Just the Body or the Blood? Why not both all the time?

[L_Marshall]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ve been told by several Priests that intinction is forbidden by the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)…

It seems the GIRM instructions is that incinction must be performed by the priest and no one else (not even the deacon) see GIRM #287

It is true that intinction is allowed in the Roman Rite, and that only a priest or deacon can perform intinction. However, it’s important to also recognize that when Communion is given by intinction, the communicant must receive on the tongue, with no option of receiving in the hand. This is because the Blessed Sacrament could easily be desecrated if the Precious Blood remains on the communicant’s hand after they receive the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ve been told by several Priests that intinction is forbidden by the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic). I know some Orthodox do this, but many of them are not in communion with Rome. As a Eucharistic Minister, I’ve been told not to allow someone to do so when I am distributing with the Chalice, and if I can’t prevent them, to tell the Priest after Communion so he can instruct the congregation the following week or Mass. I did have this happen at one Parish I attended and served at, and although the Priest told everyone, the lady kept doing it every week. The Priest spoke to her personally and she still continued to do so. We were instructed to place our hand over the Chalice to prevent this after she persisted.

Here are the references to you question.

SELF intinction is prohibited, which is, as you pointed out, when the communicant attempts it themselves.

[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.

-Redemotinis Sacramentum

Here are the USCCB guidelines

1. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “Each communicant, while 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.”

.
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/index.cfm

There was additional instruction to the US Bishops by Cardinal Arizne, then Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman

old.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/October2006.pdf

And one other point. A Eucharistic Minister is one who can say Mass and confect the Eucharist, in other words, a priest.

I think you are referring to the role, Minister of Holy Communion, which is a distinct Ministry from actually changing the bread and wine into the Eucharist.

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

Note how the USCCB uses the correct title when referring to the Ministry of the distribution of Holy Communion

The Minister of Holy Communion

1. By virtue of his sacred ordination, the bishop or Priest offers the sacrifice in the person of Christ, the Head of the Church. He receives gifts of bread and wine from the faithful, offers the sacrifice to God, and returns to them the very Body and Blood of Christ, as from the hands of Christ himself.39 Thus bishops and Priests are considered the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In addition the Deacon who assists the bishop or Priest in distributing Communion is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. When the Eucharist is distributed under both forms, "the Deacon himself administers the chalice."40

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/index.cfm

 

[judynurse]

Yes, I know that the correct term is Eucharistic Minister of Holy Communion, or sometimes referred to as “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, which is what I am. However, in the case I cited, the lady refused intinction by the Priest, and persisted in attempting to do self-intinction. This is why the Priest would not allow us to have her approach the Chalice of the Precious Blood with the Host in her hand! She felt she wanted to do this herself, and no one was able to convince her otherwise, so we had to prevent it. I felt bad for her, but I was so instructed by our Priest, as were all of the EMHC’s.

(However, a lot of people refer to us as: Eucharistic Ministers,-- simply because of not knowing the correct terminology. I meant no disrespect in using that term, since it is most commonly used among Catholics who do not know the terminology, and have not read Canon Laws.)

 

[allyrae]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ve been told by several Priests that intinction is forbidden by the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic). I know some Orthodox do this, but many of them are not in communion with Rome. As a Eucharistic Minister, I’ve been told not to allow someone to do so when I am distributing with the Chalice, and if I can’t prevent them, to tell the Priest after Communion so he can instruct the congregation the following week or Mass. I did have this happen at one Parish I attended and served at, and although the Priest told everyone, the lady kept doing it every week. The Priest spoke to her personally and she still continued to do so. We were instructed to place our hand over the Chalice to prevent this after she persisted.

I don’t think it’s forbidden, but as a Celiac, I wish it was. It’s bad enough that when I go to mass where the chalice isn’t offered, I can’t partake in Holy Communion (when I’m visiting a church…at my home parish, there is Celiac-safe host offered which has been approved by the USCCB). But if someone does intinction, then I am not able to receive Holy Communion even when the chalice is offered. There are plenty of wheat/gluten allergies these days and I wish people would understand that by dipping, you are making it so an entire group of people have to forgo receiving Holy Communion that week.

 

[HumbledSinner]

It is true that intinction is allowed in the Roman Rite, and that only a priest or deacon can perform intinction.

I’m not quite sure a deacon can give communion via intinction in the Roman Rite. Can you cite your sources on this?

When both species are offered - the deacon administers the chalice (while not followed to the tee by many parishes - this is still the supposed norm).

Redemptionis Sacramentum #103 seems to address this:

“…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.”

 

[janeway529]

As for having both species in a large Cathedral, this may be due to the crowd. They may often (as even our small parish does) use all of the Consecrated wine before even 1/2 of the members attending get through the line, and then there are complaints from the rest wondering why we don’t use a much larger Chalice! (We simply can’t put a quart or a fifth of wine in each Chalice and have it be at all reasonable to handle for large crowds, not to mention the expense involved for the Parish).

Not sure about the pattern of those who receive the Consecrated Wine, but I’ve done Sacristan work for a large, yearly event that attracts close to 40k people. The measure we usually use is 1 bottle of wine per 250 people.

 

[janeway529]

Hey Guys,
I was wondering why during daily Mass (at my parish and mostly others) only the Body of Christ is given out instead of both the Body and Blood? I know every Sunday both are given out, but why during daily Mass is just the Body of Christ received? Why is it not required that both are to be received?

Thank you, and God Bless!

One reason could be for costs for wine, which can get a bit pricey on a parish’s budget.

 

[L_Marshall]

I’m not quite sure a deacon can give communion via intinction in the Roman Rite. Can you cite your sources on this?

When both species are offered - the deacon administers the chalice (while not followed to the tee by many parishes - this is still the supposed norm).

Redemptionis Sacramentum #103 seems to address this:

"…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."

When I wrote this, I was thinking of comments I had read by H.E. Francis Cardinal Arinze, however, after review, I’ve realized that these comments were made in 2003 (before the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum).

Since the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum, only priests are allowed to intinct the Blessed Sacrament.

I apologize for any confusion.

 

[SgtZabka]

I can’t speak for the entire world, but I can surely speak for most of Europe, when I say that offering the blood is pretty much an American thing. One must understand though that if you take part of the Eucharist, no matter which species, you are fully receiving Christ and you do not have to take both species. Now in the East, it has always been practice to receive both species at the same time, on a spoon, but we still understand that we do not need both.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not quite sure a deacon can give communion via intinction in the Roman Rite. Can you cite your sources on this?

When both species are offered - the deacon administers the chalice (while not followed to the tee by many parishes - this is still the supposed norm).

Redemptionis Sacramentum #103 seems to address this:

"…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."

Archbishop Gregory in Atlanta has discouraged intinction and allowed the priest celebrant to make the decision. In the parish I attend, the pastor has not allowed it.

From the Archdiocesan Manual For Parish Trainers of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at archatl.com/offices/chancellor/training/pdfs/2011-2012/2012-EMHC-manual-english.pdf

Intinction
Although it is not customary in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Church also permits communion under both species by intinction. This decision is to be made by the priest celebrant – individual members of the faithful cannot chose to receive communion by intinction when it is not offered. In any case, “The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand.”
(Redemptionis Sacramentum, 104)

-Tim-

 

[MorEphrem]

If you want both all the time, you may want to consider attending the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Rite parish.

This is true; the distribution of the Blood is only recent in the Latin Church.

As to not being able to store the Blood, I don’t understand why it’s a problem. If there’s too much to drink without getting drunk, the Syriac fathers had made provision that it could be kept in the place of reserve for a day (so I assume nothing happens to it if you cover it). Rarely is there ever the situation of there being so much left over Blood though; quite frankly, I’ve never really understood the sort of 2nd tier rank that’s been given to the chalice in the Latin Church.

 

[TimothyH]

This is true; the distribution of the Blood is only recent in the Latin Church.

As to not being able to store the Blood, I don’t understand why it’s a problem. If there’s too much to drink without getting drunk, the Syriac fathers had made provision that it could be kept in the place of reserve for a day (so I assume nothing happens to it if you cover it). Rarely is there ever the situation of there being so much left over Blood though; quite frankly, I’ve never really understood the sort of 2nd tier rank that’s been given to the chalice in the Latin Church.

To help you understand Roman Catholic practice, the decision not to reserve the Precious Blood was made at the highest level.

John Paul II’s 1980 Inestimabile donum 14:

On the other hand, the consecrated wine is to be consumed immediately after Communion and may not be kept. Care must be taken to consecrate only the amount of wine needed for Communion.

And Redemptionis Sacramentum 107:

Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed [cf GIRM 163, 249, 279, 284, 285a], and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.

It is not that the chalice has a second class status but that there is too much risk of profanation and the accidents of wine can change quickly and become corrupted. We are taught that it ceases to be the Eucharist when the accidents of wine no longer remain.

-Tim-

 

[MissRose73]

When I go to the EF, its only the host offered. Most OF Masses I attend (daily, holy day and weekend) offer both forms. It depends on the parish if both forms are offered as daily Masses tend to offer just the host only as they may not have enough ministers to give both forms (and often times just the priest giving out Communion)

My aunt makes sure she can go to a parish that offers both as she is a celiac & cannot partake of the host.

The only times I do not take both forms is when I go to the EF Mass, OF Masses that offer only the host, and when I have a cold I do not partake from the cup at all.

 

[malphono]

This is true; the distribution of the Blood is only recent in the Latin Church.

Not to mention in certain of the more latinized Oriental Churches as well …

As to not being able to store the Blood, I don’t understand why it’s a problem. If there’s too much to drink without getting drunk, the Syriac fathers had made provision that it could be kept in the place of reserve for a day (so I assume nothing happens to it if you cover it). Rarely is there ever the situation of there being so much left over Blood though

True, and you’re right: it wasn’t a commonly used provision. And you’re correct about the stability of the species of wine. The alcohol content renders it to be as stable - perhaps more so - than the species of bread. Bread, as we all know, has a tendency to become stale in a rather short period of time, in some cases inedibly so. Wine, OTOH, will keep without a problem for a few days, but it will eventually sour and turn to vinegar. The higher the alcohol content and the cooler the ambient temperature, the slower the souring process is.

quite frankly, I’ve never really understood the sort of 2nd tier rank that’s been given to the chalice in the Latin Church.

I’ve wondered the same thing too, and for many more years. Apparently this started among the Latins sometime in the Middle Ages, probably in the 12th or 13th Century, and apparently in tandem with the rise of the Corpus Christ observance. OTOH, the Precious Blood has never commanded such attention. There was a commemoration on the Latin calendar starting in (I think) 1849, but it was never much of a “big deal” as it were. I think the commemoration (I hesitate to call it a “feast”) was abolished in 1969 with the introduction of the Novus Ordo calendar, but I could be wrong about that.