Intinction by Laity

[Coder]

At my parish I occasionally see people receiving the host in their hand then walking over to the line for receiving the sacred Blood and then placing the host in the Blood and consuming it.

My parish has had a problem with the “women’s priest” movement and I think this may be related to that (I have only seen women perform the intinction).

I am considering leaving this parish. How serious is self-intinction? Is it a form of sacrilege? Can a priest allow it for pastoral reasons? I would think that this is not in the category of something that a priest could allow for pastoral reasons.

 

[Seatuck]

At my parish I occasionally see people receiving the host in their hand then walking over to the line for receiving the sacred Blood and then placing the host in the Blood and consuming it.

My parish has had a problem with the “women’s priest” movement and I think this may be related to that (I have only seen women perform the intinction).

I am considering leaving this parish. How serious is self-intinction? Is it a form of sacrilege? Can a priest allow it for pastoral reasons? I would think that this is not in the category of something that a priest could allow for pastoral reasons.

No the priest cannot allow it at all.
Take a look at this past thread for advice and references.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140537

 

[Allen537]

At my parish I occasionally see people receiving the host in their hand then walking over to the line for receiving the sacred Blood and then placing the host in the Blood and consuming it.

My parish has had a problem with the “women’s priest” movement and I think this may be related to that (I have only seen women perform the intinction).

I am considering leaving this parish. How serious is self-intinction? Is it a form of sacrilege? Can a priest allow it for pastoral reasons? I would think that this is not in the category of something that a priest could allow for pastoral reasons.

Intinction is not permitted by the laity. Though it is not a sacrilege, I would consider it more of a liturgical abuse. The only person who is permitted to preform intinction is the celebrant, since he is required to receive the Eucharist under both species. this is usually done when the priest is sick and does not want to risk getting others sick.

I hope this helps.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[Phemie]

At my parish I occasionally see people receiving the host in their hand then walking over to the line for receiving the sacred Blood and then placing the host in the Blood and consuming it.

My parish has had a problem with the “women’s priest” movement and I think this may be related to that (I have only seen women perform the intinction).

I am considering leaving this parish. How serious is self-intinction? Is it a form of sacrilege? Can a priest allow it for pastoral reasons? I would think that this is not in the category of something that a priest could allow for pastoral reasons.

That’s not fair. In many parishes, when receiving from the cup was allowed, self-intinction was the only way it was allowed. Was it right? No. Were women to blame? No. The practice grew when AIDS showed up due to the fear of contracting a deadly disease.

Since then there have been various Roman documents that made it very clear that the practice is forbidden. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get rid of unless you have EMHCs who feel comfortable saying NO to anyone who attempts it. Not one of those I’ve had the opportunity to train has agreed to do that. None of them felt that it was their job to do that.

We’ve published articles in our bulletin reminding our parishioners that ‘dipping’ is not an acceptable practice and quoting from the documents. It took a while, but now it’s a rare person who attempts it and usually, when one does it’s a person from out of town or one who hasn’t been to Mass in a long time.

 

[feargalmac]

Another reason to return to receiving under one species only.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Intinction is not permitted by the laity.

Though it is not a sacrilege, I would consider it more of a liturgical abuse. The only person who is permitted to preform intinction is the celebrant,

since he is required to receive the Eucharist under both species

. this is usually done when the priest is sick and does not want to risk getting others sick.

I hope this helps.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

This is incorrect.

It is true that a priest who wishes not to risk spreading contagion to a common cup may receive by intinction. However, intinction is allowed to the laity – What is not permitted to the laity is *self-intinction *(which is what the OP describes), because it is *de facto *self-communication, which is likewise not permitted to the laity.

But the faithful are permitted to receive (necessarily on the tongue) the intincted sacrament from the hand of an appropriate minister. (cf GIRM #287)

tee

 

[PhilotheaZ]

From the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (bold emphasis added):

[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]

followed by:

[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.

Later in the same document:

1. Grave Matters

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

I have always understood that disobeying in objectively grave matters, with knowledge and consent, constitute mortal sin. Is that the case here?

 

[Aramis]

The rubrics in the GIRM restrict inticntion to being done by Deacons and Priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

From the instruction *

I have always understood that disobeying in objectively grave matters, with knowledge and consent, constitute mortal sin. Is that the case here?*

Hmmm. Good one. There might be some difference between the phrase “grave matter” used in moral theology and “grave matter” used in liturgical norms. Not realy sure.

However, the whole connection between those two paragraphs seemed a just little strange to me at first. I went back and forth a few times and as I see it, I think what is being said is that the “grave matter” part is the use of “non-consecrated bread or other matter” in # 104. No doubt this would be grave matter.

While I would not doubt that laity self-intinction is anything other than a serious abuse, I’m not sure that it is being defined as “grave matter.” I could very well be wrong on that, so take it with some caution.
#173 refers to anything that calls into question the validity of the Mass, but that’s not all, “and dignity” is also part of that sentence.

Gotta hand it to you PhilotheaZ, that’s one of the most challenging questions I’ve seen in my brief time here.

 

[Ignatius13]

Fr.,

 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.  Now obviously if someone were to intict because they were under the impression that it was right, and had no way of knowing, they would be invincibly ignorant, and thus not morally culpable for their action; however, I believe it is correct to say that it has always been the view of the Church that any actions which violate the dignity of or cause one to doubt the Real Presence of the Eucharist would be grave matter.  The Eucharist is truly God present among us, and the rules about how to treat it are there for a reason: to protect us from damning ourselves.

  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.

-Dan

 

[Allen537]

This is incorrect.

It is true that a priest who wishes not to risk spreading contagion to a common cup may receive by intinction. However, intinction is allowed to the laity – What is not permitted to the laity is *self-intinction *(which is what the OP describes), because it is *de facto *self-communication, which is likewise not permitted to the laity.

But the faithful are permitted to receive (necessarily on the tongue) the intincted sacrament from the hand of an appropriate minister. (cf GIRM #287)

tee

I am not sure where you are disagreeing with me. There is a difference between intinction to the laity and intinction by the laity. My post was in response to the act of the laity performing intinction on their own, as described by the Original Poster.

My post was in regards to who may and may not perform intinction, not who may or may not receive an intincted host.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr.,

 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.  Now obviously if someone were to intict because they were under the impression that it was right, and had no way of knowing, they would be invincibly ignorant, and thus not morally culpable for their action; however, I believe it is correct to say that it has always been the view of the Church that any actions which violate the dignity of or cause one to doubt the Real Presence of the Eucharist would be grave matter.  The Eucharist is truly God present among us, and the rules about how to treat it are there for a reason: to protect us from damning ourselves.

  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.

-Dan

I think the question was something like this:

Is “grave matter” in a liturgical sense also “grave matter” when defining what constitutes a mortal sin? Or did I misunderstand the question itself?

That’s what I’m not sure about, but am willing to listen.
Would you say that any liturgical abuse which the Church defines as “grave matter” would be a mortal sin if it’s violated with prior knowlege and full consent of the will? I would certainly say that some abuses would be mortal sins, but do we apply that to anything which is objectively grave matter?

I for one would like to hear what people have to say on this. Perhaps a new thread is in order.

 

[Ignatius13]

Is “grave matter” in a liturgical sense also “grave matter” when defining what constitutes a mortal sin? Or did I misunderstand the question itself?

I would say that it is. What else would be meant by “grave matter”? What else could be more grave than the treatment of the Sacred Species?

(In my opinion, “treatment” means also the conduct of the Mass as well as the handling of the physical accidents of the Eucharist.)

 

[tee_eff_em]

I am not sure where you are disagreeing with me. There is a difference between intinction to the laity and intinction by the laity. My post was in response to the act of the laity performing intinction on their own, as described by the Original Poster.

My post was in regards to who may and may not perform intinction, not who may or may not receive an intincted host.

Mea culpa – I inferred from your final sentences

The only person who is permitted to preform intinction is the celebrant, since he is required to receive the Eucharist under both species. this is usually done when the priest is sick and does not want to risk getting others sick.

that you were saying only the celebrant may intinct *“since he is required to receive the Eucharist under both species” *-- He is required to receive both species, but my understanding is that only a Minister of the Eucharist may perform the intinction because it is tantamount to confecting the Eucharist?
(However I am told that deacons may also perform the intinction, per a dubium et responsum, so I may be misinformed?)

In any case, I am happy to learn that I misinterpretted your post.

tee

 

[benedictgal]

Regarding the issue of intinction, Francis Cardinal Arinze offered this explanation on the documents of the Holy See when the issue was raised:

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.

I don’t think you could get a clearer explanation of the documents than the one offered by the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Based on his answer, an EMHC couldn’t even do that.

 

[Allen537]

that you were saying only the celebrant may intinct *“since he is required to receive the Eucharist under both species” *-- He is required to receive both species, but my understanding is that only a Minister of the Eucharist may perform the intinction because it is tantamount to confecting the Eucharist?
(However I am told that deacons may also perform the intinction, per a dubium et responsum, so I may be misinformed?)

In any case, I am happy to learn that I misinterpretted your post.

tee

I hope that I am not misunderstanding you, but the celebrant (priest) is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist, so his use of intinction would be permissible.

I have to be honest, I am not sure how this would affect a deacon. A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, as is an acolyte, but I have never witnessed one intinct. I would have to look that one up.

Good point!

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think there’s any direct connection between distributing to the congregation by intinction and Holy Orders.

The Church says that only a priest or deacon may do this, but I personally think it’s more a matter of propriety and avoiding any “accidents” than anything specifically resulting from ordination.

 

[Allen537]

That makes sense.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[tee_eff_em]

I hope that I am not misunderstanding you, but the celebrant (priest) is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist, so his use of intinction would be permissible.

Yes, I think that is what I said: *Minister of the Eucharist *ie a priest.

I have to be honest, I am not sure how this would affect a deacon. A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, as is an acolyte, but I have never witnessed one intinct. I would have to look that one up.

A deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion (an acolyte is Extraordinary). As Cardinal Arinze, quoted by [user]benedictgal[/user], indicates that a deacon may administer by intinction, I was obviously misremembering or misinformed about the reason such administration is reserved to those in Holy Orders.

tee

 

[Coder]

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

I don’t think there’s any direct connection between distributing to the congregation by intinction and Holy Orders.
…
…
personally think it’s more a matter of propriety and avoiding any “accidents” than anything specifically resulting from ordination.

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.

The Church says that only a priest or deacon may do this…

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