Intinction as a means to foster communion on the tongue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahlman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahlman

Guest
As far as I have understood, some people are totally against communion under both kinds in the same way that they are against communion in the hand and female altar servers. I too think it is wrong to distribute communion under both kinds if it makes parishioners think that they are deprived of something in those cases communion is only under one kind. And I definitely think it is wrong to let the laymen drink from the chalice if this means you have to use extra EMHC:s.

But what about communion under both kinds by means of intinction? Since communion received in this way has to be received on the tounge, my experience is that it leads to more people choosing to reaceive on the tongue, since those who still choose to receive in the hand will only receive communion under one kind. So as a way to foster communion on the tongue without forcing anyone, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make communion by means of intinction more widespread? Even if there is only one priest no EMHC:s are needed, just an altar server holding the bowl of hosts or an intinction set.
 
Ahlman said:
As far as I have understood, some people are totally against communion under both kinds in the same way that they are against communion in the hand and female altar servers. I too think it is wrong to distribute communion under both kinds if it makes parishioners think that they are deprived of something in those cases communion is only under one kind. And I definitely think it is wrong to let the laymen drink from the chalice if this means you have to use extra EMHC:s.

But what about communion under both kinds by means of intinction? Since communion received in this way has to be received on the tounge, my experience is that it leads to more people choosing to reaceive on the tongue, since those who still choose to receive in the hand will only receive communion under one kind. So as a way to foster communion on the tongue without forcing anyone, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make communion by means of intinction more widespread? Even if there is only one priest no EMHC:s are needed, just an altar server holding the bowl of hosts or an intinction set.
Click to expand...
Personally I am all in favor of intinction. It can’t be wrong, because the Eastern Rites similarly give communion with both species at the same time (by means of a spoon), and even in the Latin Rite communion was always given under both species until the Middle Ages.

And, another good that comes of this is the communicant must receive on the tongue
 
Personally I think intinction is always a great idea. The sign value of the co-mingling of both species and the “pace” as which communion is distributed is powerful. Very powerful.

I have never read anything definitive suggesting that communion by intinction cannot be distributed by commissioned or instituted laypeople along with clergy. So having enough priests or deacons should not be a concern in this matter.

I have also never heard of people being able to received the non-dipped host (either in hand or on tongue) when communion is being distributed via intinction except in very special situations. Do they do that where you worship?
 
Ahlman said:
I too think it is wrong to distribute communion under both kinds if it makes parishioners think that they are deprived of something in those cases communion is only under one kind.
Click to expand...
I’m kind of confused. Why would you choose to change the means of communication rather than simply address this issue catechetically?
 
  • **“They do it in the East” **I’ve heard this one a lot. I don’t mean to be rude, but I frankly do not care what they do in the East when it comes to how I think things should be done in the LATIN Rite. If you admire how they distribute communion in the East, by all means, go there.
  • **“It is a better sign” **A better sign of what, may I ask? I seriously doubt that’s how Jesus did things at the Last Supper, as dropping a piece of bread into a cup of wine and having people drink from the cup (after its contents has been consecrated, of course) isn’t how one typically eats and drinks. Jesus consecrated the bread and wine separately. We understand that it is Jesus’ living body and blood in both species- you can’t have a living body without blood, and blood cells don’t stay alive for very long outside of a body. A little bit of thought goes a long way.
  • **“It leads to more people receiving on the tongue” **They don’t have much of a choice. The Church could also take away the indult that allows people in certain countries to, under certain conditions, receive communion in the hand. Catechesis can also go a long way here, and so can prayer for an end to communion in the hand.
 
Pauly said:
Personally I think intinction is always a great idea. The sign value of the co-mingling of both species and the “pace” as which communion is distributed is powerful. Very powerful.

I have never read anything definitive suggesting that communion by intinction cannot be distributed by commissioned or instituted laypeople along with clergy. So having enough priests or deacons should not be a concern in this matter.

I have also never heard of people being able to received the non-dipped host (either in hand or on tongue) when communion is being distributed via intinction except in very special situations. Do they do that where you worship?
Click to expand...
We have the right to not receive the Precious Blood, whether by inctinction or from the chalice, and we have the right to receive in the hand where the Conference of Bishops have been granted that indult, so going to intinction for everyone as a means of stopping Communion in the hand is simply wrong.
 
m134e5 said:
*]**“It is a better sign” **A better sign of what, may I ask? I seriously doubt that’s how Jesus did things at the Last Supper, as dropping a piece of bread into a cup of wine and having people drink from the cup (after its contents has been consecrated, of course) isn’t how one typically eats and drinks. Jesus consecrated the bread and wine separately. We understand that it is Jesus’ living body and blood in both species- you can’t have a living body without blood, and blood cells don’t stay alive for very long outside of a body. A little bit of thought goes a long way.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ are individually consecrated for both species. Then there is a co-mingling of the consecrated host with the Precious Blood before the priest takes communion – terrific sign value of life (body + blood.)

That can be replicated for every communicant through intinction.
 
Phemie said:
We have the right to not receive the Precious Blood, whether by inctinction or from the chalice, and we have the right to receive in the hand where the Conference of Bishops have been granted that indult, so going to intinction for everyone as a means of stopping Communion in the hand is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Why? the Church has always had and still has the right to regulate how Holy Communion is give, how often it is given and under what form it is given. Should they make a decision to change the current manner of distribution it is entirely within their discretion to do so,

It is well to remember why the Church abandoned the practice of receiving in the hand and under both species in the first place and then look at the sheer irreverence with which many receive today.
 
Phemie said:
We have the right to not receive the Precious Blood, whether by inctinction or from the chalice, and we have the right to receive in the hand where the Conference of Bishops have been granted that indult, so going to intinction for everyone as a means of stopping Communion in the hand is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe anyone has the “right” (indult or not) to receive communion in hand or to receive a non-intincted host when communion is being distributed via intinction.

I think special cases (Celiac, alcoholism) are special no matter what the method of distribution and deserve/require special consideration. But that’s not the norm.

I do agree though. Employing intinction with the intention to limit communion in hand is simply wrong.
 
Pauly said:
I don’t believe anyone has the “right” (indult or not) to receive communion in hand or to receive a non-intincted host when communion is being distributed via intinction.
Click to expand...
Hard to say. cf Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
Click to expand...
Pauly said:
I do agree though. Employing intinction with the intention to limit communion in hand is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Concur.

:twocents:
tee
 
I agree with Fr. Stravinskas that intinction would be the best of both worlds, the full sign value of reception under both species and the reverence and protection from accident of reception on the tongue. I also agree with his caveat that a pastor who intends to move in this direction purchase altar bread and communion service sets intended for this purpose, and make sure the congregation is fully catechized about the change. the rules have been well documented in past discussions of this matter: only the priest may intinct. Period. I foresee a side benefit of choirs forming and actually a return to sacred music during this time as opposed to a hootenany, followed by a blessed period of silence for reflection. Now that would be a change.

I interpret section 92 cited in post above, giving pastors right to limit distribution in the hand if there is danger of profanation, as the Shrine near us has done, when the rector banned the practice.
 
palmas85 said:
Why? the Church has always had and still has the right to regulate how Holy Communion is give, how often it is given and under what form it is given. Should they make a decision to change the current manner of distribution it is entirely within their discretion to do so,
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say.

My previous comments were meant to solely reflect present practice in North America. Since the GIRM says that the communicant may receive “where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand” the decision to go to intinction exclusively removes that choice. IIRC, the previous edition of the US GIRM had the admonition that intinction should not be used with the intent to circumvent reception in the hand. I know I’ve seen the line before but it’s not in the new GIRM.

Now, if the Church in her infinite wisdom decides to remove the choice and return to Communion only on the tongue, I’d have no problem with it.
 
puzzleannie said:
I agree with Fr. Stravinskas that intinction would be the best of both worlds, the full sign value of reception under both species and the reverence and protection from accident of reception on the tongue. I also agree with his caveat that a pastor who intends to move in this direction purchase altar bread and communion service sets intended for this purpose, and make sure the congregation is fully catechized about the change. the rules have been well documented in past discussions of this matter: only the priest may intinct. Period. I foresee a side benefit of choirs forming and actually a return to sacred music during this time as opposed to a hootenany, followed by a blessed period of silence for reflection. Now that would be a change.

I interpret section 92 cited in post above, giving pastors right to limit distribution in the hand if there is danger of profanation, as the Shrine near us has done, when the rector banned the practice.
Click to expand...
There is no document or direction to my knowledge from the Catholic Church that directly or indirectly restricts the distribution of communion via intinction to priests.

People can make inferences based on how they personally interpret the GIRM, but no where will one find an out right prohibition or even a suggestion that only clerics distribute via intinction.

I wish the Holy See would specifically say it is OK for trained and qualified laypersons to distribute communion via intinction because I believe the practice of intinction might become more prevalent.
 
as you see
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=2460778
most past threads on this topic are on the liturgy and sacraments forum, where they belong, and a couple have become heated enough to be closed by mods. past threads supplied for those who are interested in reading the documentation, rejecting it, and making their own interpretation of the church docs in question.
 
puzzleannie said:
as you see
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=2460778
most past threads on this topic are on the liturgy and sacraments forum, where they belong, and a couple have become heated enough to be closed by mods. past threads supplied for those who are interested in reading the documentation, rejecting it, and making their own interpretation of the church docs in question.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to get in a heated discussion but there is no prohibition by the Catholic Church for lay ministers or deacons to distribute Holy Communion via intinction. Yes, I have read both the GIRM and RS and other documents and the prohibition simply does not exist. I have also asked my diocesan liturgical director (a monsignor) and my bishop in person. No prohibition.

I am interested in something else though. Clearly some want intinction to be limited to priests so they come up with information they feel supports their personal positions. They fail in their attempts but why the desire to limit it to priests in the first place? I have far better hand/eye coordination and far steadier hands than my 75 year old pastor so it’s not a matter of bio-mechanics.

Is there a feeling that the laity would somehow be tarnishing something more special than distributing communion one species at a time if it became more common for them to distribute via intinction?

It would be very interesting to know why some would prefer to limit intinction to priests as the Church currently does not.

P.S. If we look to the East there are Byzantine Catholic churches that allow qualified laypersons to distribute communion under very specific conditions and their only means of distribution is by intinction.
 
Pauly said:
I don’t want to get in a heated discussion but there is no prohibition by the Catholic Church for lay ministers or deacons to distribute Holy Communion via intinction. Yes, I have read both the GIRM and RS and other documents and the prohibition simply does not exist. I have also asked my diocesan liturgical director (a monsignor) and my bishop in person. No prohibition.
Click to expand...
From Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
  1. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (53)
 
I just wanted to add a reference for the use of EMsHC in the East or else some might not believe me. It’s remarkable to think that at a Divine Liturgy with 500 faithful with only one priest and deacon in attendance, up to five EMsHC could be used to distribute communion via intinction per canon law.

From the Codex Canonurn Ecclesiarum Orientalium

Canon 709 §2

§l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

*§2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.
1o. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.*
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
From Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
  1. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (53)
Click to expand...
Take a look at the rest of that document. It uses “priest” on matters clearly not reserved only to priests.

The Holy See is very clear that self-intinction is forbidden. If it wanted to limit intinction to priests I think it would be equally clear.

I also think that if such a prohibition existed, it would have to come from the Holy See and not the USCCB?
 
Posting #18 has me thinking now. Might the distribution of communion via intinction by EMsHC actually increase the need for the total number of EMsHC?

Could that be why some would like to see intinction limited to priests? I had never thought of that before.

It would take (as an example) more EMsHC to distribute via intinction than through the consecrated host alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top