Pros/Cons of Intinction in My Parish

[Spiller]

More Than 30 Years Ago – ONE PRIEST distributed communion at Sunday Mass in my parish church.

Tomorrow Morning – Exact same church, fewer people in the pews, likely more going up for communion (work that one out) and the exact same ONE PRIEST (retired - helps out) plus SEVEN EMsHC and TWO “CAPTAINS” (super-duper EMsHC) will be required to distribute communion.
*
That’s just wrong.*

I figure it would take a priest, and 2 EMsHC (with the same number of servers we always have) to distribute communion via intinction. I wondered about the pros and cons of implementing intinction at my parish and this is what I came up with (Until I see proof I am presuming EMsHC can distribute communion via intinction):
**
PROS**

• The gifts could be processed to the altar pretty much ready to go
• Far fewer people would be involved in distributing communion
• Steady hand/height requirement would be tactful way to cull less able EMsHC
• A perfect reason to “retrain EMsHC from scratch”
• Give servers something more to do by holding paten
• It would tend to be more reverent by slowing things down a bit
• It would stop people from grabbing hosts by forcing communion on tongue
• Less vessels to purify and wash
• Some would perceive an increase in reverence

CONS

• People dislike change
• People lose option of communion-in-hand
• People lose option of communion under one species (could be VERY important for those sensitive to alcohol.)
• It would be suspiciously viewed as “going backwards” by some
• Communion would take a bit longer

It seems like with enough education and training it would be well worth doing. What did you all come up with?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

A couple of comments:

Steady hand/height requirement would be tactful way to cull less able EMsHC

Lay EMHCs are not allowed to give Communion by intinction. Only a priest can do so. (I’m not sure about a deacon, but I’m sure someone out there knows.)

People lose option of communion under one species (could be VERY important for those sensitive to alcohol.)

People could still have a choice. Some possibilities:

• Go to priest if you want to receive by intinction, go to EMHC if you want to receive only the Host.
• Do as one of our priests does: if someone extends their hands, he gives them only the Host. If someone extends their tongue, he dips the Host in the Precious Blood. Everyone knows that’s how it works, and they have a choice. (Receiving on the tongue without intinction would require some communication, I guess — I don’t know if we’ve run into that one.)

 

[Spiller]

I think the sign value of receiving under both kinds would also be retained without an undue increase in EMsHC…

 

[Spiller]

A couple of comments:

Lay EMHCs are not allowed to give Communion by intinction. Only a priest can do so. (I’m not sure about a deacon, but I’m sure someone out there knows.)

People could still have a choice. Some possibilities:

• Go to priest if you want to receive by intinction, go to EMHC if you want to receive only the Host.
• Do as one of our priests does: if someone extends their hands, he gives them only the Host. If someone extends their tongue, he dips the Host in the Precious Blood. Everyone knows that’s how it works, and they have a choice. (Receiving on the tongue without intinction would require some communication, I guess — I don’t know if we’ve run into that one.)

I’m not sure if an EMHC can distribute via intinction or now. I’ll just have to keep out eye our for official documentation…

I think all the options you list are flexible and all, but something is missed if they are not all receiving via intinction. I have distributed via intinction before and the host is dipped into the Precious Blood well before the next communicant would be signalling – thus slowing things down even more.

In think with a good introduction to it, training and education, it would be a wonderful thing but it would be controversial for the first 3-6 months for many. After that time I think it would be almost pure positive.

A local parish went to communion under one kind except for solemnities. It was rocky too but the pastor held fast and it now works out just fine…

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I’m not sure if an EMHC can distribute via intinction or now. I’ll just have to keep out eye our for official documentation…

From Redemptionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

[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]

Also, the GIRM has the following (emphasis added):

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.

I don’t think the use of the word “priest” here in the GIRM was an oversight. In other nearby places in the same document, the words “deacon,” “minister,” and “extraordinary minister” were used. The difference seems intentional.

 

[quiet52]

I think the option to not receive the Eucharist under both species must continue. There are plenty of people who do not receive from the chalice – for medical reasons, and a significant number of children, who simply don’t like the taste. The accident of the alcohol still remains in the Precious Blood.

 

[Spiller]

I think the option to not receive the Eucharist under both species must continue. There are plenty of people who do not receive from the chalice – for medical reasons, and a significant number of children, who simply don’t like the taste. The accident of the alcohol still remains in the Precious Blood.

I wonder what they did back in the “olden days?” I would think the only people that would have dared eschew communion by intinction would have been alcoholics or those actually allergic to alcohol – and they would have talked to the priest beforehand.

I think if the person distributing communion had to wait from a signal from each communicant, a great deal of the improved sign-value would be lost and it WOULD slow down communion – possibly to an unacceptable speed.

As far as kids not liking the taste, that’s not a valid reason – at least to me.

 

[Spiller]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

Also, the GIRM has the following (emphasis added):

I don’t think the use of the word “priest” here in the GIRM was an oversight. In other nearby places in the same document, the words “deacon,” “minister,” and “extraordinary minister” were used. The difference seems intentional.

We talked about this at length in another thread. I don’t see anything that specifically disallows deacons and the laity from distributing communion. If something authoritative was presented (such as the Italian-language indult) I would most certainly comply of course.

 

[mlj1573]

People have responded about people who are allergic to alcohol, and there is parallel condition regarding the host as well. People who have celiac’s disease (allergy to wheat) cannot receive the host, therefore they can only receive from the chalice. Switching to intinction would prevent them from receiving communion at all.

 

[Spiller]

People have responded about people who are allergic to alcohol, and there is parallel condition regarding the host as well. People who have celiac’s disease (allergy to wheat) cannot receive the host, therefore they can only receive from the chalice. Switching to intinction would prevent them from receiving communion at all.

Excellent point…

 

[quiet52]

I wonder what they did back in the “olden days?” I would think the only people that would have dared eschew communion by intinction would have been alcoholics or those actually allergic to alcohol – and they would have talked to the priest beforehand…
As far as kids not liking the taste, that’s not a valid reason – at least to me.

If, by “olden days” you’re referring to pre-Vatican II, the congregation in the Latin rite only received the hosts, and not from the chalice. No intinction.

 

[love4mary]

We use way to many EMHC’s in my parish, but in my Diocese the Bishop has said ONLY the priest can offer Communion via Intinction. So for us that option is a mute point.

 

[Spiller]

If, by “olden days” you’re referring to pre-Vatican II, the congregation in the Latin rite only received the hosts, and not from the chalice. No intinction.

They received by intinction…

 

[Spiller]

We use way to many EMHC’s in my parish, but in my Diocese the Bishop has said ONLY the priest can offer Communion via Intinction. So for us that option is a mute point.

In your case it would indeed be a moot point…

 

[JimG]

I wonder what they did back in the “olden days?”

They did exactly what our parish does today. People received under one species only, then and now, except for special occasions. There are just too many communicants to receive under both species at every Mass. The only difference is that then, only the priests distributed communion. Today we have EHMC’s.

The other difference is that then, the ushers didn’t go up the aisle having each pew come up sequentially. People just got up at random and went to the altar for communion if they felt prepared. If not, they stayed in their pews.

 

[Spiller]

They did exactly what our parish does today. People received under one species only, then and now, except for special occasions. There are just too many communicants to receive under both species at every Mass. The only difference is that then, only the priests distributed communion. Today we have EHMC’s.

OK, so what did they do on special occasions? If someone could not consume any alcohol or wheat, how did they commune back in the olden days, particularly on special days?

The Church says the sign value of communion under both kinds is important and I fully agree. I personally would always try to find a way to offer communion under both kinds.

The other difference is that then, the ushers didn’t go up the aisle having each pew come up sequentially. People just got up at random and went to the altar for communion if they felt prepared. If not, they stayed in their pews.

They still do that in Europe and if your parish has the aisle space to handle it, I think it’s FAR better. When people go up sequentially, it can be embarrassing to some to be “left behind.” At other times, it almost appears as if ushers are preparing to yank people out of their pews to get in line…

 

[JimG]

OK, so what did they do on special occasions? If someone could not consume any alcohol or wheat, how did they commune back in the olden days, particularly on special days?

Actually back in the “old days” I can’t think of any special occaions when the congregation received under both species. But currently, in my parish there is reception under both species on Easter Vigil, and perhaps on first communions; I can’t think of much more.

 

[Brendan]

OK, so what did they do on special occasions? If someone could not consume any alcohol or wheat, how did they commune back in the olden days, particularly on special days?

They discussed the matter with the priest.

The Church says the sign value of communion under both kinds is important and I fully agree. I personally would always try to find a way to offer communion under both kinds.

Important, yes. Critical no.

The Church also says that Form A of the Penitential Rite ( I Confess to Almighty God) is a fuller sign of Reconcilliation with our brothers mentioned in Matthew 5:23, but many priests omit it in favor of the shorter forms ( Lord Have Mercy…)

So, even in the interest of time value alone, a priest may choose to offer only a single species (as they often do for the Penitential Rite).

Cardinal Arinze did send a letter to the US bishops stating that having too many vessels for a Deacon or Priest to cleanse by themselves is also grounds for offering of a single species.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/cleansingofvessels.pdf

 

[Brendan]

Actually back in the “old days” I can’t think of any special occaions when the congregation received under both species. .

Both my parents grew up in Ireland. They both recieved their First Holy Communion via intinction, and intincted hosts were offered on Christmas, Easter and Corpus Christi.

My mom mentioned this when she came to our parish, which does intinction at the Communion Rail.

Maybe it was an Irish practice, because I haven’t heard much about it here ( though my Slovak pastor said he remembers that from his youth, so it might be more European.)

 

[Spiller]

Both my parents grew up in Ireland. They both recieved their First Holy Communion via intinction, and intincted hosts were offered on Christmas, Easter and Corpus Christi.

My mom mentioned this when she came to our parish, which does intinction at the Communion Rail.

Maybe it was an Irish practice, because I haven’t heard much about it here ( though my Slovak pastor said he remembers that from his youth, so it might be more European.)

I received first communion by intinction…