What would happen if communion was ONLY by intinction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rickwood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rickwood

Guest
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

That’s how it is at my Eastern parish and there is zero problems that I know of. I wonder what would happen at my much larger Latin Rite parish?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host? (I know of no such situations at my parish now.)

I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?

Were people opposed to it in years past before communion-in-hand was allowed via indult in the USA?
 
Rickwood said:
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

That’s how it is at my Eastern parish and there is zero problems that I know of. I wonder what would happen at my much larger Latin Rite parish?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host? (I know of no such situations at my parish now.)

I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?

Were people opposed to it in years past before communion-in-hand was allowed via indult in the USA?
Click to expand...
I can see two categories of people who would be unable to receive: alcoholics who are taking Antabuse and those who have celiac disease and can not eat wheat.

At the moment in my parish I know nobody who fits in either category, but then again how many people go around bragging that they are on Antabuse?

I do know some people outside my parish who abstain from communion except on Christmas and Easter and then suffer for several days from the effects of the Host.
 
Rickwood said:
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

That’s how it is at my Eastern parish and there is zero problems that I know of. I wonder what would happen at my much larger Latin Rite parish?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host? (I know of no such situations at my parish now.)

I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?

Were people opposed to it in years past before communion-in-hand was allowed via indult in the USA?
Click to expand...
It would be fine with me. At the altar rail kneeling of course.
 
Rickwood said:
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

That’s how it is at my Eastern parish and there is zero problems that I know of. I wonder what would happen at my much larger Latin Rite parish?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host? (I know of no such situations at my parish now.)

I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?

Were people opposed to it in years past before communion-in-hand was allowed via indult in the USA?
Click to expand...
I’m in favor.
 
I know a couple Catholics who never take the cup because of germ phobias, that might be a concern with intinction.
 
a_cermak said:
I know a couple Catholics who never take the cup because of germ phobias, that might be a concern with intinction.
Click to expand...
How? No germ issue as no one is putting their lips on the Chalice with intinction.

For those who for some medical reason can not receive the Body or the Blood an accommodation would be made. Those who can not receive the Body, there would be a separate Chalice for them, or they would receive from the Chalice before intinction is started. For those who can not receive the Blood they would receive the Body without intinction.

But those cases are for real medical reasons, not because someone just does not want to receive.
 
Rickwood said:
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?
Click to expand...
It’s possible; I suspect those who are “convinced” that receiving in the hand is the only way to receive, or that receiving on the tongue is beneath them, would have a problem. Those who find receiving on the tongue simply “weird” would probably become comfortable with it.
Rickwood said:
Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?
Click to expand...
My wife does not drink any alcohol, nor anything with alcohol’s accidents (meaning, she does not receive from the Chalice). This might cause a problem for her.
Rickwood said:
I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?
Click to expand...
No, if there were decent catechesis (with tact, as you point out), I do not think the number of people opposed to it would be large… just those who find the practice altogether demeaning or medieval.

I would personally be in favor of it, but I would be more in favor of having options available for those who cannot receive under one of the two kinds. It’s only pastoral!
 
Phemie said:
I can see two categories of people who would be unable to receive: alcoholics who are taking Antabuse and those who have celiac disease and can not eat wheat.

At the moment in my parish I know nobody who fits in either category, but then again how many people go around bragging that they are on Antabuse?

I do know some people outside my parish who abstain from communion except on Christmas and Easter and then suffer for several days from the effects of the Host.
Click to expand...
These people should formally request a super-low gluten host…
 
japhy said:
I would personally be in favor of it, but I would be more in favor of having options available for those who cannot receive under one of the two kinds. It’s only pastoral!
Click to expand...
I think that’s the entire question though.

100% of the people in my eastern parish receive via intinction. It’s simply a non-issue – it’s not talked about. I suspect that’s the way it was in most Latin parishes before communion-in-hand was allowed.

While I would not want to be insensitive about individuals’ legitimate medical needs I sorta cringe at the toll taken by making “options available.” Why for example are these options not available in my Eastern parish and why were they not available in the past?

I think 100% communion by intinction would add a certain amount of solemnity and reverence to the Mass – though the Church certainly does not say this. I think making “options available” would largely destroy this.

What I am certain of is if communion were allowed dry-in-hand or dry-in-mouth for those who have issues with alcohol, MANY who do not would also demand the same option and that’s the end of any increase in solemnity and reverence – to my way of thinking.
 
We belong to a Latin Rite parish that distributes Holy Communion only by intinction, kneeling at the rail. I know of no objections at our parish.

I think it is a wonderful idea, and I would love to see this as the norm. So what if Mass takes a little longer because only the priest or deacon can distribute? Would it really kill people to spend a few more minutes in the presence of Christ?

~Liza
 
No one in my large Latin-rite parish requests a low gluten host. No one that I know of receives communion only from the chalice. There might well be some who receive only the host due to problems with alcohol. I personally receive the host by itself because the Precious Blood makes me RAVENOUS in the early morning.

So I sit here thing that the priest could offer communion via intinction or dry-on-the-tongue. If communion were offered dry, people would demand (and they would have the right) to receive in their hands.

And so goes any added reverence.
 
Rickwood said:
While I would not want to be insensitive about individuals’ legitimate medical needs I sorta cringe at the toll taken by making “options available.” Why for example are these options not available in my Eastern parish and why were they not available in the past?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure your parish is a large enough sample size. I’m sure there are plenty of Latin parishes where no one is allergic to wheat or opposed to the consumption of alcohol.
Rickwood said:
I think 100% communion by intinction would add a certain amount of solemnity and reverence to the Mass … What I am certain of is if communion were allowed dry-in-hand or dry-in-mouth for those who have issues with alcohol, MANY who do not would also demand the same option and that’s the end of any increase in solemnity and reverence – to my way of thinking.
Click to expand...
If the choice were mine to make, dry-in-hand would not be permitted, only dry-in-mouth. What is the increase of solemnity and reverence found in receiving an intincted Host rather than a non-intincted Host (on the tongue)?
 
japhy said:
I’m not sure your parish is a large enough sample size. I’m sure there are plenty of Latin parishes where no one is allergic to wheat or opposed to the consumption of alcohol.

If the choice were mine to make, dry-in-hand would not be permitted, only dry-in-mouth. What is the increase of solemnity and reverence found in receiving an intincted Host rather than a non-intincted Host (on the tongue)?
Click to expand...
Unacceptable in the USA. As soon as you offer the host by itself, you would have to offer it either in hand or tongue in the OF in the USA per the indult.

While a priest/bishop may limit communion to intinction-only, once communion by one species is allowed it must be allowed on both the tongue and hands and hence the dilemma.
 
Rickwood said:
Unacceptable in the USA. As soon as you offer the host by itself, you would have to offer it either in hand or tongue in the OF in the USA.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was going hypothetical. I think a bishop, for instance, could suspend the indult within his diocese.
 
If intinction became the normal way of receiving communion… (it would never be the only way because of all the medical reasons mentioned and also because there would no doubt be occasional circumstances, e.g. arena Masses, where intinction was simply not practical) …then there would be some people who cheer, there would be some people who don’t care, and there would be some people who would complain, leave the Church, hook up with dissident priests, etc.

Because that’s what always happens when something different is introduced.

But most of the people who were unhappy about the change would get over it. And a lot of people over the age of 40 or so would probably just shrug because they’ve already received on the tongue, in the hand, via the Cup, and by intinction. And so long as they *can *receive, the method isn’t that terribly important to them.
 
I was privileged to attend a Byzantine catholic church on Easter while on vacation- I received by intinction. the whole liturgy was amazing and spiritually uplifting. Intiction-no problem! As long as i can receive the Lord- i’m happy!😃
 
Rickwood said:
I’m curious, in a practical sense, what would happen if communion were offered ONLY by intinction?

That’s how it is at my Eastern parish and there is zero problems that I know of. I wonder what would happen at my much larger Latin Rite parish?

Would some refuse communion because they cannot receive in hand?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the Precious Blood?

Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host? (I know of no such situations at my parish now.)

I guess what I am really wondering is if the change to intinction-only was done with great tact and plenty of education and training, would there still be some opposed to it? Do you think the number would be large?

Were people opposed to it in years past before communion-in-hand was allowed via indult in the USA?
Click to expand...
Some people would be offended that they could not “dunk” themselves because that is what I have heard them call intinction.

We go to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy two times a week and the priest uses our name and places the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY, on our tungue while standing. With reverence and respect.

When at our OF on Sunday we receive on the tongue also while standing. Only it is in a hurry and rushed by those behind us. I much prefer to receive kneeling at the rail, but this is not an option.

When we go to the EF around 40 miles from home we kneel at the altar rail and receive on the tongue reverently and not rushed. There is even time prior to standing to say a small prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of our Lord. I love this form.
 
Thinking about my own parish again, I can see a few people being very upset because AFA they are concerned nobody but a priest should ever receive the Blood of Christ.
 
Would some refuse because they cannot receive the wheat host?

ALL hosts must be made of wheat, even those that are intincted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top