Would you accept Holy Eucharist via intinction from an EMHC?

[pnewton]

That is correct.

Cardinal Arinze noted that only priests or deacons may intinct.

adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

As this is a directive from the CDWDS and the CDWDS is the legislative authority, it is not something a bishop may dispense with on his own, he must recive permission to do so from the CDWDS.

Thanks for the link. That would seem to answer the question of what is licit.

 

[Walking_Home]

You know, once you step back away from the bickering, the lack of facts and the armchair experts, one thing seems quite clear:

The Church would have specifically mentioned in the GIRM that communion by intinction is to be only carried out by priests if that were indeed the case.

Based on the information presented here, it’s quite clear that if a pastor allowed EMsHC to distribute Holy Communion by intinction, he wouldn’t be doing a darned thing wrong.

---

You – apparently have been overlooking this:

GIRM

209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:L8LqHGkZUS4J:www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf+General+Instruction+roman+missal+258&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a
   communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred
   particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it
   partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of
   Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, an then withdraws.

 

[MargaretCortona]

fwiw - a note regarding the training we received in our diocese for EMHCs…

We were not to routinely administer by intinction. However, we were told what to do if we were serving the Precious Blood and a parishioner who had received communion in the hand came and tried to “self-intinct” by putting the Host in the chalice themselves. We were told first to cover the chalice with our hand, so they could not put the Host in. The parishioner could either consume the Host, then take the Precious Blood from the chalice, or they could give us the Host, we could intinct it and place it on their tongue.

This wasn’t taught as “this is the way communion should be received”, but more like “self-intinction is an abuse that is not allowed, and this is what to do if someone attempts it”…

 

[Praxis]

His position as Prefect for the CDWDS makes all the difference. As the legislating authority on matters of liturgy and Sacraments, his word in those matters is literally law ( see Canon 16)

The GIRM and Redeptionis Sacramentum are all promulgated by him.

You’re wrong.

An off-the-cuff comment by the cardinal about communion at a nuptial Mass does not hold any more authority than any other bishop. None whatsoever.

The authority comes from the Church in whatever document supports his off-the-cuff comment – assuming there is one…

 

[Praxis]

---

You – apparently have been overlooking this:

GIRM

209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:L8LqHGkZUS4J:www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf+General+Instruction+roman+missal+258&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a
   communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred
   particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it
   partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of
   Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, an then withdraws.

And you apparently missed postings #41 & 42.

 

[Praxis]

Sure he would, there is no provision in the GIRM for EMHCs to change the mode of reception.

They are given the species in a particular form, and they alter it. That is distinctly different from recieving a ciborium or chalice and simply offering it’s contents.

There has to be law for an EMHC to do that. A priest cannot create particular law, only the Ordinary may. An Ordinary may not do so if there is Universal Law on the matter.

So for a priest to allow an EMHC to do what you described, the Bishop must have first investigated it, if he could not find the dubia, then, and only then could he create particular law on the matter.

But a priest could not do so on his own iniative.

See my recommendation about contacting the Judical Vicar of your diocese. Provide the +Arinze quote. He take would be the offical policy for your diocese.

Do you have any objections to that?

There is no prohibition in the GIRM for EMsHC to distribute communion under both species via intinction. It’s just not there…

 

[jmcrae]

There is no prohibition in the GIRM for EMsHC to distribute communion under both species via intinction. It’s just not there…

There doesn’t have to be a specific prohibition. What there has to be is specific permission, and that is what we are not finding.

 

[benedictgal]

You’re wrong.

An off-the-cuff comment by the cardinal about communion at a nuptial Mass does not hold any more authority than any other bishop. None whatsoever.

The authority comes from the Church in whatever document supports his off-the-cuff comment – assuming there is one…

Spiller, this is no ordinary Cardinal. He is the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He has more resources and, arguably, more knowledge than you and me. When he speaks, there is an authoritative air and, as such, it certainly bears a lot of weight. He speaks from a breadth of knowledge and experience that you and I do not have. Furthermore, he has every conceivable document at his fingertips. You and I don’t. Therefore, his words should not be dismissed as just “some cardinal” opining.

The fact of the matter is that the documents only reference clergy distributing Holy Communion via intinction. There is no such indult for EMHC’s doing so. Furthermore, the Cardinal’s statement falls very much in line with what the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum have already indicated.

Furthermore, Spiller, not one of your posts has cited anything authoritative from the Holy See to back up your position. On the other hand, Brendan, Walking Home and I (and some others) have posted and quoted directly from documents issued forth by the Holy See. We are not relying on our own opinions; rather, we are stating what the Holy See has already said.

 

[Lee_M]

The problem is that as Americans, we are so used to looking for loopholes to just about everything. I ought to know, because, havnig spent 12 years working in the Texas House, it was my job to open and close loopholes through legislation.

I’m not going to say anyone on here is looking for a loophole. I was just instructed during the training that a EMHC may intinct. But after Brendan pointed out, that EMHC can only do what is listed and not by what is prohibited, I’ll stand corrected.

I think there needs to be clearer guidelines on these types of things because there tends to be too many differences of opinions from one diocese to the other.

 

[Lee_M]

fwiw - a note regarding the training we received in our diocese for EMHCs…

We were not to routinely administer by intinction. However, we were told what to do if we were serving the Precious Blood and a parishioner who had received communion in the hand came and tried to “self-intinct” by putting the Host in the chalice themselves. We were told first to cover the chalice with our hand, so they could not put the Host in. The parishioner could either consume the Host, then take the Precious Blood from the chalice, or they could give us the Host, we could intinct it and place it on their tongue.

This wasn’t taught as “this is the way communion should be received”, but more like “self-intinction is an abuse that is not allowed, and this is what to do if someone attempts it”…

This was the same scenario given to us for using intinction. Fortunately, I’ve never had this happen yet.

 

[Lee_M]

There doesn’t have to be a specific prohibition. What there has to be is specific permission, and that is what we are not finding.

Again, this is why we need clearer guidelines. After reading what Brendan and you posted that there has to be specific permission given, I decided to re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum. By your arguments, Deacons would be prohibited as well. Cardinal Arinze stated that Deacons may administer by intinction. So if the Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t give permission to Deacons, then how can they administer via intinction?

Are you saying that the Cardinal is wrong as well for including Deacons as being permitted to administer via intinction?

 

[jmcrae]

Again, this is why we need clearer guidelines. After reading what Brendan and you posted that there has to be specific permission given, I decided to re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum. By your arguments, Deacons would be prohibited as well. Cardinal Arinze stated that Deacons may administer by intinction. So if the Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t give permission to Deacons, then how can they administer via intinction?

Are you saying that the Cardinal is wrong as well for including Deacons as being permitted to administer via intinction?

The term “priests” can be understood to mean “members of the clergy,” just as the term “men” can sometimes be understood to also include women, youths, children, and infants.

However, I don’t think it can ever be extended to include lay people.

 

[Walking_Home]

You’re wrong.

An off-the-cuff comment by the cardinal about communion at a nuptial Mass does **not hold any more authority than any other bishop. ** None whatsoever.

The authority comes from the Church in whatever document supports his off-the-cuff comment – assuming there is one…

---

Now its an “off-the-cuff comment”-- and does"not hold any more authority than any other bishop" . You are being disingenuous. For someone who declare him/her self to be a "traditional-minded " —you comments in this thread—just blew your “traditional-mind” out of the boat.

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, this is why we need clearer guidelines. After reading what Brendan and you posted that there has to be specific permission given, I decided to re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum. By your arguments, Deacons would be prohibited as well. Cardinal Arinze stated that Deacons may administer by intinction. So if the Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t give permission to Deacons, then how can they administer via intinction?

Are you saying that the Cardinal is wrong as well for including Deacons as being permitted to administer via intinction?

---

Priests and deacons have something in common — which we the laity do not have----Ordination. So in essence intinction is limited to those who have received ordination.

 

[Brendan]

Again, this is why we need clearer guidelines. After reading what Brendan and you posted that there has to be specific permission given, I decided to re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum. By your arguments, Deacons would be prohibited as well. Cardinal Arinze stated that Deacons may administer by intinction. So if the Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t give permission to Deacons, then how can they administer via intinction?

That is why we look to the person who promulgated RS, namely Cardinal Arinze, for a correct interpretation. He has chosen to extent that right to Deacons. They very fact that he has done so is not indicitive that the right has been extended to the laity.

Are you saying that the Cardinal is wrong as well for including Deacons as being permitted to administer via intinction?

Considering that both the GIRM and RS are his laws, it can’t really be said to ‘wrong’. Rather, both the Deacons and the Priest serve in this way in a manner that differs from the laity in kind of service and degree.

 

[pnewton]

---

Priests and deacons have something in common — which we the laity do not have----Ordination.

They also hold in common that they are the *ordinary *ministers of communion, something that applies to no layman. Cardinal Arinze is the bishop in charge of such matters. His word is final, unless he speaks outside of what the Holy Father wants. That being said, in a diocese, the bishops’ word is equally final. I would not worry too much if the bishop has authorized it in your diocese and you have been told to do that. That is, as we say in my mileau, outside your pay grade. If the bishop thinks he knows better than Cardinal Arinze, then do what you must in obedience to him. Then pray that God will bring him to obedience to the Holy See.

I am proud that our AB Cardinal Dinardo has been mentioned as one who is faithful in this matter. I am convinced he has the humility to follow our Holy Father as best he can, making for a first-class shepherd.

 

[DallasCatholic]

The only person I was sure was a priest was not serving that evening. He had to sit down, he was obviously tired at that point. He’d already been going strong for two hours, I don’t blame him for needing a break! I would have definitely received from him had he been serving.

I was sure I saw the priest prepared a chalice, and I thought I saw one of the EMHCs with a large communion pyx, but once the crowd moved to the front, all I could see were servers using intinction. I would have found either the chalice or the EMHC holding the communion pyx, but like the priest I too was tired at that point. And tired of the electric guitar and drums and singing too… I’m used to a much much more quiet Mass! I had already received once that day at my home parish, but I still kinda feel snooty for not receiving.

I’m thinking about going back next week for a special intention, so I guess I’d like to figure out whether or not I should receive if I’m placed in a similar situation again.

I thought that a Priest celebrating Mass MUST serve Holy Communion. I didn’t realize they had an option.

 

[nice2000]

I didn’t receive primarily because I was disturbed by the fact that EMHCs were offering via intinction, when I’m certain this is only allowed to be done by a priest. Would I have been culpable in any way had I received? I feel kinda snooty for not having received even though I feel there was a possible abuse there.

Hi BeeSweet, Your post is the only post I read so far…My question may have already been answered…

What is “intinction”? you said the EMHC’s were offering “intinction”.

Me confused…

On the real tip though, I prefer to receive communion by a Priest and via mouth only. Now a days you can’t get around it though.
There are not that many priests left and all you see is Lay persons giving communion.

 

[Spiller]

---

Priests and deacons have something in common — which we the laity do not have----Ordination. So in essence intinction is limited to those who have received ordination.

Oh? The GIRM says “PRIEST” not “ordained male.”

 

[dessert]

Hi BeeSweet, Your post is the only post I read so far…My question may have already been answered…

What is “intinction”? you said the EMHC’s were offering “intinction”.

Me confused…

On the real tip though, I prefer to receive communion by a Priest and via mouth only. Now a days you can’t get around it though.
There are not that many priests left and all you see is Lay persons giving communion.

I’m guessing that the priest dips the bread or host in the wine and then place in your mouth. I don’t think it is something to put in your hand. I wonder if they use a spoon? Never been to that Mass.