And that is called a liturgical abuse. Sadly, it’s a very fashionable one. People have been incorrectly catechized about EMHCs and their use. They think Vatican II called for lay people to distribute Communion at Mass, because they’ve been told that or they just assume it.“But EMHCs are not (and were not) meant to be used habitually.”
But they ARE used habitually.
One can only pray…Perhaps some pastors will tighten their belts and greatly cut back on their use.
Probably because you don’t spend any time in Latin Rite sacristies where such activities take place.Quote: An acolyte is preferred to any other extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
So why are no altar boys being designated as acolytes. When I was an altar boy, back in the early seventies. We lit the candles, filled the hosts, prepared the chalice. Basically got everything prepared for the Mass for the priest. I don’t see that happening any more, in the OF Mass. Why?
So tell me why didn’t you have EMHC before Vatican 2, or feel the need for them. Same goes for “altar girls”. How is the Roman rite going to be returned to a continuity as the Pope has wished. A blending of both the Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary, with now the aid of the Anglican Use. Hence why I believe there is no TLM Rite or Anglican Rite. If the priests who offer the Ordinary Form still insist in using “altar girls” and EMHC, of which is disallowed in the Extra-Ordinary form, and to my knowledge the Anglican Use. Do you really need a 45 minute Mass, or is 1 hour and 45 minutes to long as it was in the past, and currently in the Extra-Ordinary Form as well as the Eastern Liturgies. Seems like a huge mis-continuity to me.
Acolytes are instituted for LIFE. Permanent deacons go through more than 3/4 of their 4-6 year formations before being instituted as lectors and acolytes.So why altar girls if they cannot be priests?. You don’t need them!. They cannot strive to the priesthood, so whats the purpose, except to be politically correct. As for Acolytes, I understand that they are different than Altar Boys, but why all the EMHC, when you don’t need them!. Just use the Altar Boys, who can be designated as acolytes and help distribute communion. Or are you afraid or repercussions from the laity, who would rather physically participate rather than spiritually participate as part of their “active” participation. Active doesn’t just mean physical participation.
I’m looking forward to hearing the Holy See’s response on the matter.I am working with the CDWDS on an issue regarding EMHCs and intinction. Based on what the telephone reply was (and I was directed to send them a letter to get the whole exchange in writing), intinction was meant as a way of reducing the number of EMHCs since only the priest/bishop could do the actual intincting.
Unfortunately, some parishes down here, including my own, have been using EMHCs to administer Holy Communion via intinction. In my own parish, the number of EMHCs at Mass has actually increased, as the parish bought four intinction sets.
Now, along with the pertinent section of RS, the section that the OP listed from the GIRM was also quoted, along with two other sections. Thus, an alcolyte, or, an EMHC, could hold the chalice, but, the priest/bishop would have to be the one doing the actual intincting.
But, just when did intinction begin? While it is used in the Eastern Rites, I am curious as to where you get your information regarding its use in the Latin Rite.There is absolutely nothing in any Church document that specifically prohibits EMsHC from distributing communion via intinction within the context of the OF Mass. Nothing.
There is also absolutely nothing from the Church that suggests the use of intinction was born out of a desire to reduce the number of EMsHC within the context of the OF Mass. Obviously communion via intinction is a far older practice than the licit use of EMsHC.
Some attempt to interpret the GIRM to say that EMsHC should not distribute via intinction but this is one of those things that is up to the local ordinary.
Even in the section marked “Extraordinary functions of Lay Faithful” there is no mention that the EMHCs can administer via intinction. They can either assist with the administering of the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood.[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.192
And your proof for your second observation is? How do you know that this was the case?
- Communion was typically under 1 species.
- Far fewer actually went to communion.
- We simply had more priests back then.
Fewer actually went to communion.
- Communion was typically under 1 species.
- Far fewer actually went to communion.
- We simply had more priests back then.
of the chalice. The minister says: Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds: Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.With regards to intinction, paras. 286 and 287 of the GIRM would seem to apply:
"286. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister *[Lat. ministrum]
But of course none of this applies today because of the H1N1 virus. Can’t drink from the cup. Or receive on the tongue. In the Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, there hasn’t been the H1N1 paranoia as there has in the West.This is exactly what the CDWDS told me, not once, but twice, the first time on Friday and a reconfirmation yesterday. And yes, I was about as awake as I could be, considering the fact that when I spoke to them, it was 4:30AM Texas time. In fact, my PV had an EMHC hold the chalice for him while he intincted the Host during Mass this morning.
Wrong on the second count, bkovacs. The Holy See, through the CDWDS, has repeatedly stated that the faithful have the right to receive COTT. Receiving the Precious Blood, on the other hand, is an option that does not have to be exercised in so far as drinking from the chalice is concerned. That is why there is the option of intinction.But of course none of this applies today because of the H1N1 virus. Can’t drink from the cup. Or receive on the tongue. In the Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, there hasn’t been the H1N1 paranoia as there has in the West.
I would agree that some do interpret it that way. I’m also aware the Church uses “priest” in Church documents (for the sake of brevity) when the subject under consideration is clearly not limited to “priests” based on formal definitions elsewhere.This would seem to indicate that only priests can intinct–not EMHCs, nor anyone else. There is, as we can see above, a distinction in the Latin text that (thankfully!) makes its way into the English text of the GIRM. It is not, as Hotchkiss would have us believe, a question of interpretation; the text seems pretty clear. If EMHCs or anyone else could licitly intinct, we would have minister in para. 287 and not sacerdos.
Do you have a question?Fewer actually went to communion.
Really. Don’t you have to be prepared to go to communion. Like confession first. Do you really think that over 50% of Roman Catholics go to confession before communion. I don’t. Back before Vatican 2 communicants first prepared themselves before receiving the Holy Eucharist. Today most go whether they are prepared or not. “Just go to Mass receive the Eucharist, be done in a half an hour or so, and off to other things in life.”
Hotchkiss, again, you miss the entire point. It is not your opinion, nor my opinion, nor your bishop’s opinion that matters here, it is the CDWDS, whom you have routinely dismissed throughout threads and they have read the documents to read “priest”.I would agree that some do interpret it that way. I’m also aware the Church uses “priest” in Church documents (for the sake of brevity) when the subject under consideration is clearly not limited to “priests” based on formal definitions elsewhere.
In an attempt to understand this issue a bit better one might extend this a bit further and ask the question “why would the Church limited communion distribution only to priests?” Given that EMsHC can indeed distribute communion I’ll be darned if I can think of a good answer. As an EMHC (who has distributed communion via intinction with my bishop’s blessing) I know my hands are far more stable and exhibit far better fine motor control than many priests I know so it’s not a physiological matter.
Your interpretation would also preclude deacons from distributing communion via intinction which makes little sense to me. In the end my opinion means no more than anyone elses around here but my bishop’s means everything and he allows the practice. I have to conclude that he does so with authority and without contravening the Church’s directions on the matter.
I am curious. Are you bi-ritual? You say that you serve as an EMHC, yet in other posts, you also say that you go the the Divine Liturgy and that you also go to the EF.Do you have a question?
FWIW, Sunday Mass at my parish takes about 85 minutes. In words that might mean more to you about 10 minutes longer than the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom down the street at either the Byzantine Catholic parish or the Greek Orthodox parish.
We have a lot more communicants of course…
In what other way can you interpret this so it’s consistent? I’m intrigued.I would agree that some do interpret it that way.
Care to provide some examples and/or proof?I’m also aware the Church uses “priest” in Church documents (for the sake of brevity) when the subject under consideration is clearly not limited to “priests” based on formal definitions elsewhere.
But intinction is a subset of distribution that the GIRM restricts to sacerdos. Yes, of course other ministers can distribute Holy Communion–no-one disputes the legality of that (some of us do, though, have problems with the abuse of such things, but that’s a different matter!).In an attempt to understand this issue a bit better one might extend this a bit further and ask the question “why would the Church limited communion distribution only to priests?” Given that EMsHC can indeed distribute communion I’ll be darned if I can think of a good answer.
Why should deacons be able to intinct?Your interpretation would also preclude deacons from distributing communion via intinction which makes little sense to me.
The natural reading of the GIRM concludes differently, as does (according to benedictgal) the CDWDS. After all, bishops do not have carte blanche to do as they wish with regard to the liturgy. If your bishop’s opinion does not match that of the Holy See/CDWDS, then guess who’s wrong? (!)In the end my opinion means no more than anyone elses around here but my bishop’s means everything and he allows the practice. I have to conclude that he does so with authority and without contravening the Church’s directions on the matter.