Would you accept Holy Eucharist via intinction from an EMHC?

[Pug]

I’m guessing this means that one is not to receive by intinction into the hand. (What an awful thought!) Else it seems it would say something like “receive from only the Priest”. The action in that statement is on the receiver and how to receive, not who is administering the sacrament. …plus it would be leaving out Deacons.

Hmmm. Mystery deepens. Thanks for finding that!

Oh, I agree, what an infelicitous idea to receive a host that has been intincted on the hand. I tend to agree that the “only” might be about the tongue and not the priest. But, that it said priest and not minister struck me. Since I didn’t notice that anyone else posted the following from the GIRM, up it goes, too:

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, and then withdraws.

I wonder if because that paragraph starts with “if communion from the chalice” that this means they are not talking about those special intinction sets that are a combined chalice and ciborium in that paragraph? Maybe that paragraph only applies when there is a separate chalice and a separate ciborium at that communion station.

 

[Praxis]

Oh, I agree, what an infelicitous idea to receive a host that has been intincted on the hand. I tend to agree that the “only” might be about the tongue and not the priest. But, that it said priest and not minister struck me. Since I didn’t notice that anyone else posted the following from the GIRM, up it goes, too:

I wonder if because that paragraph starts with “if communion from the chalice” that this means they are not talking about those special intinction sets that are a combined chalice and ciborium in that paragraph? Maybe that paragraph only applies when there is a separate chalice and a separate ciborium at that communion station.

Now that’s more like it! The GIRM does say “priest” to the exclusion of deacons it would seem. I wonder why Adoremus was relying on that quote from Arinze?

I think “communion from the chalice” refers to holy communion under the second species – the Precious Blood…

 

[Pug]

Now that’s more like it! The GIRM does say “priest” to the exclusion of deacons it would seem. I wonder why Adoremus was relying on that quote from Arinze?

I think that would depend on the common usage within the GIRM. Do they say “priest” for the convenience of not having to clarify about deacons, as you or I might do when quickly discussing marriage, or do they say “priest” to mean only a priest? I don’t know. Maybe there is ambiguity in the usage, so they quoted Arinze?

 

[Praxis]

I think that would depend on the common usage within the GIRM. Do they say “priest” for the convenience of not having to clarify about deacons, as you or I might do when quickly discussing marriage, or do they say “priest” to mean only a priest? I don’t know. Maybe there is ambiguity in the usage, so they quoted Arinze?

Indeed…

What I am certain of is that Cardinal Arinze’s comment at a convention is not enough to disallow lay EMsHC to distribute Holy Communion via intinction.

Sometimes I REALLY wonder about some things. An obscure dubium only in Italian that controls a fairly important matter? Seems VERY weird… Until I see the dubium, I would act as if it did not exist.

 

[Pug]

Sometimes I REALLY wonder about some things.

So do I, Praxis.

 

[Lee_M]

Nowhere in the GIRM does it say that Extraordinary Ministers are prohibited from administering by intinction. I cannot take what one cardinal says as being the final word without seeing the documentation to show only priests or deacons can minister by intinction. I’ve never had to do this anyway, but it right now it seems hear say and no written documentation to support it.

 

[Lee_M]

From The Holy See:

Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

4. Communion under Both Kinds
[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.[186]
[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]
[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

No where does it say that Extraordinary Ministers may not administer via intinction.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nowhere in the GIRM does it say that Extraordinary Ministers are prohibited from administering by intinction. **I cannot take what one cardinal **says as being the final word without seeing the documentation to show only priests or deacons can minister by intinction. I’ve never had to do this anyway, but it right now it seems hear say and no written documentation to support it.

---

Card Arinze is not just “one” Cardinal. He is the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. As Prefect — he would know if EMHC’s are allowed to offer communion via intinction or not.

 

[hermanowicz]

I have just read the entire email stream.

Have we only one Cardinal in these United States? Obviously not.

Dispensations have been given to EMHC to give communiion by intinction in various parishes (who are obviously not under the Cardinal 's jurisdiction who was mentioned).

In some parishes, dispensations are available only to priests and deacons - not asked for by the priest for EMHC. Or the Bishop or Archbishop doesn’t grant dispensations for this in that diocese.

Actually, i haven’t heard of that happening. But it is possible. CERTAINLY probable within the priest’s parish. i am a EMHC and i haven’t been granted this dispensation, but wait! i have never seen communion delivered by intinction in the Roman Catholic Church as of yet, and i am 48 years old. i did attend an East Orthodox Church, however, and i received communion by intinction there for half a year, so i do know what it is.

I do not believe Columbus, Ohio intends to bring communion by intinction here. Perhaps it IS the Bishops…or the Cardinals…or the fact that in all of my life, i have never heard a soul ask for it…

 

[Walking_Home]

I have just read the entire email stream.

Have we only one Cardinal in these United States? Obviously not.

Dispensations have been given to EMHC to give communiion by intinction in various parishes (who are obviously not under the Cardinal 's jurisdiction who was mentioned).

In some parishes, dispensations are available only to priests and deacons - not asked for by the priest for EMHC. Or the Bishop or Archbishop doesn’t grant dispensations for this in that diocese.

Actually, i haven’t heard of that happening. But it is possible. CERTAINLY probable within the priest’s parish. i am a EMHC and i haven’t been granted this dispensation, but wait! i have never seen communion delivered by intinction in the Roman Catholic Church as of yet, and i am 48 years old. i did attend an East Orthodox Church, however, and i received communion by intinction there for half a year, so i do know what it is.

I do not believe Columbus, Ohio intends to bring communion by intinction here. Perhaps it IS the Bishops…or the Cardinals…or the fact that in all of my life, i have never heard a soul ask for it…

---

The Cardinal mentioned —Card. Arinze – is the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Congregation is part of the Roman Curia. Card. Arinze would be aware if any such dispensations for EMHC’s to offer communion via intinction were authorized. From his statements — there is no such authorization.

vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm
The Roman Curia
THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

Secretariat of State
Congregations
Tribunals
etc.

Congregations

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/index.htm

Doctrine of the Faith
Oriental Churches
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
etc.

 

[Brendan]

Indeed…

What I am certain of is that Cardinal Arinze’s comment at a convention is not enough to disallow lay EMsHC to distribute Holy Communion via intinction.

Sometimes I REALLY wonder about some things. An obscure dubium only in Italian that controls a fairly important matter? Seems VERY weird… Until I see the dubium, I would act as if it did not exist.

OK, most would not consider this issue to be ‘relatively important’ Most would consider it an esoteric excercise in liturgical Sacramental Theology.

What I would suggest is to contact the Judical Vicar for your diocese and include the text from Cardinal Arinze. See what your Judical Vicar has to say and what weight he gives it. The Judical Vicar, if you are not familar with him, would be the priest to whom the Ordinary of the Diocese has delegated determinations of Law.

I’ll be contacting the Judicial Vicar for Detroit soon.

As to the quote from Cardinal Arinze, I was unaware that it existed until I began a search for the dubium that I saw in my Sacraments of Initiation class.

It’s not suprizing that EWTN or Adoremus do not have it, because dubia are released in Latin, with an official translation in the language of the requestor accompaning it. The English version of Notatie only published the dubia that are accompanied with an English translation.

The CDWDS deals with literally hundreds of dubia each month, most are on the same level of importance as this one.

Why do you find it so suprising that it might be restricted to clergy alone? The EMHC cannot do all that the ordained may do, as the minstry of the laity differs in kind and degree from that of the clergy.

 

[Brendan]

No where does it say that Extraordinary Ministers may not administer via intinction.

You have it backwards.

The laity have to be permitted to perform a function. If it does not say that they can, they cannot.

 

[Brendan]

I

I do not believe Columbus, Ohio intends to bring communion by intinction here. Perhaps it IS the Bishops…or the Cardinals…or the fact that in all of my life, i have never heard a soul ask for it…

As Walking kindly pointed out, Cardinal Arize is not an American Cardinal, but rather the Prefect (head) of the group in the Vatican that issues Liturgical Law. In matters of Sacraments, he is second only to the Pope himself in authority.

Also, there is no ‘dispensation’ for intinction. It is an option that is provided for everywhere in the Catholic Church ( not just the Latin Rite). As such, a priest or deacon may offer the Host intincted without any further authorization.

That is the most common (actually the ONLY) method of recieving both species offered in our parish.

If you take a look at the second picture here,

brendan-hla.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!D48DBDC01A7E8A7D!158/

you can see my daughter’s First Holy Communion ( my son is the altar boy with the paten). Yes this is a OF parish

 

[benedictgal]

I have just read the entire email stream.

Have we only one Cardinal in these United States? Obviously not.

Dispensations have been given to EMHC to give communiion by intinction in various parishes (who are obviously not under the Cardinal 's jurisdiction who was mentioned).

In some parishes, dispensations are available only to priests and deacons - not asked for by the priest for EMHC. Or the Bishop or Archbishop doesn’t grant dispensations for this in that diocese.

Actually, i haven’t heard of that happening. But it is possible. CERTAINLY probable within the priest’s parish. i am a EMHC and i haven’t been granted this dispensation, but wait! i have never seen communion delivered by intinction in the Roman Catholic Church as of yet, and i am 48 years old. i did attend an East Orthodox Church, however, and i received communion by intinction there for half a year, so i do know what it is.

I do not believe Columbus, Ohio intends to bring communion by intinction here. Perhaps it IS the Bishops…or the Cardinals…or the fact that in all of my life, i have never heard a soul ask for it…

First of all, the difference between the American Cardinals and Francis Cardinal Arinze is that he is the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He is the Chief Steward of the Church’s liturgical life. In other words, he is the Holy Father’s point man on all matters concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As such, his word carries a lot of weight because of the position he holds.

Now, regarding Redemptionis Sacramentum, just because it only mentions the Priest distributing Holy Communion during intinction, that does not leave the door wide open for an EMHC to do this. RS is supposed to be closing loopholes that went out of hand, not making new ones. RS was written to clean up the messes made by prelates, clergy and laity who took excessive liberties with the Mass and the Sacraments.

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.

 

[thistle]

From The Holy See:

Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

4. Communion under Both Kinds
[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.[186]
[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]
[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

No where does it say that Extraordinary Ministers may not administer via intinction.

For the chalice it mentions sacred ministers and extraordinary ministers can distribute but in the section on intinction it only mentions a priest. Seems clear to me that EMHC’s are not allowed to distribute via intinction.

 

[Praxis]

---

Card Arinze is not just “one” Cardinal. He is the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. As Prefect — he would know if EMHC’s are allowed to offer communion via intinction or not.

His title makes no difference in this case…

 

[Praxis]

OK, most would not consider this issue to be ‘relatively important’ Most would consider it an esoteric excercise in liturgical Sacramental Theology.

Anything concerning the distribution of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is quite important.

It’s not suprizing that EWTN or Adoremus do not have it, because dubia are released in Latin, with an official translation in the language of the requestor accompaning it. The English version of Notatie only published the dubia that are accompanied with an English translation.

Actually I find it quite surprising. It’s also remarkable that someone went to this level of trouble to find Arinze’s quote and they didn’t find the dubia?

The CDWDS deals with literally hundreds of dubia each month, most are on the same level of importance as this one.

And?

Why do you find it so suprising that it might be restricted to clergy alone? The EMHC cannot do all that the ordained may do, as the minstry of the laity differs in kind and degree from that of the clergy.

Because a layperson may distribute communion by the Host or the Precious Blood via the chalice. I don’t see anything that would impede a layperson from distributing communion via intinction. Where is the distinction? It certainly hasn’t been shown in either the GIRM or RS thus far.

 

[Praxis]

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.

 

[Brendan]

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.

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?

 

[Brendan]

His title makes no difference in this case…

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.