Is it correct to administer communion like this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cristyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cristyd

Guest
I was recently in vacation and i attended mass in a Church in the beach resort. The communion was administered like this: The priest was giving them the host, they were dipping it in the wine and then to their mouths. I saw some of them that took the wet host back into their hand before putting it to the mouth.

Also i saw that the communion was administered by the priest and by a woman. Is it accepted? She was also not dressed like a ministrant but in the blouse and skirt with which she came to mass.
 
cristyd said:
I was recently in vacation and i attended mass in a Church in the beach resort. The communion was administered like this: The priest was giving them the host, they were dipping it in the wine and then to their mouths. I saw some of them that took the wet host back into their hand before putting it to the mouth.

Also i saw that the communion was administered by the priest and by a woman. Is it accepted? She was also not dressed like a ministrant but in the blouse and skirt with which she came to mass.
Click to expand...
Firstly, yes, communion can be administered like that. It’s called “intinction.” However, the manner in which it was done is wrong and certainly illicit. The priest must dip the Body into the Blood himself, and administer it to the person’s mouth directly. The person may not do so himself. I believe a communion paten (plate under the chin) must also be used when intinction is the method of distribution.

As far as the woman distributing communion, yes, this is allowed, but only if there is a shortage of clergy, such as if there was not a deacon or another priest present. These people are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. There is not prescribed way which these people must dress, but it is generally accepted that the clothing should be clean, neat, and modest. I have never heard of or seen a lay person distributing by intinction, so I wonder if it’s allowed or not.
 
If inctinction is used, the priest must dip the Host. However, isn’t it the case that intinction is only allowed in the Eastern rites?
 
Monica4316 said:
If inctinction is used, the priest must dip the Host. However,** isn’t it the case that intinction is only allowed in the Eastern rites**?
Click to expand...
No, according to [Redemtionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter V), the option for intinction always remains.
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]
Click to expand...
 
YoungTradCath said:
I have never heard of or seen a lay person distributing by intinction, so I wonder if it’s allowed or not.
Click to expand...
This is from the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
  1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says, The Body and Blood of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws.
Click to expand...
When reading the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum that I posted above, it almost seemed like it depended on how you read the sentence. One could have questioned if it meant “only from the priest” or “only on the tongue” or both. But the quote from the G.I.R.M. mentions the priest several times and giving the impression that only the priest should administer Communion by intinction. And yet, I have read posts from Deacons saying that they are allowed to give Communion by intinction according to how their bishop interpreted the G.I.R.M.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yep. The Blood can also be distributed via a spoon or a tube, as well.
Click to expand...
But this is not the custom in the United States.

To sum up what has already been said, communion by intinction is allowed in the Latin Church but the priest must dip the host himself and the person must receive on the tongue, not on the hands.

It’s obvious why this is the case. You don’t want to get the Precious Blood on people’s hands.
 
cristyd said:
I was recently in vacation and i attended mass in a Church in the beach resort. The communion was administered like this: The priest was giving them the host, they were dipping it in the wine and then to their mouths. I saw some of them that took the wet host back into their hand before putting it to the mouth.

Also i saw that the communion was administered by the priest and by a woman. Is it accepted? She was also not dressed like a ministrant but in the blouse and skirt with which she came to mass.
Click to expand...
Self intinction is forbidden.
 
Oh, in case the OP was also asking whether it was permitted for women to distribute communion in general, not just communion by intinction, the answer is yes, women may serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion when needed and if there is/are no instituted acolyte(s) (who are only men, and are very rare outside the seminaries) to perform the ministry.

When EMHC’s were first allowed in the late 60s women could only serve if no man could be found for the ministry. However, this changed by 1973, when the Holy See issued the instruction Immensae Caritatis, which listed the preferred order of who may serve as EMHC if they were needed besides ordinary ministers (priests and deacons) and instituted acolytes as the following: “reader [meaning a formally instituted lector, which like acolytes must be men], major seminarian [obviously also only men], man religious, woman religious, catechist [could be of either sex I believe], one of the faithful- a man or a woman.” (Brackets my additions obviously)

Thus no real distinction was made anymore between lay men and lay women to say one should be preferred over the other for the ministry, and indeed women religious or even presumably female catechists were to be preferred over lay men who were not catechists, lectors or acolytes. Even this original list though was subject to any alterations the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop) felt appropriate, and I don’t know that the document has any current legal force anyway.

My source for the norms I cited is Mass Revision: How the Liturgy is Changing and What it Means for You by Jimmy Akin.

Edit: also there’s no rule that says EMHC must wear anything special, unless there’s some diocesan or national norm somewhere.
 
zab said:
This is from the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

When reading the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum that I posted above, it almost seemed like it depended on how you read the sentence. One could have questioned if it meant “only from the priest” or “only on the tongue” or both. But the quote from the G.I.R.M. mentions the priest several times and giving the impression that only the priest should administer Communion by intinction. And yet, I have read posts from Deacons saying that they are allowed to give Communion by intinction according to how their bishop interpreted the G.I.R.M.
Click to expand...
cf. [post=4493173]Re: Intinction by Laity[/post]

tee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top