Self Intinction

[FightingFat]

Hi everyone

Someone has asked me why self-0intinction is not allowed.

Now, I know that self-intinction is not permitted as detailed in Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 104 but can anyone explain exactly why this is not permitted?

I imagine that there is a risk of the blessed sacrament falling or dripping, and also that our attitude should be one of reception, not ‘taking’, so that is about the way we approach God, “Cum amore et timore!” is this correct? Is there any more to it than that?

Many thanks for your help.

 

[Jimdandy]

cuf.org/FileDownloads/selfcomm.pdf

 

[George_Stegmeir]

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.

 

[The_Reginator]

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.

You are not alone brother.
I am also very uncomfortable with the cavalier manner in which our Lord is handled. To receive on the tongue from a priest is a way of witnessing to others that Jesus is really and truely present. The opposite of a meal is how I look at it. Same with the language we use. The more ‘down to earth’ our language and our actions the more ‘down to earth’ it can become. Mass is anything but ‘down to earth’.
This is why I firmly believe that intinction, as an example, takes us away from concentrating on heaven. Let us try to do everything we can to be heavenly at Mass.

 

[Brendan]

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.

With Intiction, the only means of recieving is on the tounge. The host is intincted in the speceis of wine. Communion in the hand is prohibited when recieveing an intincted host.

Also, my parents both recived their First Holy Communion that way back in the 30’s in Ireland. Holy Communon was offered that way at Easter, Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi to all.

So it was not excluded prior to V-II, just very uncommon in the US

 

[FightingFat]

cuf.org/FileDownloads/selfcomm.pdf

That answers that! Thanks Jim!

 

[The_Reginator]

With Intiction, the only means of recieving is on the tounge. The host is intincted in the speceis of wine. Communion in the hand is prohibited when recieveing an intincted host.

Also, my parents both recived their First Holy Communion that way back in the 30’s in Ireland. Holy Communon was offered that way at Easter, Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi to all.

So it was not excluded prior to V-II, just very uncommon in the US

Thanks for sharing that!
I’m a convert, and to be honest, I have never witnessed intiction. ( I lernd sum’n new, eh. )

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for sharing that!
I’m a convert, and to be honest, I have never witnessed intiction. ( I lernd sum’n new, eh. )

It’s actually the normal method at our parish.

That is how I found about about how my parents recieved their First Holy Communion. They came to our parish for a Mass and my mom remarked how she had not recieved that way since she was a teenager. My father ( who was from a completely different County in Ireland) had the same experience.

IN our parish, the priest uses a special combination small chalice and ciborium.

Here is a picture of my daughter making her First Holy Communion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10219&d=1302632187

As you can see, we are a pretty traditional parish.

 

[Brendan]

Here is a close up of what our pastor uses

cdn.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/intinction-set11541lg.jpg

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Hi everyone

Someone has asked me why self-0intinction is not allowed.

Now, I know that self-intinction is not permitted as detailed in Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 104 but can anyone explain exactly why this is not permitted?

I imagine that there is a risk of the blessed sacrament falling or dripping, and also that our attitude should be one of reception, not ‘taking’, so that is about the way we approach God, “Cum amore et timore!” is this correct? Is there any more to it than that?

Many thanks for your help.

YES, there is much more! I don’t have the references; so the following is the product of my fuzzy and aging memory, but I think it has the basic facts right.

The Eucharist is a gift to be received, not a right to be taken. Therefore, no one except a priest or bishop may take the species. All others, including religious and even deacons, must receive it from another. In a Communion Service without a priest, we try to have two EMHC’s; so they can give it to each other.

This has been interpreted to mean that even when one has been given the host, they may not use it to take the Precious Blood. It must be dipped and given to them by another.

This is very serious rule. Violation is an abuse of the species.

 

[Phemie]

YES, there is much more! I don’t have the references; so the following is the product of my fuzzy and aging memory, but I think it has the basic facts right.

The Eucharist is a gift to be received, not a right to be taken. Therefore, no one except a priest or bishop may take the species. All others, including religious and even deacons, must receive it from another.** In a Communion Service without a priest, we try to have two EMHC’s; so they can give it to each other.**

This has been interpreted to mean that even when one has been given the host, they may not use it to take the Precious Blood. It must be dipped and given to them by another.

This is very serious rule. Violation is an abuse of the species.

In a Communion Service the rubrics say that the EMCH who is leading the Communion rite takes Communion then gives it to others.

 

[FightingFat]

In a Communion Service the rubrics say that the EMCH who is leading the Communion rite takes Communion then gives it to others.

I’ve noticed that everyone here (correctly) refers to EMHC. If you referred to EMHC here, no one would know what you meant

 

[Phemie]

I’ve noticed that everyone here (correctly) refers to EMHC. If you referred to EMHC here, no one would know what you meant

I think that you’re more likely to see the term here because people who post here are more aware than the average person in the pew (PIP). I had to fight a former pastor to use the proper term because he wanted me to call them ‘Eucharistic Ministers’, which I gather is what most parishes call them, Redemptionis Sacramentum notwithstanding. http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion [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.
[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

The problem arises because the original document permitting EMHCs (Immensae Caritatis) called them “Special Ministers of the Eucharist”. You can still find that original document on the EWTN website .

 

[AlleluiaPTL]

How did the apostles receive the bread and wine from Jesus at the Last Supper? Communicants receive Communion they do not to administer it to themselves.

PTL

 

[Brendan]

How did the apostles receive the bread and wine from Jesus at the Last Supper? Communicants receive Communion they do not to administer it to themselves.

PTL

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

 

[Stylites]

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.

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.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

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 deacon’s hands are not consecrated, but he is designated by the Church as an Ordinary Minister of Holy Commumion.

 

[Cristiano]

A deacon’s hands are not consecrated, but he is designated by the Church as an Ordinary Minister of Holy Commumion.

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

 

[Brendan]

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.

FYI, my parents recieved their First Holy Communion in the 30’s.

The each recieved Holy Communion intincted by the priest.
And these were at two different parishes in two different Counties in Ireland, 6 years apart.

Their respective pastors also offer Holy Communion intincted on Feast Days associated with the Blessed Sacrament, such as Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi.

It was actually a valid option pre-Vatican II.

 

[Stylites]

FYI, my parents recieved their First Holy Communion in the 30’s.

The each recieved Holy Communion intincted by the priest.
And these were at two different parishes in two different Counties in Ireland, 6 years apart.

Their respective pastors also offer Holy Communion intincted on Feast Days associated with the Blessed Sacrament, such as Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi.

It was actually a valid option pre-Vatican II.

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