J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
:nope: :doh2:
- Status
:nope: :doh2:
T
teachccd
Guest
Is not the Mystical Body of Christ people with flesh? That is what incarnate means.Our Holy Father is well aware of this.You only mentioned the Blessed Mother. Do you know the difference between Christ’s physical presence on earth and his scaramental presence in the Eucharist?
I didn’t know the Church is the incarnate Christ. Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t know this either. The Church is the mystical body of Christ.
I know Christ left his authority with the Church. I never said that receiving Holy Communion in the hand isn’t allowed. I said the opposite. What I said was I question allowing this practice to continue.
The way you used the passage in St. James chapter 3 inferred that you were speaking about reception of Holy Communion, since it is the topic at hand (no pun intended)
I wasn’t angry at all. I may have been mildly upset, but I wasn’t angry.
I also realize after reading your next post that you aren’t someone who advocates Holy Communion in the hand. I apologize for my error.
God bless.
I accept your apology. Remember, we are on the same team here. I have no beef with you. Don’t dissect my every word and use it against me. I have a passion for the Eucharist. I’ve read umteen books and have studied this Most Holy Sacrament at length. Yes, Christ is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist unlike His physical presence when He was on earth but Jesus is still whole and complete however He is present to us.
We have so many others to evangelize who don’t even believe in the Real Presence. Let’s join our efforts there and praise God that we are both where we are. May God continue to bless you…teachccd
B
Brendan
Guest
FYI, the choice to allow ‘face to face’ confessions belongs to the priest. If the priest prefers to hear confessions from behind a screen, there is nothing you can do to force him to hear it face to face.
In some countries only. For most of Latin America, for example, the bishops have chosen NOT to allow Communion in the hand. So, if you go to Columbia, for example, don’t be suprized if you go up for Communion with your hands out and the priest places Christ on your tongue instead. Because there, you do NOT have a right to recieve in the hand. (techinally Mexica is the same, but they see enought American tourists to make exceptions.)
Neither face to face Confessions or Communion in the Hand are Canonical Rights, but rather indults that can be restricted.
Communion on the Tongue cannnot be so restricted.
E
Elzee
Guest
Hi everyone,
Thought I’d give you an update. I did have a chance to mention that receiving communion on the tongue was allowed - my comment was ignored by the Director. I waited, prayed, and soon someone asked about receiving the Precious Blood from the cup - does it have to be done, why is it done that way, etc. Our RCIA Director said it was supposed to be done this way because it’s a sign of our unity. It gave me the opportunity to say that in some parishes Communion is given by intinction. I was quickly ‘corrected’ and told that intinction is strictly forbidden by the Church in the Roman Rite. I clarified that was true only in regard to SELF-intinction. A short discussion followed, but I was basically told I was wrong. I offered to research the issue more to make sure no recent decisions have been made prohibiting this, and send the documentation I found if that would be helpful.
So, if anyone can point me to where I can find documentation on intinction and under what circumstances it’s allowed *(for example, I told them I knew the priest and deacon could distirbute this way, but didn’t know if EMHC’s could) *I would appreciate it. Also - can a Bishop prohibit intinction in his diocese, or is it up to the priest (my question - not theirs).
Thank you all again so much.
Thought I’d give you an update. I did have a chance to mention that receiving communion on the tongue was allowed - my comment was ignored by the Director. I waited, prayed, and soon someone asked about receiving the Precious Blood from the cup - does it have to be done, why is it done that way, etc. Our RCIA Director said it was supposed to be done this way because it’s a sign of our unity. It gave me the opportunity to say that in some parishes Communion is given by intinction. I was quickly ‘corrected’ and told that intinction is strictly forbidden by the Church in the Roman Rite. I clarified that was true only in regard to SELF-intinction. A short discussion followed, but I was basically told I was wrong. I offered to research the issue more to make sure no recent decisions have been made prohibiting this, and send the documentation I found if that would be helpful.
So, if anyone can point me to where I can find documentation on intinction and under what circumstances it’s allowed *(for example, I told them I knew the priest and deacon could distirbute this way, but didn’t know if EMHC’s could) *I would appreciate it. Also - can a Bishop prohibit intinction in his diocese, or is it up to the priest (my question - not theirs).
Thank you all again so much.
T
tcraig
Guest
Intinction absolutely is allowed in the Roman Rite, and to be more specific, in the United States. Here is a document from the USCCB website:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Do Ctrl-F to do a search, and type in intinction. It will give you all the information you need.
I’m sorry you have such an uninformed person as the RCIA director in your parish. All of this information is easily found in legitimate sources with just a simple google search.
B
Brendan
Guest
See my post (#3) above for one such source,.
The other is Redemptionis Sacramentum
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
usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml
Note that self intinction is forbidden (para 104, same document), and when the host is recieved intincted,by a Priest ( a later dubium stated that deacon may also so distribute) and it may ONLY be recieved on the tongue.
B
BobP123
Guest
I would throw liturgical vernacular in the “indult” category as well, but that’s probably another thread.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes that is definatly an indult as well. Within the Roman Rite, yhe Mass in the vernacular requires approval from Rome and the local Bishops Conference. Either entity may revoke the option to say the Mass in the vernacular at any time.
The use of Latin, on the other hand, cannot be revoked or restricted by other than the Holy See alone.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
From the above and what they said about communion on the tongue and intinction—I would say, the priest and the RCIA director have had Neocatechumenal Way formation at some pt.
E
Elzee
Guest
Here’s a cut/paste from the USCCB document:
Does anyone know for sure?
Also, can a Bishop forbid intinction in his diocese?
Thank you!
- Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (53) (53. Cf. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Sacramentali Communione: Instruction Extending the Practice of Communion Under Both Kinds (June 29, 1970), no. 6 (DOL 270, no. 2115).
- The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
Does anyone know for sure?
Also, can a Bishop forbid intinction in his diocese?
Thank you!
W
Walking_Home
Guest
This is from RS-2004. Holy Communion via intinction is administered by only the priest. The bishops can exclude communion via tube or spoon–but the option of intinction always remains. By this --the bishops cannot prohibit intinction.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
[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
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Your RCIA director sounds like a humdinger. He/she is either really ill-educated on the issues or they’re, well, lying!
E
Elzee
Guest
Pray for our parish.
T
teachccd
Guest
I can’t force a priest to hear my confession at all. I was just alluding to the fact that both methods exist and are valid. Sometimes(very few like here) on this board I feel like I’m in a shrinking box.
God Bless
T
teachccd
Guest
And all of us…
E
Elzee
Guest
M
m134e5
Guest
Find and bring a bunch of pictures of Catholics receiving on the tongue- in the U.S., and in other countries. I believe in some parts of Mexico (and maybe Poland as well- I’m not sure) it is considered sacrilige to receive the Eucharist in the hand. I learned a lot of my spirituality from the Mexican people- and was taught it was sacriligious to receive in the hand. I know the Church allows it, so I don’t complain- but I try not to watch, I never ever do it, and I regret the three times I gave in to the EMHC who didn’t know what they were doing and received in the hand to prevent from being gagged- never again.
B
bear06
Guest
Here’s a good article on intinction.
adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html
You might also want to keep a copy of the GIRM with you when meeting with these people. Maybe you can educate them in the Church’s teaching rather than wherever they’re getting their info now.
adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html
You might also want to keep a copy of the GIRM with you when meeting with these people. Maybe you can educate them in the Church’s teaching rather than wherever they’re getting their info now.
E
Elzee
Guest
Thank you! This is very helpful and also raises a couple more questions:Here’s a good article on intinction.
adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html
You might also want to keep a copy of the GIRM with you when meeting with these people. Maybe you can educate them in the Church’s teaching rather than wherever they’re getting their info now.
What are the revised Norms this clip is referring to? Is it the 2003 GIRM? Also, contrary to what the article says at the end of this excerpt (I put it in red), it does seems to say receiving from the chalice is the ‘norm’ ( in red). Is that correct? What am I missing?
The Norms – Revised
A review of the revisions of the proposed Norms shows that the Holy See, although noting the “sign value” of receiving directly from the chalice, also sees advantages of intinction under some circumstances. In the Holy See’s revision of the Norms, the original reference to the chalice was replaced with the following:
42. Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ.3
Other revisions of the Norms indicate that in some circumstances intinction is actually to be preferred.
For example, in paragraph 24, which originally simply quoted the GIRM, saying that the diocesan bishop is to set norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds in his diocese, the revision adds:
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. (Emphasis added)
So it is not accurate to say that in all circumstances “Communion from the chalice is to be preferred to any other form of ministering the Precious Blood”.
B
bear06
Guest
Here are the norms for you. The only part of this that I believe has been revoked is the indult for extraordinary ministers to purify the vessels.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
- Status