Intinction question

[SHoJ]

I was watching the Mass on EWTN tonight and have a question about something the priest did. He dipped the Host into the chalice then put it in his mouth (which a rather loud crunch, I might add). Then he drank from the chalice.

Is this considered intinction?
Is the priest allowed to do this?
If it’s allowed for priests, why not for everyone?

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but was just wondering . . . .

 

[Vico]

I was watching the Mass on EWTN tonight and have a question about something the priest did. He dipped the Host into the chalice then put it in his mouth (which a rather loud crunch, I might add). Then he drank from the chalice.

Is this considered intinction?
Is the priest allowed to do this?
If it’s allowed for priests, why not for everyone?

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but was just wondering . . . .

Intinction is an option, but a single line must form to receive from the priest holding the vessel with the Body of Christ and a deacon or extaordinary minister of communion holds the Chalice with the Blood of Christ. The communicant holds the communion place under his own chin.

See 49:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Interesting, sometimes when concelebrating intinction will be used instead of drinking from the Chalice directly. But for one priest:
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/14/SubIndex/0/DocumentIndex/1

Facing the altar, the priest says quietly:

May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life.

He reverently consumes the body of Christ. Then he takes the chalice and says quietly:

May the blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life.

He reverently drinks the blood of Christ.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I was watching the Mass on EWTN tonight and have a question about something the priest did. He dipped the Host into the chalice then put it in his mouth (which a rather loud crunch, I might add). Then he drank from the chalice.

Is this considered intinction?
Is the priest allowed to do this?
If it’s allowed for priests, why not for everyone?

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but was just wondering . . . .

It sounds like intinction, though normally someone wouldn’t receive from the chalice afterward. Are you sure he didn’t just break the host over the chalice?

In any case, yes the priest is allowed to do this.

It is allowed for everyone. However, when communion is given by intinction it must be given by a priest and placed on the tongue. Individuals are not permitted to receive the host then intinct it themselves. While this is one way of receiving communion, I personally have never encountered it.

Here’s an excerpt from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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]

What leads you to think the priest did something wrong?

 

[Catholicben]

Maybe he received the precious blood again (straight from the chalice) for a practical reason: Somebody has to drink the rest of the precious blood from that chalice.

Just my :twocents:

 

[beckers]

It sounds like intinction, though normally someone wouldn’t receive from the chalice afterward. Are you sure he didn’t just break the host over the chalice?

In any case, yes the priest is allowed to do this.

It is allowed for everyone. However, when communion is given by intinction it must be given by a priest and placed on the tongue. Individuals are not permitted to receive the host then intinct it themselves. While this is one way of receiving communion, I personally have never encountered it.

Here’s an excerpt from Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[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]
What leads you to think the priest did something wrong?

I recieve this way every time at my church. It actually makes the communion line go faster!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The priest cannot receive via intinction unless there is a just cause (alcohol allergies?). He says a separate prayer when receiving the Precious Body and the Precious Blood, so he cannot receive via intinction which is receiving at he same time.

Did he actually dip the Host or did he just lower it over the cup to break it and ensure all the fragments will fall into the Cup?

 

[SHoJ]

The priest cannot receive via intinction unless there is a just cause (alcohol allergies?). He says a separate prayer when receiving the Precious Body and the Precious Blood, so he cannot receive via intinction which is receiving at he same time.

Did he actually dip the Host or did he just lower it over the cup to break it and ensure all the fragments will fall into the Cup?

When the Host came out of the chalice, it was two-toned (the bottom half was reddish).

 

[ConstantineTG]

When the Host came out of the chalice, it was two-toned (the bottom half was reddish).

From your original post, the priest did receive the Body and the Blood separately, although he did did the Body in the Blood. I suppose thats fine.

 

[BernadetteM]

I recieve this way every time at my church. It actually makes the communion line go faster!

Just curious, which parish do you attend? I only pray we get one close enough for me to attend when the Ordinariates are established and that there are parishes in my state.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[FrDavid96]

From your original post, the priest did receive the Body and the Blood separately, although he did did the Body in the Blood. I suppose thats fine.

It would be fine, if one can show a rubric where it says “the celebrant dips the Body into the Blood”

It’s an option for con-celebrants, and it’s an optional way to distribute to the faithful, but no such option exists for the celebrant himself to receive via intinction–the fact that he also drinks from the chalice after intincting doesn’t change the fact that he’s violating the rubrics in the first place. Let’s hope that one way or another, this wasn’t done deliberately.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would be fine, if one can show a rubric where it says “the celebrant dips the Body into the Blood”

It’s an option for con-celebrants, and it’s an optional way to distribute to the faithful, but no such option exists for the celebrant himself to receive via intinction–the fact that he also drinks from the chalice after intincting doesn’t change the fact that he’s violating the rubrics in the first place. Let’s hope that one way or another, this wasn’t done deliberately.

Thats my second guess. Did he lower the Host and break it and perhaps inadvertently dipped it?

 

[beckers]

Just curious, which parish do you attend? I only pray we get one close enough for me to attend when the Ordinariates are established and that there are parishes in my state.

God Bless

Bernadette

Its called Our lady of Walsingham. walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html

We are in the process of build the shrine at the moment.

I pray that you do get a parish near you. I love the anglican twist to the mass even though i am a roman catholic. The reverence to the litgury is amazing and has brought me so much closer to God. And i love that the parish is about 300 familes. I really do know a lot of the people in my parish instead of the other parishes around me that have over 5000 families!

 

[BernadetteM]

Its called Our lady of Walsingham. walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html

We are in the process of build the shrine at the moment.

I pray that you do get a parish near you. I love the anglican twist to the mass even though i am a roman catholic. The reverence to the litgury is amazing and has brought me so much closer to God. And i love that the parish is about 300 familes. I really do know a lot of the people in my parish instead of the other parishes around me that have over 5000 families!

I am familiar with all the Anglican Use parishes, as all my family were received many years ago by an Anglican Use priest. My former parish was one of the three whose priests went to Rome and helped to establish the Anglican Use, but due to a very liberal Cardinal and other liberal clergy we were denied one at the last moment.

Now my former parish is considering the Ordinariate, so please pray that they will join. It is quite a distance from me but I would try to attend as often as possible.

I also feel closer to God within the Anglican Use liturgy, I am not sure why, but I feel it is a combination of the reverence, music and firm Catholic teachings during the homilies.

My one daughter lives in Texas and is a little ways from St. Mary the Virgin AU parish.

It blesses me that you have found a home parish that is uplifting.

God Bless

Bernadette