Intinction and Deacons? (Can Deacons dip the host into the precious blood?)

[jeannedarc]

I’ve searched high and low and I can’t seem to find the answer. I read what GIRM said about intinction (the dipping of the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and placing it on the communicants tongue) and it appears that only the priest can do intinction & that the deacon can only assist. I know that at some parishes it is the practice for deacons to practice intinction. However others I have talked to say that this is not allowed and that only priests can do this.

Thanks!

 

[centurionguard]

I’ve searched high and low and I can’t seem to find the answer. I read what GIRM said about intinction (the dipping of the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and placing it on the communicants tongue) and it appears that only the priest can do intinction & that the deacon can only assist. I know that at some parishes it is the practice for deacons to practice intinction. However others I have talked to say that this is not allowed and that only priests can do this.

Thanks!

However others I have talked to say that this is not allowed and that only priests can do this.

From what I have read this intinction practice was (“never”) a norm even for priest to practice.
You have never seen any Pope begin this practice.

This practice started in many Catholic Churches in the 1970’s. Rarely do I see this practice today at least not in my archdiocese.

 

[centurionguard]

Br. Rich SFO Br. Rich SFO
Veteran Member

Join Date: June 3, 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 10,173
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: tincturing of host
Quote:
Originally Posted by claricita View Post
I attended mass today and when I went to receive communion like most times I went up and tinctured the consecrated host. the minister of Eucharist did not say the words, " THE BLOOD OF CHRIST" nor did she facilitate my action of tincturing. Tincturing may be liturgically incorrect, but I believe the Eucharistic minister was passing judgement on me and acting like a Pharisees. what would Jesus have done? Well I believe He would have welcomed me, even though I was making a mistake.
I felt very angry and upset.
You are not making a mistake and self-intinction is not liturgically incorrect.

You are intentionally violating liturgical law and doing something that is forbidden. Stop attempting to do this immediately, before you cause a major accident to happen.
Reply With Quote

 

[centurionguard]

Vatican web page: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Dispositions for the Reception of Holy Communion

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

[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]

[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.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If the Deacon can distribute the Precious Blood from the Chalice, or can distribute the Host, why can the Deacon not intinct the Hosts?

---

From what I have read this intinction practice was (“never”) a norm even for priest to practice.
You have never seen any Pope begin this practice.

---

**I have.

At the Paschal Vigil just this year, Pope Benedict XVI gave communion by intinction to the neophytes. I saw it for myself on EWTN!**

 

[centurionguard]

If the Deacon can distribute the Precious Blood from the Chalice, or can distribute the Host, why can the Deacon not intinct the Hosts?

---

From what I have read this intinction practice was (“never”) a norm even for priest to practice.
You have never seen any Pope begin this practice.

---

**I have.

At the Paschal Vigil just this year, Pope Benedict XVI gave communion by intinction to the neophytes. I saw it for myself on EWTN!**

This was a typo error on my part. In the subsequent post’s I was trying to correct my error.
But you can be doubly sure that this practice wasn’t liberalized as it is in many parishes today before Vatican II.
I personally don’t approve of it for good reason even if the Church today does permit the Intinction of the host into the chalice by the priest only. What’s to prevent minuscule droplets of the Sacred Blood of Christ from dripping from the Sacred Host onto the floor by unseen primitive human eyes especially when today no (“hand type”) Paten is used today by Alter servers in most Catholic Churches.
For me this is Sacrilege. And as for the Paten once used by Alter servers to assist the priests at Holy Communion, most priest after Vatican II think it’s excessive nonsense.

 

[passus]

Since it looks like this question still hasn’t really been answered…

Unlike civil law in which it isn’t forbidden it is permitted, in liturgical law if it isn’t positively permitted it isn’t allowed. Everything points to the priest being the minister of intinction, assisted by the deacon, or if one is not present, an extraordinary minister.

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=563899&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=1

 

[japhy]

But you can be doubly sure that this practice wasn’t liberalized as it is in many parishes today before Vatican II.

Actually, the Church preferred Communion by intinction for administering the Precious Blood over receiving directly from the chalice. (“The method of having the communicants pass the chalice from one to another or having them go directly to the chalice to receive the precious blood does not seem advisable. Instead of this, communion should be by intinction.” Liturgicae Instaurationes 6) But individual bishops preferred to grant access directly to the chalice. Go figure.

What’s to prevent minuscule droplets of the Sacred Blood of Christ from dripping from the Sacred Host

Because liquids don’t work that way. Anyway, patens should be used no matter how Communion is administered, and, in my opinion, especially for intinction.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve searched high and low and I can’t seem to find the answer. I read what GIRM said about intinction (the dipping of the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and placing it on the communicants tongue) and it appears that only the priest can do intinction & that the deacon can only assist. I know that at some parishes it is the practice for deacons to practice intinction. However others I have talked to say that this is not allowed and that only priests can do this.

Thanks!

The current understanding is that only a priest can administer Holy Communion by intinction, to the exclusion of deacons or Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

In the past, the practice was that deacons, or even EMHCs could use intinction to distribute.

When Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in 2004, it contains the line
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.
adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html #103

Church authorities have interpreted that line to mean that only a priest can administer by intinction. There is solid grounds for saying this because the word used is “priest” and not “minister”–that’s an important point to keep in mind.

The question is this: does the document mean “the priest-only on the tongue” or does it mean “the priest only-on-the-tongue” or does it mean both? The original Latin text is no more clear than the English translation (this has been discussed in other threads).

I don’t think there has been a definitive Vatican ruling on this, although there is no question that intinction must be received on the tongue (ie not in the hand).

Here’s the bottom line:

The current discipline of the Church, as it is being applied, is that only a priest, and not a deacon nor an EMHC can administer Holy Communion by intinction. This is the “consensus opinion” of the bishops and liturgists in how to interpret this norm. For all practical effects, this is the liturgical law.

It is possible that this could be a misunderstanding of the norms, and at some future date, the Vatican might clarify and allow deacons (and perhaps even EMHCS) to distribute this way. Or that the norm might be changed. This is just speculation, though. In the meantime the application of the norms is that only a priest can intinct. It’s also possible that the Vatican may say “only a priest can distribute by intinction.”

 

[FrDavid96]

This was a typo error on my part. In the subsequent post’s I was trying to correct my error.
But you can be doubly sure that this practice wasn’t liberalized as it is in many parishes today before Vatican II.
I personally don’t approve of it for good reason even if the Church today does permit the Intinction of the host into the chalice by the priest only. What’s to prevent minuscule droplets of the Sacred Blood of Christ from dripping from the Sacred Host onto the floor by unseen primitive human eyes especially when today no (“hand type”) Paten is used today by Alter servers in most Catholic Churches.
For me this is Sacrilege. And as for the Paten once used by Alter servers to assist the priests at Holy Communion, most priest after Vatican II think it’s excessive nonsense.

You bring up a good point.

I’ve been distributing by intinction for years, and never had a problem with droplets. There’s a “technique” to it. The priest doesn’t “soak” the Host in the Blood, but merely dips it slightly and quickly, at the edge of the Blood and near the cup, and then gives the Host a little “tap” or “rub” against the inside of the chalice. It’s hard to describe it in words but with a little practice it’s rather easy.

And yes, I do use a paten (held by the altar boys who are very carefully trained in the right way to use them).

I’ve found that distributing by intinction has overall much less danger of sacrilege because the priest does not have to worry about the problems that arise when communicants receive in the hand.

 

[malphono]

The current understanding is that only a priest can administer Holy Communion by intinction, to the exclusion of deacons or Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

In the past, the practice was that deacons, or even EMHCs could use intinction to distribute.

FWIW, among the Maronites intinction is the norm, and it applies to deacons (and, when so designated, sub-deacons) as well.

Not that it has much bearing on a discussion of Latin Rite practice, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

 

[nannyma]

Since it looks like this question still hasn’t really been answered…

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=563899&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=1

My experience with this subject is: In the Monastery we receive by intinction from the priest on our tongue and this is done from a specially designed paten that has a small cup in the middle with the hosts encircling the cup.,while we hold the paten under our chin.
In our parish where I serve as extraordinary minister, this is not permitted however there are no signs that say this is unacceptable. Occassionally someone will come up to me and dip the host in the chalice. I immediately follow the host to the person’s mouth with the purificator, fortunately I think this works for I have not experienced this in quite a while. As far as Deacons,I have had no experience with deacons; my opinion would be those with the sacrament of Holy orders completed would be the obvious choice. God Bless,nannyma

 

[FrDavid96]

My experience with this subject is: In the Monastery we receive by intinction from the priest on our tongue and this is done from a specially designed paten that has a small cup in the middle of the paten with the hosts encircling the cup.
In our parish where I serve as extraordinary minister, this is not permitted however there are no signs that say this is unacceptable. Occassionally someone will come up to me and dip the host in the chalice. I immediately follow the host to the person’s mouth with the purificator, fortunately I think this works for I have not experienced this in quite a while. God Bless,nannyma

That’s the difference between intinction and self-intinction.

There’s no doubt at all that self-intinction (except by a priest) is never permitted. I know it sometimes puts people in a difficult position. The issue is that when someone receives the Host, it must be consumed immediately. In your scenario, by the time the person gets to you (who have the chalice/cup) the problem has already happened.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I personally don’t approve of it for good reason even if the Church today does permit the Intinction of the host into the chalice by the priest only.

---

**That’s interesting how you disapprove of what the Church permits.

I suggest you have a long talk with your confessor about your attitude.**

 

[Brendan]

From what I have read this intinction practice was (“never”) a norm even for priest to practice.
You have never seen any Pope begin this practice.

This practice started in many Catholic Churches in the 1970’s. Rarely do I see this practice today at least not in my archdiocese.

Not quite true. Both my parents are from Ireland. They both made their First Holy Communions back in the 40’s. They both recieved an Intincted Eucharist. It was also common to recieve that way on Feasts that has a special significance to the Eucharist ( Corpus Christi, Holy Thursday etc…)

So it was used in pre-Vatican II times with some regularlity in Ireland at least.

And both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have said the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrystom (Eastern Catholic) on at least one occasion. Intiction is the normative practice in that Liturgy.

 

[Brendan]

The current discipline of the Church, as it is being applied, is that only a priest, and not a deacon nor an EMHC can administer Holy Communion by intinction. "

Cardinal Arinze, when he was Prefect of the CDWDS did indicate otherwise. Granted, it was during a simple Q&A session at a Catholic Conference, but he did seem to imply that deacons may intinct.

Persons planning a wedding: Can they just pick anyone to be a Eucharistic minister at their wedding Mass, even if they’re not approved?

Well, the question of Eucharistic minister – you mean the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, that is, those who will help the priest and the deacon when the priest and the deacon are not [sufficient] to give Holy Communion to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds who are receiving Communion. That’s what we mean by Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Which means that if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion, nobody else should dare to come near the altar and touch the sacred vessel to distribute Communion, because they were not ordained for that.

It’s very important to stress that, because some people do not understand the whole point of these Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Some people think that it is a power struggle for lay people to prove that what the priest can do, so can they. Which means if there are not many people to receive Communion – suppose there are three priests or two priests and one deacon and 100 people to receive Communion – then there is no need for even one single Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

However, I noticed in this country many people insist on receiving under two forms – that means, the form of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. If the bishop has approved it, that’s all right. But it means it demands a lot of care because it is so easy to spill the Precious Blood.

It is so easy, and, as you mentioned earlier, in these days of disease, some people are worried if there are up to 50 people drinking from the same cup. Some people are hesitant.

Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the Precious Blood and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.

adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

 

[FrDavid96]

Cardinal Arinze, when he was Prefect of the CDWDS did indicate otherwise. Granted, it was during a simple Q&A session at a Catholic Conference, but he did seem to imply that deacons may intinct.

Here’s what I wrote:

In the past, the practice was that deacons, or even EMHCs could use intinction to distribute.

When Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in** 2004**, it contains the line …
The good Cardinal’s comments were made in Oct. 2003.

The dates are very relevant.

I also posted:

The current discipline of the Church, as it is being applied, is that only a priest, and not a deacon nor an EMHC can administer Holy Communion by intinction. This is the “consensus opinion” of the bishops and liturgists in how to interpret this norm. For all practical effects, this is the liturgical law.

 

[grampsc]

Yes there is confusion and the entire method of distributing Holy Eucharist is in great need of serious contemplation by the Bishops of the entire Church. I also found that as a ELEM that I have had individuals present a pyx for me to deposit the Host into and I have made it a point of telling them I can’t do that as I don’t know their qualifications (i.e. are they ordained or are they ELEM) and I suggest that they go directly to the celebrant and request the Host from him.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes there is confusion and the entire method of distributing Holy Eucharist is in great need of serious contemplation by the Bishops of the entire Church. I also found that as a ELEM that I have had individuals present a pyx for me to deposit the Host into and I have made it a point of telling them I can’t do that as I don’t know their qualifications (i.e. are they ordained or are they ELEM) and I suggest that they go directly to the celebrant and request the Host from him.

Good call. The other points to remember is that 1. No one should ever be walking away with a Host in the Communion line. Even if that Host is in a pyx. And 2. only a priest can appoint an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion for a particular act, so the person with the pyx is not an emHC unless and until the priest makes that appointment. A person who is deputed to assist the priest at Mass by helping to distribute Communion cannot appoint or even allow someone else to take Communion to a 3rd party.

 

[FrDavid96]

Cardinal Arinze, when he was Prefect of the CDWDS did indicate otherwise. Granted, it was during a simple Q&A session at a Catholic Conference, but he did seem to imply that deacons may intinct.

To continue that, I’m not entirely convinced (personally speaking) that it was the intention of Redemptionis Sacramentum to limit intinction only to priests. That’s how the bishops interpret it, and I must defer to their interpretation, so as far as I’m concerned that’s the liturgical law and I can’t go against it.

I don’t see any reason why a deacon could not distribute by intinction. Of course, the fact that I don’t see it does not give me license to go against the norms described by the bishops. I mention this only because it would not surprise me to learn at some future date that the Holy See might issue some clarification which would allow intinction by deacons–just speculation of course.

I also have not entirely eliminated the possibility that the interpretation of RS might in some way be influenced by people “whispering in the bishops’ collective ears” that deacons cannot distribute this way as a backdoor way of discouraging intinction. Just a thought.