Intinction by Laity

[benedictgal]

When we went through EMHC training at my parish, someone brought up the issue of intinction. I told the group, in front of my pastor, that, based on the documents and on the interpretation of the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship, only the celebrant (priest/bishop) or the deacon could do this.

My pastor then brought up another circumstance. Every month, the special needs children and youth of the diocese come to our parish for Mass. He asked me about administering the Precious Blood to these young people. I suggested that they should line up to be the first onesn to receive Holy Communion. If he wants to distribute under both species, then, whoever is asssiting with the chalice should stand next to the celebrant so that the celebrant can intinct. I told him that this would be a fair solution. He agreed.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of parishes that have purchsed ciborria with little cups in the middle for the Precious Blood and are having the EMHCs intinct. I want to bring this up to the attention of a priest friend of mine who sits on the Presbyteral Council to see if they can discuss the matter with the bishop.

 

[Coder]

I told the group, in front of my pastor, that, based on the documents and on the interpretation of the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship, only the celebrant (priest/bishop) or the deacon could do this.

Hi,

Apparently a deacon cannot intinct. This makes sense because a deacon cannot consecrate. (See my previous post.)

 

[benedictgal]

Hi,

Apparently a deacon cannot intinct. This makes sense because a deacon cannot consecrate. (See my previous post.)

Please see the reference from Francis Cardinal Arinze, he is the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This is his interpretation of the official documents. Given the fact that he is the Prefect, he has a firm grasp on what the documents say since they came from his Congregation:

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.

He also had this to say,along the same lines:

One thing I’ve seen before [is] where they have the ciborium out, and people come up and take our Precious Lord out of there and dip our Lord into the Precious Blood and place it on their own tongue themselves. (Benedictgal note: this was a question posed to the Cardinal).

Forbidden. Not correct. Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

I have seen broadcasts of the Papal Masses where the deacons are distributing Holy Communion to prelates. In fact, one of our deacons was assisting at the WYD in Sydney. He was distributing to the prelates who were concelebraing with the Holy Father.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

According to this, a priest (not a deacon) can actually dip the host.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

See 249 and 287. Note in 249 that unlike the concelebrants (priests and bishops) the deacon “receives”.

Note in 287 when referring to giving commnion by intinction it says “The priest takes a host, dips it partly into a chalice…”. There is no mention of a deacon doing this.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello Father, (Are you a Catholic priest? I assume that you are.)

A person receives communion and does not take communion. The act of dipping by the laity is an act of taking and it violates the symbol that we only receive from God and we do not take from Him.

Is that not the meaning of the preposition “to” which I used in my post?

Only a bishop or priest and not even a deacon can perform intinction.
usccb.org/comm/backgrounders/questions.shtml

That’s what I thought as well. However, I also thought someone had posted a dubium here or on a similar thread stating that a deacon could also distribute to the congregation by intinction, and didn’t want to contradict that.

 

[FrDavid96]

What does distributing Communion by intinction have to do with consecrating? Both the Body and Blood have already been consecrated at that point in the Mass.

From where are people getting the idea that in order to distribute Communion to the faithful, the cleric has to be a priest and not a deacon because of some connection to consecration?

If Rome wants to restrict this practice to a priest, that’s one thing–that’s fine and I accept it. But that’s not the same thing as saying that to intinct one must also be able to consecrate.

 

[Coder]

What does distributing Communion by intinction have to do with consecrating? Both the Body and Blood have already been consecrated at that point in the Mass.

From where are people getting the idea that in order to distribute Communion to the faithful, the cleric has to be a priest and not a deacon because of some connection to consecration?

I would think that only someone with authority to act in Christ’s name could mingle the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the priest can act in Christ’s name in order to consecrate. Placing the Body in the Blood (although not the same as consecration) results in a new form of the Eucharist. This is not like distributing the Body and Blood separately which does not affect its form and a minister can do. It makes sense to me that only a priest or bishop can perform intinction.

(By the way, could you please confirm if you are a Catholic priest? Thank You)

 

[FrDavid96]

I would think that only someone with authority to act in Christ’s name could mingle the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the priest can act in Christ’s name in order to consecrate. Placing the Body in the Blood (although not the same as consecration) results in a new form of the Eucharist. This is not like distributing the Body and Blood separately which does not affect its form and a minister can do. It makes sense to me that only a priest or bishop can perform intinction.

(By the way, could you please confirm if you are a Catholic priest? Thank You)

1. Yes, I am a Catholic priest.
2. There was an essential clause missing from my last post due to a typing error. The sentence should read: From where are people getting the idea that in order to distribute Communion to the faithful by intinction, the cleric has to be a priest and not a deacon because of some connection to consecration?
3. Coder, I think I see what you’re trying to get at, but the Eucharist has the forms of bread and wine. Combining the two for the brief moment of intinction does not make some “new form.” It is merely a practical act and not one which causes any change in the Eucharist itself. Rome has clearly said that EMHCS cannot use this method, either to distribute to others or to self-communicate (which is forbidden in any case), but to draw from that the conclusion that somehow mingling the two Eucharistic Species at the moment of distribution causes some change in the Eucharist is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, the co-mingling done at the fraction is an important element of the Sacrifice which “reunites” the Body and Blood and must be done by the priest celebrant. But combining them at the time of distribution is a different issue altogether.

 

[FrDavid96]

There appears to be some confusion here. I think there’s a mixing of two different and very distinct issues.

1. The distribution of Communion TO the faithful by means of intinction done by a priest (or sometimes deacon), with the communicant receiving on the tongue.
2. Using the method of intinction to communicate oneself by actively picking up the consecrated Host, dipping It into the Precious Blood and consuming both.

They are not the same thing. The original post was asking about #2, not #1.

Only a priest, and in fact only a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating may do what is described in #2. That’s what this thread is about.

 

[Coder]

Hi Father,

From where are people getting the idea that in order to distribute Communion to the faithful by intinction, the cleric has to be a priest and not a deacon because of some connection to consecration?
…
…
Combining the two for the brief moment of intinction does not make some “new form.”

Yes, I understand. I was speaking informally. Still my sense is that since intinction results in a different “presentation” of the Eucharist then only one who can act in Christ’s name can do this.

 

[Coder]

There appears to be some confusion here. I think there’s a mixing of two different and very distinct issues.

1. The distribution of Communion TO the faithful by means of intinction done by a priest (or sometimes deacon), with the communicant receiving on the tongue.
2. Using the method of intinction to communicate oneself by actively picking up the consecrated Host, dipping It into the Precious Blood and consuming both.

They are not the same thing. The original post was asking about #2, not #1.

Only a priest, and in fact only a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating may do what is described in #2. That’s what this thread is about.

If I’m not mistaken only a priest or bishop (not a deacon) can dip the Body in the precious Blood and give it to a communicant. See my previous posts with links to relevant documents.

 

[Aramis]

Coder:

Byzantine Deacons do so for the Deacon’s Typica Service with the Presanctified Gifts. (The Byzantine “communion service” as opposed to the Divine Liturgy which is equivlent to the Roman Mass.) If you are correct, it is the only case where Byzantine Deacons have a faculty Roman deacons lack that I have yet heard of. (Tho’ Roman deacons have many faculties Byzantine Deacons do not.)

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

 I'd have to say that there is no difference between grave matter in moral and liturgical terms.  In fact, I would assume that that is why it is specifically stated to be grave matter.

Hi,

I’d like to go back to this for a moment. I believe there is a difference. If we go back to the reasons we are called to disobey legitimate authority, it is only in matters of Faith (doctrine) or morals. I doubt this would be a mortal sin, unless possibly extreme defiance and/or disobedience where a communicant was definitely told not to intinct, and did it anyway. My pastor did instruct that the commuicant was not to self intinct, but also instructed the EMHC not to withhold the chalice, if the communicant attempts to intinct.

Any person who sees someone try this has a responsibility to tell them that they shouldn’t; if you don’t you would be an accomplice to sacrilege. Keep death daily before your eyes, and don’t not do something today which could save the soul of someone who could die tonight. It is your Christian duty to be charitable and correct them.

I agree that it should be addressed, but not that it is a sactilege. Sacrilege must be a willful act of desecration, not a misunderstanding of norms and the reasons behind them.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

In discussing the “grave matter” I’d like to repeat what I posted earlier, that perhaps the grave matter is the use of invalid matter for the Eucharist, and not necessarily the act of self-intinction. Since both of these issues are addressed in the same paragraph, and the later paragraph points back to the earlier simply by way of mentioning the paragraph number, it could cause some confusion.

If Rome clarifies that self-intinction is “grave matter” I will accept that. But in the meantime, my personal thoughts are that it is a very serious abuse, but not “objectively grave matter.”
There is no doubt that using invalid matter for the Eucharist is a “grave matter.”

 

[Brendan]

I would think that only someone with authority to act in Christ’s name could mingle the Body and Blood of Christ. )

Your theology is somewhat flawed. The Body and Blood are already mingled, they are equally present in both species.

In fact, since Christ is Resurrected and Alive, the Body and Blood are not only mingled, they can never be seperated.

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are presented in two distinct species, and intinction does not alter the distinctiveness (form) of each species.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If I’m not mistaken only a priest or bishop (not a deacon) can dip the Body in the precious Blood and give it to a communicant. See my previous posts with links to relevant documents.

Previous posts have quoted Cardinal Arinze that a deacon may administer by intinction. You can read his words here.

tee

 

[FrDavid96]

Previous posts have quoted Cardinal Arinze that a deacon may administer by intinction. You can read his words here.

tee

I think that what’s happening here is the Cardinal made those comments in 2003. Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in 2004. It seems as if RS in #103 is saying that only a priest may adminitser Communion to the faithful by intinction:

“…the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue”

I suppose there’s a question as to whether RS means that only the priest may distribute this way, because only the word “priest” appears and not “priest or deacon” ?

I say that it’s a question in my own mind. Perhaps Rome has given an answer AFTER R.S. was issued. If there’s a definitive response to that I am simply unaware, but perhaps others know of one.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that what’s happening here is the Cardinal made those comments in 2003. Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in 2004. It seems as if RS in #103 is saying that only a priest may adminitser Communion to the faithful by intinction:

“…the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue”

I suppose there’s a question as to whether RS means that only the priest may distribute this way, because only the word “priest” appears and not “priest or deacon” ?

I say that it’s a question in my own mind. Perhaps Rome has given an answer AFTER R.S. was issued. If there’s a definitive response to that I am simply unaware, but perhaps others know of one.

Thank you for catching the dates. I am curious now because I’ll have to check the GIRM for additional clarification. What I do know is that an EMHC is not allowed to do this because we don’t even show up in either document. Perhaps the Holy See rethought the issue after Cardinal Arinze gave his interpretation and thus clarified it in RS.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thank you for catching the dates.

Yes, thank you for pointing to the source of the contention.

I am curious now because I’ll have to check the GIRM for additional clarification. What I do know is that an EMHC is not allowed to do this because we don’t even show up in either document. Perhaps the Holy See rethought the issue after Cardinal Arinze gave his interpretation and thus clarified it in RS.

*Redemptionis Sacramentum *cites GIRM #287, which likewise indicates only a priest.

But for further confusion: GIRM 161 (distribution under the species of bread alone) *also indicates only a priest (and I think, by implication, the priest celebrant)! GIRM 162 further allows distribution by “other priests who happen to be present” or by “extraordinary ministers”. Which raises the question: Does GIRM 162 likewise modify #287?

Puzzling indeed.

(* No mention is made of deacons since this section of the GIRM details “Mass Without A Deacon”)

tee

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, thank you for pointing to the source of the contention.

*Redemptionis Sacramentum *cites GIRM #287, which likewise indicates only a priest.

But for further confusion: GIRM 161 (distribution under the species of bread alone) *also indicates only a priest (and I think, by implication, the priest celebrant)! GIRM 162 further allows distribution by “other priests who happen to be present” or by “extraordinary ministers”. Which raises the question: Does GIRM 162 likewise modify #287?

Puzzling indeed.

(* No mention is made of deacons since this section of the GIRM details “Mass Without A Deacon”)

tee

Inasmuch as Cardinal Arinze interpreted the GIRM in 2003, he never made any references to EMHCs. Thus, RS would be the prevailing document since it came out after the GIRM. RS also clarifies a couple of things that are in the GRM, namely the composition of the sacered vessels. Nonetheless, my pastor has instructed us that we are not to intinct or to allow the faithful to self-intinct as this is contrary to the reception of Holy Communion since they are “taking.”