Would you accept Holy Eucharist via intinction from an EMHC?

[supersweetie]

Whoops! It would appear that I have made a grave error, and more than once. When I contracted mono last year (I work in a hospital and catch everything!-occupational hazard I guess) I decided to do self-intinction for a long time. I didn’t want to get anyone sick, and had no idea that it wsa thought to be a grave error to do so (since no one seems at odds about whether or not self intinction is o.k., just whether lay people or only the ordained can).

So, my question though, is why is it so bad? I imagine I’ve seen it done at Episcopal churches and that’s why I thought to do it for myself. I read one post that said something about it changing the form of the species and that can only be done by a priest (or something to this effect). Anyone have ideas? Since I meant no harm or disrespect when I did it, I’m not worried so much about that. I just like to know why.

 

[nice2000]

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.

Thanks Dessert,

Ohhhhh, that’s what it is. I can’t remember ever seeing that done during mass.

Hmmmm, very interesting topic.

 

[jmcrae]

Whoops! It would appear that I have made a grave error, and more than once. When I contracted mono last year (I work in a hospital and catch everything!-occupational hazard I guess) I decided to do self-intinction for a long time. I didn’t want to get anyone sick, and had no idea that it wsa thought to be a grave error to do so (since no one seems at odds about whether or not self intinction is o.k., just whether lay people or only the ordained can).

If you are ill, you can receive under one species only - the Host. We are not required to receive from the Chalice.

So, my question though, is why is it so bad?

Because (unlike the Episcopalians) we Catholics do not “take” Holy Communion - we “receive” it. Big difference, here.

We are not supposed to “help ourselves” as if at a buffet. We are at a Banquet, and we are being fed from the hand of the Lord, like in those pictures you see of ancient banquets, where the host of the party is dropping pieces of cheese, and grapes, and other kinds of stuff, into his guests’ mouths.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks Dessert,

Ohhhhh, that’s what it is. I can’t remember ever seeing that done during mass.

Hmmmm, very interesting topic.

That is correct. It is where you recieve both species at once, via a host that is dipped into the chalice and then placed on the recpients tounge.

At our parish, that is the way both species are offered.

Take a look at the second photo. It is my daughter’s First Holy Communion.

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

You can also see the special combination ciborium and chalice that is used ( so the priest does not have to try and hold both)

The altar boy with the paten is my son

 

[Spiller]

We are not supposed to “help ourselves” as if at a buffet. We are at a Banquet, and we are being fed from the hand of the Lord, like in those pictures you see of ancient banquets, where the host of the party is dropping pieces of cheese, and grapes, and other kinds of stuff, into his guests’ mouths.

Actually we are at a SACRIFICE. The Ultimate SACRIFICE…

 

[Brendan]

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.

In the Byzantine Catholic Churches ( and the Orthodox Churches) they do use a spoon.

The species of Bread and the species of Wine are mixed in a chalice. The priest will use a spoon to pour the Blessed Sacrament into the mouth ( you tilt your head back to recieve). An altar boy will hold a cloth under the chin to catch any drops)

In the Roman Church, the Host is dipped into the Precious Blood and then placed on the tounge of the recpient, an altar boy will hold a gold plate with a handle (called a paten) under the chin to catch any drops)

See my link above

 

[palmas85]

That wouldn’t work at our church. We have 10 Masses on Sundays as roughly 11,000 people attend Mass each Sunday (about 80% of the parish). Impossible for the priest alone to handle that number and still have 10 Masses. EMHC’s are necessary.

You only have one priest? Remarkable, especially in the Philippines and even more so at a Parish that size. . And he handles ten Masses by himself on Sunday, with over a thousand at each Mass? , He must be a truly amazing Priest.

 

[benedictgal]

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

No, the celebrant must distribute Holy Communion. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant’s Communion.172 ***It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; ***and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.173

Now, as has been quoted often in this thread, RS also covers intinction:

[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***

RS is very clear as to who should distribute the Sacrament if intinction is employed. It is the priest. This is very consistent with the statement that Francis Cardinal Arinze made regarding the priest and intinction.

 

[pnewton]

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

In this sentence, the adverb “only” is part of the phrase “only on the tongue” as opposed to the reading “from only the priest”. Therefore, the restriction is from receiving on the hand for obvious reasons. This is entirely consistent with Cardinal Arinze’s statement allowing deacons to distribut this way.

 

[Lee_M]

In this sentence, the adverb “only” is part of the phrase “only on the tongue” as opposed to the reading “from only the priest”. Therefore, the restriction is from receiving on the hand for obvious reasons. This is entirely consistent with Cardinal Arinze’s statement allowing deacons to distribut this way.

Guys, you all are going both ways on this subject. First, you said that it must be specifically mentioned that a EMHC can administer via intinction. Yet, when it only mentions a priest, you say that deacons can administer via intinction as well, yet it doesn’t mention deacon or ordinary minister. And you cannot say that when it says priest, that it means deacon. A deacon is not a priest.

 

[pnewton]

Guys, you all are going both ways on this subject.

I’m not. You may be confused that more than one person is posting here and we may not all agree. That is why I suggested (1) that Cardinal Arinze is the best guide since the liturgy is his baliwick in the Curia, (2) the bishop still has authority in the parish and it is to him that priests and deacons give an oath of obedience.

 

[Brendan]

And you cannot say that when it says priest, that it means deacon. A deacon is not a priest.

We cannot say it, but Cardinal Arinze can.

Cardinal Arinze said that Deacons may also distribute via Intinction.

Since he is the Legislative Authority of both the GIRM and RS, under Canon 6, if he says that deacons may distribute, that too has the force of law.

The Church is kind of interesting in regards to law. In the US, we have a seperation of powers. Congress, which makes laws, is seperate from the Courts, which interpret them, to tell us how to apply the law.

In the Church, the one who creates the law is also the one that interpets the law, to tell us how to apply the law.

Like a Supreme Court decision in the US, such a declaration has the force of law itself.

For example, lets say that there is a law that says that the speed limit is 70 mph. A person driving someone to the hospital gets a ticket for going 80. Let’s say this got all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court says that a person can legally excede the speed limit in a life or death emergency,

Fine, the law has been clarified.

That does not mean that the Legislature will not go a change what the law says on the books. They will not put up new signs on the road. The law will still say “Speed Limit is 70mph”. But ,because of the Court decision, everyone who enforces it will now know not to issue tickets when it’s a life or death emergency.

That is pretty much what has happened here.

 

[Lee_M]

We cannot say it, but Cardinal Arinze can.

Cardinal Arinze said that Deacons may also distribute via Intinction.

Since he is the Legislative Authority of both the GIRM and RS, under Canon 6, if he says that deacons may distribute, that too has the force of law.

The Church is kind of interesting in regards to law. In the US, we have a seperation of powers. Congress, which makes laws, is seperate from the Courts, which interpret them, to tell us how to apply the law.

In the Church, the one who creates the law is also the one that interpets the law, to tell us how to apply the law.

Like a Supreme Court decision in the US, such a declaration has the force of law itself.

For example, lets say that there is a law that says that the speed limit is 70 mph. A person driving someone to the hospital gets a ticket for going 80. Let’s say this got all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court says that a person can legally excede the speed limit in a life or death emergency,

Fine, the law has been clarified.

That does not mean that the Legislature will not go a change what the law says on the books. They will not put up new signs on the road. The law will still say “Speed Limit is 70mph”. But ,because of the Court decision, everyone who enforces it will now know not to issue tickets when it’s a life or death emergency.

That is pretty much what has happened here.

So you’re saying that the Church bases the laws on what a Cardinal says in public. I’m just trying to understand. I would think it would need to be written and not just reported through a speech at a conference or question and answer forum or whatever.

 

[Brendan]

So you’re saying that the Church bases the laws on what a Cardinal says in public. I’m just trying to understand. I would think it would need to be written and not just reported through a speech at a conference or question and answer forum or whatever.

No, if you read a bit earlier, the Cardinal responded in an official capacity, called a Dubium (Latin for “question”, it’s a request for an official ruling on a matter of law).

We had discussed that Dubium in one of my Diaconate classes at the Seminary, but I can’t seem to find a copy online.

 

[Lee_M]

No, if you read a bit earlier, the Cardinal responded in an official capacity, called a Dubium (Latin for “question”, it’s a request for an official ruling on a matter of law).

We had discussed that Dubium in one of my Diaconate classes at the Seminary, but I can’t seem to find a copy online.

OK. Thanks for the clarification. I’m fine with whatever the Holy See wants, but do you know why this is only allowable for the ordained. As an EMHC, I can administer the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ to a communicant, but why not the Body & Blood of Christ? What is the reason behind it? I’m sorry if you already answered this once. And for those others out there, please don’t respond that there shouldn’t be any EMHC, I am just curious on their reason for allowing only the ordained to administer via intinction.

 

[Spiller]

No, if you read a bit earlier, the Cardinal responded in an official capacity, called a Dubium (Latin for “question”, it’s a request for an official ruling on a matter of law).

We had discussed that Dubium in one of my Diaconate classes at the Seminary, but I can’t seem to find a copy online.

I haven’t seen any dubium yet. It’s ludicrous to suggest a pastor that wishes to allow EMsHC to distribute holy communion by intinction would need to run down said dubium which is only in Italian per the story.

 

[jmcrae]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. I’m fine with whatever the Holy See wants, but do you know why this is only allowable for the ordained. As an EMHC, I can administer the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ to a communicant, but why not the Body & Blood of Christ? What is the reason behind it? I’m sorry if you already answered this once. And for those others out there, please don’t respond that there shouldn’t be any EMHC, I am just curious on their reason for allowing only the ordained to administer via intinction.

As I understand it from the previous posts in this thread, the reason is that intinction changes the form of the species.

Lay persons can pass on what has been given to them, unchanged, but we are not permitted to change the form of what we have been given before passing it on.

 

[Spiller]

As I understand it from the previous posts in this thread, the reason is that intinction changes the form of the species.

Lay persons can pass on what has been given to them, unchanged, but we are not permitted to change the form of what we have been given before passing it on.

Naw. Both species individually are FULLY the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Brendan]

Naw. Both species individually are FULLY the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is the Substance, Judith was refering to the Form.

The Substance is fully present in each species ( hence Trans SUBSTANTIATION), but the form differs.

An EMHC can only pass on what they had been given in the manner that is was given, they cannot change it.

Intinction changes the FORM, or how it is presented (. That is something the laity are not authorized to do.

 

[Spiller]

That is the Substance, Judith was refering to the Form.

The Substance is fully present in each species ( hence Trans SUBSTANTIATION), but the form differs.

An EMHC can only pass on what they had been given in the manner that is was given, they cannot change it.

Intinction changes the FORM, or how it is presented (. That is something the laity are not authorized to do.

The form doesn’t change either.