Intincture

[JW55]

I have a question in regard to intincture. We occasionally attend a mass at a parish near a family member where the priest offers the option of receiving communion by intincture. This is the only parish where I have seen the host administered in this manner.

Upon asking the pastor of our home parish about receiving in this manner he answered that we should not receive communion in this way.

This left us very confused. We certainly wish to receive it in the proper and correct manner, but we are battling with conflicting responses from two different priests.

JW55

 

[wisdomseeker]

is it not how the eastern churches do it? the orthodox church?

 

[FCEGM]

is it not how the eastern churches do it? the orthodox church?

Not by self-intincture, to which I believe the OP is referring; neither is it permitted for Latin Rite Catholics.

 

[Phemie]

I have a question in regard to intincture. We occasionally attend a mass at a parish near a family member where the priest offers the option of receiving communion by intincture. This is the only parish where I have seen the host administered in this manner.

Upon asking the pastor of our home parish about receiving in this manner he answered that we should not receive communion in this way.

This left us very confused. We certainly wish to receive it in the proper and correct manner, but we are battling with conflicting responses from two different priests.

JW55

Intinction is a valid way of receiving Communion but only if the priest dips the Host into the Precious Blood and gives Communion on the tongue. We are not permitted to receive the Host in our hand and go dip it into the Precious Blood ourselves.

That said, there are priests who don’t believe that we should ever receive by intinction (even if the Church says it’s a valid way to receive) but that we should always drink from the chalice. And I’ve had one tell us in class that in Canada it is our right to decide whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue and that since intinction removes that decision it should never be done. I don’t agree with either position. For those who want to receive under both species it can be the easiest, safest (for protection of the Precious Blood) and fastest way.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Not by self-intincture, to which I believe the OP is referring

:twocents: I see nothing in the OP to cause me to infer that.

Intinction is a valid way of receiving Communion but only if the priest dips the Host into the Precious Blood and gives Communion on the tongue. We are not permitted to receive the Host in our hand and go dip it into the Precious Blood ourselves.

That said, there are priests who don’t believe that we should ever receive by intinction (even if the Church says it’s a valid way to receive) but that we should always drink from the chalice. And I’ve had one tell us in class that in Canada it is our right to decide whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue and that since intinction removes that decision it should never be done. I don’t agree with either position.

Either stance would be difficult to defend, seeing as there are instructions in the GIRM regulating distribution by intinction (#287).

tee

 

[Karl_M]

Intinction is valid, but only under certain circumstances.

The priest or deacon, both ordinary ministers of holy communion, must have the goblet and the hosts, dip it for you, and then present it to you to receive on the tongue.

Also, an extraordinary minister of holy communion may distribute by intinction in the same manner, but again, it would take two people in order to do it (one to hold whatever the hosts are in).

Furthermore, it is not permissible for a communicant to take the host, give it to the communion minister, and then have the minister dip it. Whoever is distributing communion must already have both.

 

[Phemie]

Intinction is valid, but only under certain circumstances.

The priest or deacon, both ordinary ministers of holy communion, must have the goblet and the hosts, dip it for you, and then present it to you to receive on the tongue.

Also, an extraordinary minister of holy communion may distribute by intinction in the same manner, but again, it would take two people in order to do it (one to hold whatever the hosts are in).

Furthermore, it is not permissible for a communicant to take the host, give it to the communion minister, and then have the minister dip it. Whoever is distributing communion must already have both.

You don’t really need 2 people. If a pastor decided that everyone in his parish will receive by intinction he would simply purchase an intinction set. He’d simply pour a small amount of wine in the chalice for himself and the rest in the intinction cup. Communion is thus easily distributed by one person.

The documents only speak of Ordinary ministers offering intinction.

 

[tee_eff_em]

And I’ve had one tell us in class that in Canada it is our right to decide whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue and that since intinction removes that decision it should never be done.

The communicant always has the right to receive on the tongue. There are legitimate circumstances when he may be denied reception in the hand (but intinction is not to be imposed in order to do so).

If a pastor decided that everyone in his parish will receive by intinction he would simply purchase an intinction set.

A priest need not “decide” this for everyone. (In fact, I believe he is prohibited from doing so)

At a neighboring parish, one station has a minister distributing by intinction (with such a set as above), while other ministers distribute under the species of bread. (There may also be one or more stations offering the cup – I really cannot recall. When I visit there I take the opportunity to receive by intinction)

tee

 

[Phemie]

A priest need not “decide” this for everyone. (In fact, I believe he is prohibited from doing so)

I guess I should have said “anyone who wants to receive under both species”. The priest can’t impose intinction for everyone, but he can impose intinction for those who wish to receive under both species. In many parishes it’s the only way that receiving under both species would ever happen as they never, ever offer the chalice.

Unfortunately, to this day, there are still parishes where ‘self intinction’ is the order of the day. We still occasionally see it in our parish. I noticed this morning when there were many several visitors and people who rarely grace the church with their presence (we had a baptism) that a few of the communicants opted for self intinction. Our EMHCs have stated that they don’t feel it’s their place to say ‘No’ and the pastor hasn’t stepped up to the plate to prevent it.

tee

 

[Aramis]

is it not how the eastern churches do it? the orthodox church?

The Byzantine Catholics (Melkites, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and several other churches Sui Iuris) typically receive both species, them having been comingled in the chalice, and distributed by the priest using a spoon.

Some Byzantines (some Melkite parishes do) and IIRC the Armenians dip strips of the precious body into the blood at the time of distribution; the priest or deacon does this, then places in on the tongue.

In either of these cases, the bread which was consecrated is leavened; Wheat, water, yeast…

The Maronites intinct the much the same as the Latins: The priest or deacon dips a host into the chalice for the communicant, then places the host upon the communicant’s tongue. It is somewhat more common, however, than Roman use. (see below.)

Roman intinction is only allowed when the minister of Holy Communion is a bishop, priest or deacon. The ordained minister takes the Body, and dips it into the chalice, typically about 1/2 to 2/3 of the host, and then places it upon the tongue. Note that an EMHC or Altar server may hold the patton or the chalice for the priest or deacon… but the priest or deacon handles the host. Note that, prior to 1980 or so, many Latin Rite parishes only used intinction for the feast of Corpus Christi, with some also using intinction for other major feasts, as well.

Separate reception is the norm in the Roman church at present: receive the body, then the blood separately. If EMHC’s are used, then intinction is forbidden by Roman liturgical norms and canon law.

Reception under one species was roman norm for centuries except for the feast of Corpus Christi…

Also note: Clerics in the Byzantine and Latin churches do not normally receive by intinction, either. They consume the species separately, and must receive under both species.

The Eastern Orthodox are Byzantines, BTW, just not Catholics (in the sense of in Union with Rome).

 

[tee_eff_em]

Separate reception is the

norm *

in the Roman church at present: receive the body, then the blood separately. If EMHC’s are used, then intinction is forbidden by Roman liturgical

norms [ii]

and canon law.*

Please be sure to distinguish between:

• 
  *]Norm, as in the common practice
  (which I am not convinced that separate reception is most common – My experience is at least 50-50 between separate reception and distribution under only one species) and
  *]Norm, as in the practice prescribed by the Church
  (which I know of no such norm advocating single-species, separated species, nor intinction above any of the others)
  
  tee

 

[JW55]

Thanks for the your insights into my question.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Intinction, on the tongue, and kneeling is the norm at “the Grotto” where I go. Also, only priests distribute communion there. No EMHC’s

 

[spinzio]

While serving as an EMHC, I have experienced only 3 occasions in the last 5 years at our church in northern AL when a visiting Catholic carried the Body of Christ to the chalice I was holding for self-intinction. Though uncomfortable, I quietly said, “This isn’t allowed in our Diocese.” Each time, the communicant was cooperative. Someone told me a few years ago that self-intinction was an individual Diocesan decision. Is that not true?

 

[Brendan]

While serving as an EMHC, I have experienced only 3 occasions in the last 5 years at our church in northern AL when a visiting Catholic carried the Body of Christ to the chalice I was holding for self-intinction. Though uncomfortable, I quietly said, “This isn’t allowed in our Diocese.” Each time, the communicant was cooperative. Someone told me a few years ago that self-intinction was an individual Diocesan decision. Is that not true?

Self Intinction is prohibited world wide

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[tee_eff_em]

Someone told me a few years ago that self-intinction was an individual Diocesan decision. Is that not true?

It is not true.

Nowhere is it permitted to the laity to self-communicate, which is what self-intinction amounts to.

[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand.

tee

 

[spinzio]

Thank you so much for the information!