H
Hotchkiss
Guest
You could interpret it to mean anyone who is authorized to distribute Holy Communion.
- Status
H
Hotchkiss
Guest
For the sake of brevity that “priest” means any individual authorized to distribute communion in the Church.
So read the GIRM and find out for yourself.
You are offering your opinion as if it’s proven fact. In my case all I can do is compare your personal opinion to the direction of my bishop.
And?
Why shouldn’t they, particularly since the Church does not specifically prohibit them from doing so? This isn’t my decision of course – but it’s not yours either.
Ad hominem time?
“Natural?” What do you mean in this context? You have concluded what you have concluded but in no way have you proven your final position as being accurate.
And your interpretation is ludicrous. Next we’ll be applying the Analogy of Heckesh to the GIRM, huh? This isn’t the Talmud it’s the GIRM. Do you think for a moment that if the Church wanted to limit intinction to bishops/priests that She wouldn’t have said so in plain and concrete language? Have you ever considered that the reason for such a limitation would be well known – in the GIRM or in other documents? Do you really think the Church intends to go through the ridiculous sorts of convolutions you and other have displayed for something that could be cut and dried in 6 words or less? Have you considered even for a moment that the bishops who allows deacons and laypersons to distribute via intinction might just know more than you? Did you ever consider the current GIRM is now years old and that if those bishops who allow it had a question it would long have been answered and published?
“Change of vocabulary?” Hardly…
B
Brendan
Guest
Well Cardinal Arinze, in responding to questions on the Liturgy, mentioned priests and deacons (alone)
adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html
H
Hotchkiss
Guest
So according to the informal opinion of Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intinction isn’t limited to priests – but it is not open to laypersons.
I find that fascinating. Given that he’s clearly an expert on such things I wonder what the good cardinal thinks of the aforementioned “Change of vocabulary?”
B
benedictgal
Guest
However, Cardinal Arinze was speaking off the cuff and did not issue an official statement. In addition, if you look at the date, his statement was issued in 2003, before the promulgaiton of Redemptionis Sacramentum (which came out n 2004). Furthermore, there is a new prefect at the CDWDS whose office gave a more specific interpretation (in tandem with RS), meaning that the only ones who can intinct are the priests and bishops. Deacons were not even brought up in the conversation that I had with the CDWDS.
The CDWDS directed me to reduce my question to writing. They, in turn, said that they will reduce their response to me in writing. Whatever correspondence I receive will have a protocol number. While I am not expecting them to overnight their letter to me (nor am I expecting the formal reply until well after the New Year), I do not suspect that the answer will be any different than what was given to me by them over the phone during the two different times that I called (Friday and this past Monday). Two different officials gave me the exact same response. The reading of the documents limits intinction to the priest/bishop.
At the very least, with all due respect, you have been proven wrong regarding your interpretation that EMHCs are allowed to administer Holy Communion via intinction.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Have you considered that, with all due respect, that just about every interpretation that you have offered is wrong and is in conflict with both the GIRM and RS? Do you not realize that the word priest, in Latin, “sacerdos” means just that, priest? Did you ever consider that both the GIRM and RS must be read in tandem?
The problem, as I see it, with your response, is that you fail to take into account the supreme authority of the Holy See in this matter. While the bishop can certainly regulate whether both Species will be administered to the faithful, he cannot change just who can do what. A bishop’s authority can only go so far.
B
Brendan
Guest
I might actually bring this up with him. He is coming to our parish in March to celebrate Mass and give the keynote at our parish Lenten Symposium,
The normal practice in our parish is for Ordinary Ministers ( priests and deacons) to offer Communion via Intinction. Our single EMHC ( an ordained Chaldean Sub-Deacon) only offers the species of bread.
So if I get a chance to ask him directly, I will.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Our responses will probably come about the same time. If japhy’s letter was any indication, my response will come within three months time, which will be the same time as when you see him.
It’s interesting, though Brendan. When I posed the question to the CDWDS, the priest who was responding to it told me to wait briefly. I could hear him consulting with someone else and then when he came back on the line, he was reading RS in tandem with the GIRM sections that were previously provided. He also explained to me that “sacerdos” was specifically speaking about priest/bishop. I asked him about Archbishop Chaput’s ruling, which came out in April of this year wherein the Metropolitan specifically stated that intinction could only be done by the priest/bishop. He concurred with that ruling.
I suspect that because Cardinal Arinze made his statement a year prior to the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum (remember, his interview happened in July 2003, while RS came out in October 2004), something changed in the inerval. Even the language in RS 103 specifically mentions the word “priest”. In any case, this is not something that an EMHC should be doing, and here, both Cardinal Arinze and the current CDWDS statement are in complete agreement.
Y’all are lucky to be getting him in your parish.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s especially interresting because Redemptionis Sacramentum bears Card. Arinze’s own signature.Our responses will probably come about the same time. If japhy’s letter was any indication, my response will come within three months time, which will be the same time as when you see him.
It’s interesting, though Brendan. When I posed the question to the CDWDS, the priest who was responding to it told me to wait briefly. I could hear him consulting with someone else and then when he came back on the line, he was reading RS in tandem with the GIRM sections that were previously provided. He also explained to me that “sacerdos” was specifically speaking about priest/bishop. I asked him about Archbishop Chaput’s ruling, which came out in April of this year wherein the Metropolitan specifically stated that intinction could only be done by the priest/bishop. He concurred with that ruling.
I suspect that because Cardinal Arinze made his statement a year prior to the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum (remember, his interview happened in July 2003, while RS came out in October 2004), something changed in the inerval. Even the language in RS 103 specifically mentions the word “priest”. In any case, this is not something that an EMHC should be doing, and here, both Cardinal Arinze and the current CDWDS statement are in complete agreement.
Y’all are lucky to be getting him in your parish.
So whether the interview was a result of his interpretion which he later changed, or whether he misspoke and accidentally added “or deacon” it’s clear that in March 2004 he did say that only a priest (sacerdos) can do intinction.
B
Brendan
Guest
Thanks, they tend to bring in some pretty big names. Last year, we had Fr. Benedict Groschel.Y’all are lucky to be getting him in your parish.
In years past, there has usually been a dinner in the rectory for the speakers. It involved the parish priests,the deacons, our seminarians, and me ( I’m in the Diaconate program, if just on hiatus)
That would be really nice if that happened this year as well, but there is also a very strong likelyhood that +Arinze will stay at either Archbishop Vigneron’s residence or Cardinal Maida’ residence.
M
mhazell
Guest
Excuse me? You’re the one who made the assertion in the first place! It is therefore incumbent on you to prove your assertion by way of other examples from the GIRM. I’m not doing your homework for you!
Nice try at deflecting criticism–however, there’s no ad hominem in any of what I said.
The GIRM talks about ministers generally in para. 286, and priests and ministers in para. 287. There is a definite change in the manner of speaking and the vocabulary used; it is *natural *to conclude that the change between the paragraphs means something and has, therefore, certain implications for the practice of communion under both kinds.
How so? You still haven’t given a valid reason to dismiss the fact the GIRM speaks of priests intincting and not other ministers; you still haven’t shown why “priest” should be taken as shorthand for any general minister.
Call my interpretation what you like, but I’m not the one making (currently) baseless assumptions.
She may very well do so soon, from what others in this thread have implied. In any case, the limitation is there in the letter of the GIRM, by the use of sacerdos in para. 287!
Of course I have. But trust me, if intinction were a common practice in my diocese (which it isn’t) and laypeople were intincting, I would be having this very conversation with my priests and bishop.
To my knowledge, the current GIRM is as old as the current revised missal (i.e. 2002). It’s not that old. And there are plenty of bishops and priests and laypeople (not necessarily yours) who ignore the GIRM–they’ve ignored it for years, why would they bother asking Rome for clarifications now?
But there is a change… it’s there, for all to see… minster, sacerdos…!!
I ask again–if it’s not important, why the change?
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
Hotchkiss wrote: “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.”
mhazell quoted this and replied: “Care to provide some examples and/or proof?
In any case, even if the word “priests” is used as shorthand in other documents, for your argument to hold any water here you would have to come up with concrete examples from the GIRM. It seems silly to take shorthand from other, separate Church documents that may be dealing with different things entirely and apply that to the GIRM.”
An example of what Hotchkiss is talking about is from the 2002 GIRM: “161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ).” The Latin text uses the word “sacerdos” here. In full: “161. Si Communio sub specie tantum panis fit, sacerdos hostiam parum elevatam unicuique ostendit dicens: Corpus Christi.” (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, page 50.)
But we know from documents on Extraordinary Ministers, such as the 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam, n. 6 that an instituted acolyte “is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”
What does Benedictgal think the CDWDS is saying? If the priest is well, then people can receive communion by intinction. Thus fulfilling as the GIRM says: “281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds.” And: “282. … At the same time, the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.” But if the priest is unwell and an extraordinary minster is required, then intinction is forbidden. The extraordinary minister can give the consecrated host, and the consecrated wine, but not both together.
If that is the discipline that they want followed they need to spell it out, and some explanation for the change would be helpful.
mhazell quoted this and replied: “Care to provide some examples and/or proof?
In any case, even if the word “priests” is used as shorthand in other documents, for your argument to hold any water here you would have to come up with concrete examples from the GIRM. It seems silly to take shorthand from other, separate Church documents that may be dealing with different things entirely and apply that to the GIRM.”
An example of what Hotchkiss is talking about is from the 2002 GIRM: “161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ).” The Latin text uses the word “sacerdos” here. In full: “161. Si Communio sub specie tantum panis fit, sacerdos hostiam parum elevatam unicuique ostendit dicens: Corpus Christi.” (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, page 50.)
But we know from documents on Extraordinary Ministers, such as the 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam, n. 6 that an instituted acolyte “is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”
What does Benedictgal think the CDWDS is saying? If the priest is well, then people can receive communion by intinction. Thus fulfilling as the GIRM says: “281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds.” And: “282. … At the same time, the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.” But if the priest is unwell and an extraordinary minster is required, then intinction is forbidden. The extraordinary minister can give the consecrated host, and the consecrated wine, but not both together.
If that is the discipline that they want followed they need to spell it out, and some explanation for the change would be helpful.
B
benedictgal
Guest
That is why I called them in the first place, John. It’s not a matter of what I think the CDWDS is saying; what I wrote is what they told me their interpretation was. As soon as I get the formal letter from the Congregation, I will post the reply. In a previous post, I noted that I called them twice, spoke to two different officials and I got the same reply and conclusion. Furthermore, aside from the issue with the deacon, which RS (promulgated in 2004) seems to have clarified, Cardinal Arinze’s 2003 response regarding the priest administering via intinction is consistent with what the CDWDS said.
I think that you also need to look at what the Latin specifically states and what RS says. So far, you have only quoted from the GIRM, but, the GIRM needs to be read in tandem with what RS says.
The problem with Hotchkiss is that the poster, as I read what has been written, seems to not think that the authority of the CDWDS matters in this case.
H
Hotchkiss
Guest
Very nice. Thank you.
I’m certain of two things. If distributing communion via intinction was prohibited for the laity the Church would be crystal clear about it in very plain language. If the language didn’t exist with the promulgation of the GIRM then it would have been dubiumed by now.
Second and even more important, the reason for any prohibition would be well known to all and it’s certainly not – largely because there is no such reason.
I’m not sure why anyone would suggest that communion distribution by intinction should be limited to priests per the GIRM. There simply is no reason for such a limitation.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, that is your supposition and interpretation, which differs greatly from what the CDWDS and the prefect whom you referenced have stated. Thus, your certainty is, as I see it, rather muddied and is akin more to fuzzy math than adherence to a valid interpretation issued by the CDWDS.
It will receive a dubium, but, with all due respect, as I read your posts, even that would not be enough for you.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Great Article to read for this thread. From the website “What does the Prayer really Say”.
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/catholic-herald-op-ed-we-need-a-sharper-divide-between-priests-and-laity/
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/catholic-herald-op-ed-we-need-a-sharper-divide-between-priests-and-laity/
H
Hotchkiss
Guest
Odd column. He takes shots at the use of EMsHC but then promotes the institution (rather than the commissioning) of men…
Unless men are going to undergo some fairly serious formation (like 2+ years at nights and/.or weekends) I see no advantage to instituting males for life versus commissioning both men and women for a specific term – except for the issue of purifying sacred vessels should that be an issue in a parish. In fact I see a grave potential downside…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Excellent article!
Since Pope Paul VI supressed the minor orders (and the major order of Subdeacon), we have only seen one-half of his vision realized. We’ve seen the disappearance of those orders (of course) but we have not seen them replaced, in any tangible sense, with the instituted ministries. The later was as much his intention as the former. Instead what we do see is a type of liturgical chaos where there is often little or no meaningful discernment as to who can perform these important ministries. The very fact that we so often see the question posed on these threads “can a non-Catholic be a reader at Mass?” is a good indication of just how widely this idea of temporary readers is being abused. Too many Catholics attach too little importance to proclaiming the readings at Mass to the point where it has become little more than a function, or worse an opportunity to make a statement.
Many, though not all, eparchies (dioceses) of the Eastern Catholic Churches here in the US have either restored or never abandoned the permanent order of subdeacon, and with great success. Perhaps the Latin Church should re-consider the subdiaconate, in light of the fact that Paul VI’s original idea of Instituted Ministries has been, for the most part, neglected.
Not only do we have too many EMHCs, but we also have too many extra-ordinary readers. Restoration of the subdiaconate would go a long way in helping us to recover a proper sense of service at the Mass as a ministry rather than a means to recognize individuals.
- Status