Why is intinction of the Eucharist discouraged if it is a traditional practice?

[tee_eff_em]

Self-intinction is discouraged or illicit because it increases the risk of spilling the blood of Christ onto the carpet.
Being the 20th post I am really amazed that no one else has mentioned this.

I believe you are mistaken – After all, is there no risk of spillage when a common cup is proffered?

Rather: Auto-intinction is forbidden because it is self-communication, which is forbidden to the laity.

tee

 

[RB2]

I believe you are mistaken – After all, is there no risk of spillage when a common cup is proffered?

tee

I dont want to be splitting hairs with you.

But as one who has done self-intinction a number of times, it is inherently more dangerous and confusing to the Minister. Both for spilling and/or dropping the chalice in a mixed environment of people either grabbing the chalice for drinking and/or intinction and others expecting the Minister to retain hold of the chalice for intinction. It would lead to many more mistakes and accidents. Especially for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist who are elderly and infirm in some way.

As to your second line reason(ing). I lay down.

 

[ProVobis]

Self-intinction is discouraged or illicit because it increases the risk of spilling the blood of Christ onto the carpet.

Isn’t there this risk when the cup is offered as well? Like people never spill cups of coffee or cough something up when they swallow wrongly? Why isn’t a large paten used?

 

[malphono]

tee_eff_em;7204486:

I believe you are mistaken – After all, is there no risk of spillage when a common cup is proffered?

Rather: Auto-intinction is forbidden because it is self-communication, which is forbidden to the laity.

I dont want to be splitting hairs with you.

But as one who has done self-intinction a number of times, it is inherently more dangerous and confusing to the Minister. Both for spilling and/or dropping the chalice in a mixed environment of people either grabbing the chalice for drinking and/or intinction and others expecting the Minister to retain hold of the chalice for intinction. It would lead to many more mistakes and accidents. Especially for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist who are elderly and infirm in some way.

As to your second line reason(ing). I lay down.

Well, tee is correct. And on all points. I will only add that any layman who has self-intincted has done so illicitly. That part is very clear in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[po18guy]

Self-intinction is the taking of the Sacrament. We are to receive the Sacrament, rather than take it. This is the problem.

 

[RB2]

Well, tee is correct. And on all points. I will only add that any layman who has self-intincted has done so illicitly. That part is very clear in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Oh it doesnt increase the risk of spillage?
Thanks for brilliantly explaining that, thanks.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh it doesnt increase the risk of spillage?
Thanks for brilliantly explaining that, thanks.

I think it does but its not the main reason for forbidding it.

A priest would know to make sure that the Host is not dripping when he gives it to the communicant. Lay people are not trained and would likely be careless.

 

[ProVobis]

We are to receive the Sacrament, rather than take it. This is the problem.

Problem is that there are different ways of receiving it. And there are various ways of taking it. Some have made a case that receiving in the hand, which feeds the mouth from your own hand, is a form of self-communicating as well. Church says it’s not (or does it?) but how else does one self-communicate short of scooping it out of the ciborium? Sorry for stirring up trouble here.

 

[RB2]

I think it does but its not the main reason for forbidding it.

A priest would know to make sure that the Host is not dripping when he gives it to the communicant. Lay people are not trained and would likely be careless.

I accept your correction, my explanation was certainly less knowledgeable.
Just wondering why you seemingly have ‘supporters’ or ‘fans’?

 

[po18guy]

Rather: Auto-intinction is forbidden because it is self-communication, which is forbidden to the laity.tee

Right you are, and this is the crux of the matter. We are to receive rather than to take.

 

[po18guy]

Problem is that there are different ways of receiving it. And there are various ways of taking it. Some have made a case that receiving in the hand, which feeds the mouth from your own hand, is a form of self-communicating as well. Church says it’s not (or does it?) but how else does one self-communicate short of scooping it out of the ciborium? Sorry for stirring up trouble here.

CITH and COTT are not related to this, as one does not “Take in the hand”, or “Take on the tongue”, but rather receives. That is a separate argument. We must receive the Sacrament, rather than take it, as the Apostles received it from Christ. Self-intinction is the taking of the Blood, by the intended recipient, through his or her own actions. Point is, we are to receive from the minister, whether the Ordinary or Extraordinary minister. Dipping the Body into the Blood is taking for oneself, and it not receiving from the minister.

 

[ProVobis]

We must receive the Sacrament, rather than take it, as the Apostles received it from Christ.

Playing the devil’s advocate on this, didn’t Christ say “Take and eat” and let the Apostles pass it around? At least that’s the way it seems to be translated.

 

[tee_eff_em]

but how else does one self-communicate short of scooping it out of the ciborium?

Precisely. Such practice is likewise forbidden.
(And: Yes, I have seen it so done and participated myself, when I was younger and susceptible to being misled)

*Redemptionis Sacramentum *(quoting GIRM #160):

1. It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.

tee

 

[Aramis]

Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.

The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.

This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.

With Self-Intinction, you get people who dip their fingers into the Sacred Wine, who wind up sprinkling the Consecrated Wine on the ground (to be walked on… even if unintentional).

With the practice of Intinction, you have the priest (or deacon, or EMHC) who will dip the Host into the Consecrated Wine while over the plate (what’s that called? Just not there right now). This is a much cleaner, more respectful practice.

Self-intinction isn’t discouraged… It’s outright forbidden.

ONLY a priest or deacon may intinct.

 

[ProVobis]

Precisely. Such practice is likewise forbidden.
(And: Yes, I have seen it so done and participated myself, when I was younger and susceptible to being misled)

You might not have been misled because (according to my memory and I’ll have to search my own library on this) the initial CITH approval actually allowed for this. The line was deleted later.

 

[po18guy]

Playing the devil’s advocate on this, didn’t Christ say “Take and eat” and let the Apostles pass it around? At least that’s the way it seems to be translated.

Let’s examine this process: Christ handed His Body to, let’s say, John. John received it from Christ and partook of it. John then handed it on to Philip, who received it from John before handing it on, and so forth. It is about receiving, not taking. Anyway, we are a faith of obedience to Christ through those He sent, and their successors. The G.I.R.M. controls here. We disregard it at our own peril.

 

[MarkThompson]

Self-intinction isn’t discouraged… It’s outright forbidden.

ONLY a priest or deacon may intinct.

I believe that in the Latin rite a deacon may not intinct. (Maybe practice in your rite varies.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let’s examine this process: Christ handed His Body to, let’s say, John. John received it from Christ and partook of it. John then handed it on to Philip, who received it from John before handing it on, and so forth. It is about receiving, not taking. Anyway, we are a faith of obedience to Christ through those He sent, and their successors. The G.I.R.M. controls here. We disregard it at our own peril.

Aren’t concelebrants allowed to pass the Eucharist around amongst themselves?

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, here are the initial conditions:

…

1285 For this, the following regulations will be taken into account: 1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1286 2. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1287 3. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1288 4. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the Host in the hand of the communicant. **Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the Host from the ciborium[5] or paten. **The faithful should consume the Host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant replies: “Amen.”

1289 5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1290 6. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lords Blood.

1291 7. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving Communion are requested to send this congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession.

I take this occasion to present to all of you, Eminences, my sentiments of profound esteem.

BENNO Card. Gut, Prefect

tldm.org/news4/BishopLaise.htm

 

[po18guy]

FWIW, here are the initial conditions:tldm.org/news4/BishopLaise.htm

“Alternatively”