see it more widely used.

I think it would deal with most of the practical issues around offering the Precious Blood to the laity and allowing people to receive in the hand, or accomodating those who can only receive under a single species can be done by having this available too.

If that applies to most parishoners then I would agree that intinction is not the best option for that parish.
 
Pope Francis often gives Holy Communion by intinction .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Administration by intinction was not uncommon in my area in the early 1970’s, but practice fell off after the introduction of Communion in the hand. Today I am aware of one parish in my area which offers intinction (alongside distribution in the hand and drinking from the chalice) using vessels similar to that @midori posted. I miss it.

2️⃣©️©️
I am always saddened and find it incongruous that a method which is always permissible (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum #103) can be denied for the sake of an indulged practice (ibid #92). 🤦‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top