Self Intinction

[Tarpeian_Rock]

There are also a lot of Catholic priests whose hands are not consecrated and they still touch the holy species, go figure.

Huh? Consecration of a new priest’s hands is an intrinsic part of the ordination ritual. I don’t understand your comment.

 

[Brendan]

That’s great to hear. I was writing about someone’s mistaken belief that only priests should handle the Blessed Sacrament.

‘Should’ only priests handle the Blessed Sacrament? Actually, I would agree with that. But CAN a layperson handle the Blessed Sacrament, yes the Church does allow for that, but actually not as the Norm.

There is a distinction

In my parent’s case, as with all Intinction, a layperson does not actually touch the Blessed Sacrament nor the vessels.

My comment was more in regards to the reception of both Species.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

‘Should’ only priests handle the Blessed Sacrament? Actually, I would agree with that. But CAN a layperson handle the Blessed Sacrament, yes the Church does allow for that, but actually not as the Norm.

There is a distinction

In my parent’s case, as with all Intinction, a layperson does not actually touch the Blessed Sacrament nor the vessels.

My comment was more in regards to the reception of both Species.

You don’t believe deacons should handle the Blessed Sacrament either?

 

[Stylites]

‘Should’ only priests handle the Blessed Sacrament? Actually, I would agree with that. But CAN a layperson handle the Blessed Sacrament, yes the Church does allow for that, but actually not as the Norm.

There is a distinction

The distinction, as you call it, is having a different belief than what the Church believes.

 

[Brendan]

The distinction, as you call it, is having a different belief than what the Church believes.

Actually, no.

The Church allows laypeople to distribute Holy Communion, for example, but if you read the Church documents, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, that is only when there are insufficent clergy to do so.

The same holds true for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration

The preference is for the clergy, hence the 'Should;

Likewise for Communion in the Hand, that Universal Norm is for Communion on the Tounge, but the Church allows, via an indult to the Norm, for Communion in the Hand. An indult, by defintion is allowance from the Norm, not the Norm itself.

That is precisely the difference of which is speak.

The Normative praxis, by defintion is what SHOULD happen, indults and variances are what CAN happen.

 

[Stylites]

Actually, no.

The Church allows laypeople to distribute Holy Communion, for example, but if you read the Church documents, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, that is only when there are insufficent clergy to do so.

The same holds true for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration

The preference is for the clergy, hence the 'Should;

Likewise for Communion in the Hand, that Universal Norm is for Communion on the Tounge, but the Church allows, via an indult to the Norm, for Communion in the Hand. An indult, by defintion is allowance from the Norm, not the Norm itself.

That is precisely the difference of which is speak.

The Normative praxis, by defintion is what SHOULD happen, indults and variances are what CAN happen.

The discussion about touching the Blessed Sacrament started with someone saying that only priests should be allowed to touch it with their hands and all others the tongue (or tounge) only, and nothing to do with EMHCs. Saying that only priests should be allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands is very different from what the Church says is a norm and what is an indult. It appears to second-guess, backseat-drive and dissent from Church law. It is even against Church law for a parent to insist that their child receive a certain way, as the Church recognizes the right of each and every communicant to choose their own preferred way of communicating where both methods are allowed.

 

[superamazingman]

The Church holds different beliefs from yours, and Christians need to strive to conform our wills and minds with the will and mind of the Church rather than flaunt our different thinking or encourage others to diverge from the Church’s mind.

Actually, his idea is quite close to what VII and the church documents ask for. Sacrosanctum Concilium mentions several times when communion under both forms might be expanded to, but it is times like newly baptized and confirmed at their baptism/confirmaiton Masses, those entering religious orders at the Mass of their profession, and situations like this. In no way did it suggest that it be widespread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Apostles were Bishops, so they recieve the same way that Bishops do now, via both species directly from the vessels themselves.

I believe this is a poor argument. The fact is the way Communion was received has changed over the centuries. The Apostles being Apostles had nothing to do how they received Communion. Let us not try to apply modern setting and practice to events in the First Century.

 

[Brendan]

The discussion about touching the Blessed Sacrament started with someone saying that only priests should be allowed to touch it with their hands and all others the tongue (or tounge) only, and nothing to do with EMHCs.

Actually it does. The distribution of Holy Communion in the Latin Rite requires one to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

Saying that only priests should be allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands is very different from what the Church says is a norm and what is an indult

Could you describe how you see the difference between a Norm and an Indult.

. It appears to second-guess, backseat-drive and dissent from Church law. It is even against Church law for a parent to insist that their child receive a certain way, as the Church recognizes the right of each and every communicant to choose their own preferred way of communicating where both methods are allowed.

I said nothing about anyone reciveing a certain way. Since the Church does I allow, via an Indult, the reception of Communion in the Hand, I fully recognize that it is a legitimate option in the Church and offer no conmenation against it.

Could you please describe you view the different in the verbs “Should” and “Can”

For example, is there any difference in the statements “You should brush your teeth daily” and “You can brush your teeth daily”

 

[Cristiano]

Huh? Consecration of a new priest’s hands is an intrinsic part of the ordination ritual. I don’t understand your comment.

I am saying that there are a lot of priests that have been ordained either recently or long time ago and their hands were not consecrated and they still celebrate valid and licit Masses and they do touch the holy species. I was not referring to the ordination ceremony, consecration of the hands is a discipline that is part of the ritual,but it is not necessary for a priest to be ordained.

 

[superamazingman]

Huh? Consecration of a new priest’s hands is an intrinsic part of the ordination ritual. I don’t understand your comment.

Nope, it’s not.

 

[AlleluiaPTL]

1, At the time of the Last Supper the apostles had not yet been ordained. They would have received the bread in their hands and received the wine from a cup as we are able to do today.

1. It is logical that we receive the body and receive the blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharest we do not take the species. That is why self intinction by the communicant is not allowed.

 

[Brendan]

1, At the time of the Last Supper the apostles had not yet been ordained. They would have received the bread in their hands and received the wine from a cup as we are able to do today. .

Not true. The Institutional Narrative indicates that they were Ordained ( “Do this in memory of me”). The Eucharistic offering can only be done by Ordained men.

The Last Supper was when the Sacrament of Holy Orders was Instituted by Christ.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’m sorry, but I am old school and believe that in the Latin rite, receiving in both forms should be reserved to the priest alone. Dispite the dictats of V II, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of un-consecrated hands touching the Host! I firmly believe that the laity should only touch the Host with their tongues.

A couple of things here:

First, the priest’s hands are consecrated to confect the Eucharist - not just to touch it. Deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist and their hands are not consecrated.

Second, someone receiving by intiction properly, would be receiving on the tongue. An intincted host is never placed in the hand.

The reasoning behind no self-intinction is because we receive the Eucharist - we don’t take. So self intincting would be like people taking the chalice from a table to drink. Even if it is an EMHC assisting with distribution, they are doing it as an extension of the priest.

 

[AlleluiaPTL]

The apostles were not ordained at the time of the Last Supper and would have taken the bread in their hands and drank wine from a cup as we do so today.

As a number of responders have said we receive the sacred species we do not take them so intinction by the communicant is forbidden.

 

[Brendan]

The apostles were not ordained at the time of the Last Supper and would have taken the bread in their hands and drank wine from a cup as we do so today.

.

Allelulia, you are mistaken on this, go ask your Diocesan Chancellory office.

Or here

HOLY THURSDAY is the most complex and profound of all religious observances, saving only the Easter Vigil.** It celebrates both the institution by Christ himself of the Eucharist and of the institution of the sacerdotal priesthood **

catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=675

And from Bishop Conley of Denver.

It celebrates the institution by Christ Himself of the Eucharist and of the institution of the priesthood for in this, His last supper with the disciples, a celebration of Passover, He is the self-offered Passover Victim, and every ordained priest to this day presents this same sacrifice

The Apostles were Ordained Bishops at the Last Supper.

I agree with you that they recieved from both the paten and the chalice, as bishops have always done.