Intinction by EMsHC?

[Stewmont]

Is there a direct instruction (which does not require highly questionable interpretation) from the Church that clearly prohibits lay EMsHC from distributing communion via intinction?

If there is no such instruction, given that EMsHC can indeed distribute communion (of one species) under specific circumstances, what would the rationale be for not extending this privilege in the form of intinction as well?

 

[benedictgal]

Let’s see what the official liturgical documents of the Church say.

This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes (written in 2004):

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.19

Now, here is what the General Insruction of the Roman Missal, third typical edition (promulgated in English on or around 2002), indicates:

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice, and, showing it, says Corpus et Sanguis Christi (the Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest and withdraws.

If that were not enough, this is the explanation Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation on Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, offered in 2003 when the matter came up:

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.

Therefore, based on the documents and the authoritative explanation by Cardinal Arinze, EMHCs cannot distribute Holy Communion via intinction.

His interpretation is consistent with what the authoritative documents of the Holy See, specifically from his own Congregtion, have already issued. He is not likely to backtrack and contradict what his own congregation has already mandated.

 

[japhy]

Given the conversation in another thread about whether the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum are meant to exclude EMHCs from distributing Communion via intinction, I think this statement from the USCCB is decent:

“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.” (NDRHC 24)

Cardinal Arinze also said that it was restricted to priests and deacons, although that was before R.S. was released, and him saying that wasn’t an official statement as far as I can tell.

 

[benedictgal]

Given the conversation in another thread about whether the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum are meant to exclude EMHCs from distributing Communion via intinction, I think this statement from the USCCB is decent:

“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.” (NDRHC 24)

Cardinal Arinze also said that it was restricted to priests and deacons, although that was before R.S. was released, and him saying that wasn’t an official statement as far as I can tell.

It wasn’t an official statement; however,at the time it was made, in 2003, his interpretation was pretty close to what the 2002 edition of the GIRM stated.

Now, just out of curiousity, when was the USCCB statement issued?

I ask this because neither the GIRM nor RS mentions EMHCs by name when they had their sections on intinction. As I read it, since they are not explicitly mentioned by name, they should not be employing intinction when they distribute Holy Communion.

 

[japhy]

Now, just out of curiousity, when was the USCCB statement issued?

NDRHC was written in 2001 and approved by the CDWDS in 2002 (so I believe it is a binding document, not a “USCCB suggests for bishops to use this as guidelines for their own policies…” document):
In accord with the approval of these norms and following the confirmation of this action by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 22, 2002 (Prot. 1383/01/L), they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.

I ask this because neither the GIRM nor RS mentions EMHCs by name when they had their sections on intinction. As I read it, since they are not explicitly mentioned by name, they should not be employing intinction when they distribute Holy Communion.

The GIRM mentions EMHCs in general in #162: “The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.” It does not specifically restrict this to Communion distributed in a certain way.

To be technical, though, GIRM #162 also allows for each EMHC to distribute either species. It does say one EMHC can offer both species (via intinction). GIRM #191, in speaking of the acolyte, says “the acolyte administers the chalice to the communicants or holds the chalice if Communion is given by intinction”. Now, we know the acolyte (or EMHC) is permitted to distribute either the Host or the Chalice (from #162); but does this necessarily mean the acolyte is permitted to perform intinction? I don’t think that necessarily follows.

I think the GIRM can be interpreted in this way: EMHCs may assist a priest or deacon (ordinary ministers) in giving Communion by intinction, but only by holding the Chalice for them.

But that’s merely my interpretation. I would suggest contacting the USCCB CDW first, rather than going straight to the CDWDS.

 

[benedictgal]

NDRHC was written in 2001 and approved by the CDWDS in 2002 (so I believe it is a binding document, not a “USCCB suggests for bishops to use this as guidelines for their own policies…” document):
In accord with the approval of these norms and following the confirmation of this action by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 22, 2002 (Prot. 1383/01/L), they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.

The GIRM mentions EMHCs in general in #162: “The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.” It does not specifically restrict this to Communion distributed in a certain way.

To be technical, though, GIRM #162 also allows for each EMHC to distribute either species. It does say one EMHC can offer both species (via intinction). GIRM #191, in speaking of the acolyte, says “the acolyte administers the chalice to the communicants or holds the chalice if Communion is given by intinction”. Now, we know the acolyte (or EMHC) is permitted to distribute either the Host or the Chalice (from #162); but does this necessarily mean the acolyte is permitted to perform intinction? I don’t think that necessarily follows.

I think the GIRM can be interpreted in this way: EMHCs may assist a priest or deacon (ordinary ministers) in giving Communion by intinction, but only by holding the Chalice for them.

But that’s merely my interpretation. I would suggest contacting the USCCB CDW first, rather than going straight to the CDWDS.

Actually, my pastor subscribes to your line of thinking. If we are going to intinct, he would rather have one of us standing next to him with the Chalice, while does the intinction. This was the solution we came up with for the special needs children and youth. They would go up to receive first, but, through intinction. One of us stands with the celebrant until the last person has communicated (they will sit in the first three or four pews) and then, we will resme our normal positions.

Now, RS came out in 2004. Would this have negated what was approved in 2002, since RS specifically mentions the priest as being the one who will intinct?

I may just send the USCCB CDW an email.

P.S.: Please check out the new thread I posted. I need your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Aramis]

I think the GIRM can be interpreted in this way: EMHCs may assist a priest or deacon (ordinary ministers) in giving Communion by intinction, but only by holding the Chalice for them.

But that’s merely my interpretation. I would suggest contacting the USCCB CDW first, rather than going straight to the CDWDS.

It also happens to match my read of the GIRM.

 

[Stewmont]

So it appears (at least so far) there is no direct instruction (which does not require highly questionable interpretation) from the Church that clearly prohibits EMsHC from distributing communion via intinction.

Given that apparent fact, if there was indeed genuine need, what would the rationale be to limiting EMsHC to distributing communion only under one species? Particularly since the practice might well reduce the ultimate number of EMsHC used?

 

[benedictgal]

So it appears (at least so far) there is no direct instruction (which does not require highly questionable interpretation) from the Church that clearly prohibits EMsHC from distributing communion via intinction.

Given that apparent fact, if there was indeed genuine need, what would the rationale be to limiting EMsHC to distributing communion only under one species? Particularly since the practice might well reduce the ultimate number of EMsHC used?

However, if you re-read the posts, you will note that the only time an EMHC is referenced in the GIRM is where it calls for the person to hold the chalice while the priest handles the intinction. Bolth the GIRM and RS specifically state that intinction belongs to the oridnary ministers of Holy Communion, in this case, the deacon, priest and bishop. All that we can do is hold the chalice, but, they intinct, not us.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

So it appears (at least so far) there is no direct instruction (which does not require highly questionable interpretation) from the Church that clearly prohibits EMsHC from distributing communion via intinction.

Given that apparent fact, if there was indeed genuine need, what would the rationale be to limiting EMsHC to distributing communion only under one species? Particularly since the practice might well reduce the ultimate number of EMsHC used?

I would agree that there is no clear prohibition.

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

This was discussed—“only” appears to apply to the manner of receiving, not the minister. Since there is no exact formula to determine if or number of EMHC to be employed, this seems to come more under the discression of the pastor or celebrant. I would also trust his judgement, if he felt it necessary to use an EMHC for intinction.

(for example if the communicant attempted self-intinction )

I would not think it would be an ordinary situation.

Lux

 

[Stewmont]

I would agree that there is no clear prohibition.

This was discussed—“only” appears to apply to the manner of receiving, not the minister. Since there is no exact formula to determine if or number of EMHC to be employed, this seems to come more under the discression of the pastor or celebrant. I would also trust his judgement, if he felt it necessary to use an EMHC for intinction.

(for example if the communicant attempted self-intinction )

I would not think it would be an ordinary situation.

Lux

Yes I certainly agree with your comments…

I’m still curious though lacking a prohibition from the Church, how could one conclude that EMsHC distributing holy communion via one or the other species is acceptable, but not via intinction – assuming their was genuine need for EMsHC in the first place?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Since it is up to the pastor to determine the need, it would be up to him to decide if there is a need for EHHC to offer by intinction. As I said, i doubt this would be needed, except in a very rare or unusual situation. i don’t think i would want to distribute in this manner. Too much possibility for accidental drip.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Even before RS was promulgated, I became very aware of the need to prevent self-intinction (beside the prohibition of self communication) when a communicant received by that manner, and was not careful. i did catch the drop with the puurificator, but I honestly almost felt like I was struck—it was very disturbing to wittness such carelessness with the Precious Blood.
lux

 

[benedictgal]

Yes I certainly agree with your comments…

I’m still curious though lacking a prohibition from the Church, how could one conclude that EMsHC distributing holy communion via one or the other species is acceptable, but not via intinction – assuming their was genuine need for EMsHC in the first place?

Cardinal Arinze clarified that the issue of the word “only” refers to the priest and not just to the manner in which Holy Communion was to be received.

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.***

This explanation, in answer to a question raised back in 2003, is pretty consistent with what the GIRM says, although the wording in RS would appear to further limit this practice to the priest. Interestingly enough, this question was raised when the Cardinal was in the United States.

Common sense would tell you that, in this instance, you would receive Our Lord on the tongue because of the mingling of the two Sacred Species.

As far as EMHCs, the only mention of them as far as this practice is concerned, is that they are to hold the chalice for the priest should he choose to employ intinction. It doesn’t mean that we can go ahead and engage in this practice ourselves. RS and the GIRM are clear as to who should do this.

Now, you could very well tell me that I am using an off-the-cuff remark from Cardinal Arinze to justify the interpretation while I am not “taking stock”, if you will, on what he said on YouTube regarding another issue in another thread. However, there is a big difference. There is authoritative documentation from the Holy See, mainly, his own Congregation, that makes specific references to how this practice is to be employed and by whom. His interpretation is based on those documents which have been quoted. You can’t make the same argument with the other issue, as even he pointed out that no documentation exists (although the absence of this practice from the approved liturgical books and documents should speak just as loudly about the practice, but, that is for another thread). I am merely pointing this out because I am anticipating that someone will point out this “inconsistency” in my line of thought.

 

[zab]

Even before RS was promulgated, I became very aware of the need to prevent self-intinction (beside the prohibition of self communication) when a communicant received by that manner, and was not careful. i did catch the drop with the puurificator, but I honestly almost felt like I was struck—it was very disturbing to wittness such carelessness with the Precious Blood.
lux

That has happened to me once. The person who was about to self-intinct was behind a taller person who was receiving the Precious Blood, so I didn’t see her approaching with the Host. She was very quick in dipping the Host into the cup, and caught me by surprise. I didn’t want to yank the cup away and spill it. But I did tell her that it is not permitted for her to do that herself. Other EMHC have reported her as well. She is the only one that I know of in our parish that does this. Our pastor has told us EMHC that when we see this about to happen, to cover the cup if we can and tell the person, let me do that for you. Obviously, she cannot take it to the priest because he is giving the Host.
Now some may call this abuse, but we are fortunate to have such a good pastor.

 

[Stewmont]

Since it is up to the pastor to determine the need, it would be up to him to decide if there is a need for EHHC to offer by intinction. As I said, i doubt this would be needed, except in a very rare or unusual situation. i don’t think i would want to distribute in this manner. Too much possibility for accidental drip.

Lux

I tend to agree it would be up to either the individual bishop or pastor, but why would it necessarily be rare or unusual?

There are many, many, many, many situations where EMsHC are legitimately and licitly used. If the bishop or pastor so chose, what would be wrong with them distributing via intinction? Why would it be rare or unusual – other than intinction itself is rather rare?

The probability of an “accidental drip” is the same for ordained and lay…

 

[benedictgal]

I tend to agree it would be up to either the individual bishop or pastor, but why would it necessarily be rare or unusual?

There are many, many, many, many situations where EMsHC are legitimately and licitly used. If the bishop or pastor so chose, what would be wrong with them distributing via intinction? Why would it be rare or unusual – other than intinction itself is rather rare?

The probability of an “accidental drip” is the same for ordained and lay…

However, I think that you may have missed the operative word in RS, and that is “priest”. Even in the GIRM, it specifically states that it is the priest who is to employ this practice. The only thing that the GIRM indicates is that we are to hold the chalice, but, the priest is to perform the action.