R
Rickwood
Guest
Let’s go through this again…
Some would be upset because they CANNOT receive the wheat host – because of allergies.
In an intinction-only setting the chalice would not be there for them to drink from.
- Status
Some would be upset because they CANNOT receive the wheat host – because of allergies.
In an intinction-only setting the chalice would not be there for them to drink from.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is incorrect.
In the Byzantine rite where intinction is the norm, those with wheat allergies receive from the Chalice either before the Body is put into it or there is a Chalice that is reserved for their use.
R
Rickwood
Guest
You are wrong.
First as I stated, if communion was ONLY by intinction (see title) their would be no individual species to consume. NOW, special considerations could be taken (as we have talked about here) but it would no longer be ONLY by intinction would it?
I’m not sure which tradition you are talking about but I have NEVER seen anyone receive via one species in the Byzantine Ruthenian church – although it might be possible, I really don’t know.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Church takes into account those who can not receive because of allergies.
The would never be a case where someone would have to abstain from the Eucharist or receive it and die. That is absurd to even consider.
I am sorry but if you think this is what would happen then you are sadly mistaken.
It does happen in the Byzantine rite in the manner I stated when there are allergies to deal with.
So if you wish to set the discussion to the unrealistic idea that reception of the Eucharist be by intinction only with no considerations for reality then all that can be said is that this is very unrealistic and will never happen so there is no use in discussing this.
C
Cat
Guest
I agree that it is wonderful to spend more time with Christ Truly Present. I’m glad we have an Adoration Chapel open 24/7 in our parish.
But it would sure make for a looooooooong day for the priests, organist, etc.
We have five Masses on Sundays: 6:30 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 9:30 A.M, 11:00 A.M, and 12:30 A.M. (There’s also a Lifeteen Mass at 6:00 in the evening, and there is a 4:30 P.M. Mass and 6:00 P.M. Mass on Saturday evening. And during the school year, there is a family Mass at 9:30 A.M. on Sundays which meets in the school gym at the same time as the regular Mass–it’s packed.).
Other than the 6:30 Mass, all the Masses are packed standing room only.
We have three priests and three deacons in the parish. Usually just one priest is present at each Mass, and sometimes a deacon is present, too.
Each Mass uses about 8 EMHC. It takes about ten minutes to get everyone through the Communion line.
(People receive in the hand, on the tongue, and kneeling on the tongue, BTW, and we kneel while Communion is distributed.)
I would estimate that if one priest and one deacon served everyone at a Mass, Communion would take…well…I’m guessing 20 minutes maybe. Possibly longer.
What this means is that the schedule would have to be changed to accomodate the longer communion times. It would look like this:
6:30
8:00
10:00
12:00
2:00
Now that’s a LOOOOONG day! And frankly, I think a lot of people would object to attending a 2 P.M. Mass. So the 8:00 and 10:00 Masses would be even more crowded and would probably run even later.
I’m a fairly new Catholic, so maybe this sounds extreme to me but not to you. Is this the way it used to be before Vatican II came along? Of course, I realize that back in those days, there were more priests, so maybe it didn’t take as long.
I guess I don’t think we should give people another excuse to skip Mass and/or leave the Catholic Church altogether. I believe that the various methods of distributing Communion should all be practiced in dioceses so that that the faithful can choose the method that they find most acceptable. But I don’t think that one size fits all.
S
Seatuck
Guest
With a paten or cloth drape like the Orthodox.
R
Rickwood
Guest
Actually I’m sorry that you didn’t understand the subject of the thread. Let me quote the title once more: “What would happen if communion was ONLY by intinction?” IF it was only by intinction then some people would have problems OR it would no longer be by intinction only!
I expect there would be MANY objections to intinction-only – be they medical, a demand to receive in one’s hands, a demand to drink from the chalice, etc. etc. It’s those objections I was interested in hearing about and how they could be avoided.
R
Rickwood
Guest
That’s another very interesting point. Your parish sounds a great deal like my own. We routinely have 750-800 people at our Masses, at least 90% receive communion and we are lucky if we have a deacon present in addition to the priestly celebrant.
At a communion distribution rate of 3 seconds/communicant (good luck) a priest and deacon would take 16.875 minutes to distribute the hosts. Add communion preparation time and time after communion (even if the vessel purification is left for after Mass) and we get to 20+ minutes real quick.
That’s too long.
I’d rather the priest spend the time preaching or in prayer.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I did understand the title of the thread but I thought the discussion would be about the real possibility rather than some non-sense thing that never will be.
So if the question is,“What would happen if communion was ONLY by intinction?”, then the answer is, It will never happen.
J
jblake
Guest
ByzCath;:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
*
August 22, 1994.
In recent years this dicastery has followed closely the development of the question of the use of low-gluten altar breads and as matter for the celebration of the eucharist.
After careful study conducted in collaboration with a number of concerned episcopal conferences, this congregation in its ordinary session of June 22, 1994, has approved the following norms, which I am pleased to communicate:
I. Concerning permission to use low-gluten altar breads:
A. This may be granted by ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate.
B. Conditions for the validity of the matter:
A. The preferred solution continues to be communion per intinctionem, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.
B. Nevertheless, the permission to use mustum can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.
C. By mustum is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).
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.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm2.htm has a more complete version of what I’m doing a cut and paste of.
*Norms for use of low-gluten bread and mustum
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
*
August 22, 1994.
In recent years this dicastery has followed closely the development of the question of the use of low-gluten altar breads and as matter for the celebration of the eucharist.
After careful study conducted in collaboration with a number of concerned episcopal conferences, this congregation in its ordinary session of June 22, 1994, has approved the following norms, which I am pleased to communicate:
I. Concerning permission to use low-gluten altar breads:
A. This may be granted by ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate.
B. Conditions for the validity of the matter:
- Special hosts quibus glutinum ablatum est are invalid matter for the celebration of the eucharist.
- Low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread, that there is no addition of foreign materials and that the procedure for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread.
A. The preferred solution continues to be communion per intinctionem, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.
B. Nevertheless, the permission to use mustum can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.
C. By mustum is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).
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.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm2.htm has a more complete version of what I’m doing a cut and paste of.
J
jblake
Guest
ByzCath;:
Specifically from:
II. Concerning permission to use ‘mustum’:
*A. The preferred solution continues to be communion per intinctionem, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone. *
*E. In the very rare instances of laypersons requesting this permission, recourse must be made to the Holy See. *
III Common Norms:
*D. Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders. *
*E. Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. *
I just realized I was looking at two different documents of the same name.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm1.htm
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm2.htm
In this message, I’m quoting from the first URL.
xan
jonathon
Maybe I’m reading to much into what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, but Norms for Use of Low-Glutin Bread and Mustum seems to cover how communion by intinction is done when medical conditions appear to stymie it.
Specifically from:
II. Concerning permission to use ‘mustum’:
*A. The preferred solution continues to be communion per intinctionem, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone. *
*E. In the very rare instances of laypersons requesting this permission, recourse must be made to the Holy See. *
III Common Norms:
*D. Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders. *
*E. Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. *
I just realized I was looking at two different documents of the same name.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm1.htm
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfmustm2.htm
In this message, I’m quoting from the first URL.
xan
jonathon
R
Rickwood
Guest
There is no Church law that demands communion be offered by means other than intinction when intinction is being used.
Your “never happen” scenario happens every Sunday at my Byzantine Ruthenian parish – for the last 20 years or so.
R
Ruthie
Guest
If communion was only by intinction, I would have to refrain.
Does not the Church require that we receive once a year? How would I accomplish that?
Would I have to leave the Church? Would I be forced out, only to have someone judge me as someone who left by choice because I couldn’t handle change?
Ruthie
Does not the Church require that we receive once a year? How would I accomplish that?
Would I have to leave the Church? Would I be forced out, only to have someone judge me as someone who left by choice because I couldn’t handle change?
Ruthie
J
jblake
Guest
Ruthie;:
xan
jonathon
I’m Curious. Why would you have to refrain?
xan
jonathon
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
According to the OP’s question, if the Eucharist was ONLY offered by intinction then anyone with a wheat allergy or anyone who could not take alcohol would have to abstain from reception.
The OP will not allow discussion of anything other than reception of the Eucharist via intinction, he refuses to be sensible and allow for the real fact that this could not and would not be done as the Church would not exclude from reception those whose only “sin” would be a medical condition.
R
Rickwood
Guest
Please stop telling non-truths about me. I originally posted:
If communion was only allowed by intinction then people would either receive it that way, not receive it or request to receive it under one species. I didn’t list all the possibilities nor did I try to, hence my posting. However you came up with:
What’s “incorrect?” Without making special arrangements to receive communion in a manner other than intinction, one would either abstain or receive via intinction – and you could have said just that! Instead I get “this is incorrect” and it is not.
The fact is (and again I won’t be exhaustive) people, possibly MANY people would object to communion only via intinction. Many things would “come up” and that was the basis of this thread.
R
Rickwood
Guest
I think you would have many options. For one thing you could ask for an exception to communion only by intinction. I’m sure some would. You could request a nano-low gluten host. You could change parishes.
What I am really trying to do is get a feel for how many truly could not receive via intinction (very small number), versus those who didn’t care to receive via intinction (much larger.)
Someone brought-up the idea of not allowing communion-on-the-tongue if someone wanted to receive the host dry. If that were implemented I think it would drastically reduce the number who did not want to receive by intinction. However, I seriously doubt that would be “legal” within the Church. In the USA once communion stopped being via intinction-only, you would have to offer communion-in-hand.
Once communion-in-hand and dry communion on tongue was allowed (in addition to legitimate medical cases like your own) you would no doubt have others demanding the chalice. At that point the benefit would intinction-only would be largely lost.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Perhaps the same increase of solemnity and reverence found in receiving on the tongue rather than in the hand.
P
palmas85
Guest
Personally I think it would be a great thing. Everyone could receive under both species, except for those with allergies or addictions, if desired, and there would be no need of extraordinary ministers.
A win win situation as I see it.
A win win situation as I see it.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I am not telling non-truths.
When I pointed out this fact you replied.
I pointed out that the Church would make provisions for people who medically could not receive by intinction and you replied that the question you asked was receiving “ONLY” by intinction.
You did not appear to be willing to entertain anything else.
As for the Byzantine rite, which belong to the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, and attend other Byzantine rite Churches as well as having many Byzantine rite priests as friends. We have discussed this and I have been told by them that it is done within the Byzantine rite when there is a medical necessity.
- Status