Intinction

[puzzleannie]

They should definitely not do that. It’s probably not your place as an EMHC to prevent them, although if you see that they have the host in their hand you might wait and look expectantly at them with a glance at the host instead of immediately offering the chalice. You may want to bring it up with the priest and ask him to discuss this practice at some point during his homily next week. People should be told not to do this, but I’m sure the ones who are doing it just don’t know any better.

if you think fast enough you can put your hand with the purificator over the chalice until they have consumed the host, even quietly telling them why if necessary, but be prepared for an altercation. It is really the priest’s duty to first tell you how to react, and then to educate the parishioners. Most likely at sometime these people attended a parish–like ours in the 80s–where this practice was endorsed, not that they are malicious.

Great! Just what we need… Is THIS what has happened to the holy sacrifice of the mass?!? Now we want to treat the species as if there are oreo cookies :bigyikes:

just to clarify, intinction is not wrong per se and can even be the preferred practice, but only the priest can offer communion in this manner. It is wrong when they faithful try to intinct because it is self-communication, or for a lay minister to do it.

 

[benedictgal]

Just curious…if you already knew this, why would you bother to call the CDWDS again?

There were some serious issues and the priest needed to be 1000% sure that what I heard was correct. In fact, a letter is forthcoming from them so that no one would have any doubts about what is supposed to be happening. It’s a mess down here.

 

[Phemie]

Great! Just what we need… Is THIS what has happened to the holy sacrifice of the mass?!? Now we want to treat the species as if there are oreo cookies :bigyikes:

This is not a fair comment. There are many parishes in which the people were instructed, by the pastor, that this was a perfectly valid way to receive from the cup; in fact, in some parishes I have been, it was the ONLY way to receive from the cup. Old habits die hard --and sometimes not at all.

 

[Another_Mary]

Just a few weeks ago our priest instructed us that we were not to use intinction. Our church is a small mission church and it hasn’t been an issue, but perhaps it was–at one of the other parish churches.

At any rate, it was good to have the priest give us this instruction.

 

[callmeChris]

"just to clarify, intinction is not wrong per se and can even be the preferred practice, but only the priest can offer communion in this manner. It is wrong when they faithful try to intinct because it is self-communication, or for a lay minister to do it."

I know that.

 

[DeniseWhittaker]

I understand Intinction is not the primary way to distribute the Eucharist but my parish priest insists on using this manner. Jesus said “Eat my Body & Drink my Blood”, intinction does not allow me to do this, must I docily accept?

 

[Phemie]

I understand Intinction is not the primary way to distribute the Eucharist but my parish priest insists on using this manner. Jesus said “Eat my Body & Drink my Blood”, intinction does not allow me to do this, must I docily accept?

Yes, since it’s up to the priest to decide how he will distribute Communion. Understand that he doesn’t even have to offer communion under both species.

 

[benedictgal]

I understand Intinction is not the primary way to distribute the Eucharist but my parish priest insists on using this manner. Jesus said “Eat my Body & Drink my Blood”, intinction does not allow me to do this, must I docily accept?

Actually, intinction is an acceptable means of distributing Holy Communion. It is even included in the GIRM:

1. 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 then withdraws.

We need to remember, too, that even those who only receive the Sacred Host are still consuming the whole and complete Christ. Furthermore, the command to eat and drink specifically applies in the liturgy to the celebrant because the rubrics state that he must consume both the Body and the Blood of Christ. Although the offering of Holy Communion under both kinds constitutes a fuller sign, it may not always be feasible to do so, especially if the number of communicants is great (risk of profaning the Precious Blood) or there are health concerns. That being the case, the Church provides us with the option of intinction, but, this mode can only be done by the priest.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Yes, since it’s up to the priest to decide how he will distribute Communion. Understand that he doesn’t even have to offer communion under both species.

Actually, the priest can’t always decide how to distribute Communion. For example, a priest cannot force everyone to receive Communion in the Hand.

 

[roadsend]

Unless they are first Holy Communicants.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Unless they are first Holy Communicants.

Do you mind providing some documents for this? As far as I know, it is every Catholic’s right to receive Communion on the Tongue, including first communicants.

 

[benedictgal]

Unless they are first Holy Communicants.

No. The priest has to recognize that everyone, including children, have the right to receive either COTT or CITH (unless the indult for this has been rescinded). Now, the only time that he can stop CITH is when there is a risk of profanation of the Sacred Host.

 

[roadsend]

Do you mind providing some documents for this? As far as I know, it is every Catholic’s right to receive Communion on the Tongue, including first communicants.

No documentation, just anecdotal.
I have two grandchildren receiving next month.
I will know more then. My understanding so far is that the DRE sets the policy. Uniformity is stressed. All children receive in the hand and under both species and are not told of any other option.

 

[benedictgal]

No documentation, just anecdotal.
I have two grandchildren receiving next month.
I will know more then. My understanding so far is that the DRE sets the policy. Uniformity is stressed. All children receive in the hand and under both species and are not told of any other option.

This is beyond what the DRE can do. In fact, the DRE cannot force anyone to receive in a particular manner. Please note what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[92.] **Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 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 thefaithful.179

This matter needs to be addressed to the pastor, showing the appropriate documentation. In fact, the Holy See has come out vehemently against the practice that this DRE is promoting.

 

[Brendan]

No documentation, just anecdotal.
I have two grandchildren receiving next month.
I will know more then. My understanding so far is that the DRE sets the policy. Uniformity is stressed. All children receive in the hand and under both species and are not told of any other option.

When we were at another parish and my son was making his FHC, the DRE tried that too.

It went up to the pastor and he ended up agreeing with us. Our son recieved COTT.

 

[jmcrae]

No documentation, just anecdotal.
I have two grandchildren receiving next month.
I will know more then. My understanding so far is that the DRE sets the policy. Uniformity is stressed. All children receive in the hand and under both species and are not told of any other option.

I am also teaching First Holy Communion classes, and I haven’t been made aware of anything that says I have any authority to set any kind of policy regarding which way the children are to receive - my role, as I understand it, is to make sure the children understand Who they are receiving, and that they will know how to receive Him reverently.

I am teaching them both methods, since we have families from all over the world, some of whom receive on the hand, and others of whom prefer to receive on the tongue. I am assuming that the children will want to follow the custom of their family.

They will be receiving under both species, of course, since it’s a Sacrament of Initiation.

 

[choy]

i’m curious to the reason why Deacons cannot perform intinction

anyone got answers?

and please, no “because document X says so”
i’m curious as to the reason behind it

 

[benedictgal]

i’m curious to the reason why Deacons cannot perform intinction

anyone got answers?

and please, no “because document X says so”
i’m curious as to the reason behind it

Even though you might not find the mere fact that the documents specifically state just who can do what as an acceptable answer, that is, in fact, the case. The only guess that I can offer is that the mingling of the Body and the Blood is a priestly act. Remember that at the fraction rite, the priest places a particle of the Sacred Host into the chalice for the mingling of the Body and Blood. I did not ask the CDWDS why only a priest could do it. My concern dealt with just exactly who was to do this.

 

[choy]

Even though you might not find the mere fact that the documents specifically state just who can do what as an acceptable answer, that is, in fact, the case. The only guess that I can offer is that the mingling of the Body and the Blood is a priestly act. Remember that at the fraction rite, the priest places a particle of the Sacred Host into the chalice for the mingling of the Body and Blood. I did not ask the CDWDS why only a priest could do it. My concern dealt with just exactly who was to do this.

i mean, even if canon code says that only a priest and bishop can do it, there has to be a reason behind it. and that is what i’m curious about. i’m pretty sure they just didn’t say priest and bishop just for the heck of it.

your guess does sound feasible enough. perhaps its tied down to the authority to consecrate bread and wine which a deacon doesn’t have?

 

[FrDavid96]

i’m curious to the reason why Deacons cannot perform intinction

anyone got answers?

and please, no “because document X says so”
i’m curious as to the reason behind it

So are a lot of people just as curious.

The only answer to the question really is “because the document says so.” I’m not aware of any explanations offered by the Holy See as to why deacons cannot intinct, and given that this is a rather popular question, it seems that if there were an answer, it would have surfaced by now. Sorry for answering you in exactly the way you requested not to be answered, but for the moment at least, it seems to be the only answer. In the Eastern Churches, deacons can intinct, so there’s no binding theological reason behind it.

The reason why R.S. states that only a priest can intinct remains an open question, and quite frankly, a bit of a mystery.