Questions about Intinction

[Psalm40]

Greetings from Rio!

I recently landed here in Brazil about 3 months ago working for a Catholic relief organization until the fall when I enter seminary.

Please PRAY for Brazil because this country is in spiritual peril! Lots of "spiritualism" (mediums who channel the dead or speak to the dead) and this is believed even by so-called Catholics!!! Also, there are lots of Protestant missionaries -- Assemblies of God and Baptist especially - and they're winning a lot of converts among the non-believers and Catholics, and turning them very anti-Catholic (Boettner-style!). Of course, from the outside, they would seem justified in their attacks because when you see animist priestesses offering sacrifice to pagan gods in Catholic churches at children's baptism's, it gives the impression the Catholic Church is just as bad as the pagans and agrees with the pagans!

My question is this: a lot of churches in Brazil have "autointinction" where the people receive the host in the hand from the priest then dip it in the chalice then consume. Now I thought this was universally condemned by the Vatican, so I brought this up with my pastor, Fr. Jose, who told me this was commonplace throughout Brazil.

But suddenly since I brought this up to him the practice at this church has changed. Now the priest does the intinction and feeds it to the people. This is supposed to be the way to do it EXCEPT, since there are TWO LINES for receiving Holy Communion, in the other line a Eucharistic minister does the intinction also.

Is this canonically legal? (Does the term "canonically legal" exist?!? )

Also, was I indeed right that the Vatican universally condemned autointinction? Then how is it allowed to go on in the majority of Brazilian churches?

Thanks!

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Look at the documents section of the Vatican website for the Redemtionis Sacrementum-- it will discuss the liturgucal norms... yes self intiction is a no-no. Dunno about the extraoridinary minister of Holy Communion and intinction, though....

And welcome, welcome, welcome to OBOB! Hope you enjoy your stay!

 

[Paul S]

Yes, autointinction is prohibited. If intinction is done, it must be done by the priest.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Yes, autointinction is prohibited. If intinction is done, it must be done by the priest.

I'm a little confused by the interpetation of auto-intncition verus auto-communicate on this thread. (And for that matter just generallly)

First of all the documentation I have for Extrodinary Ministers is that they can perform intinction.

Secondly, as to auto intinction, I think that if an EM or a priest hands you a cup then the communiion is given. I don't see a difference between taking the cup and 1) drinking for it 2) spooning a teaspoon out of it and drinking from the spoon or 3) dipping the Host into the cup.

I would see a difference if, for instance, there was just a cup sitting there and I pick it up, that would be self-communion, but if its handed to me, I just don't see a difference in drink and dipping.

 

[HumbleMan]

Can a non-Catholic ask a question at this point? I'm not flaming or baiting, just curious. I know the RCC places a lot of emphasis on tradition. What is the origin of the tradition of intinction? As you know, my theology rests in the bible, and in Luke, it clearly states that Christ broke the bread and handed it to the Apostles. I'm just curious.

 

[Skripper]

[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.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

That's so wrong for them to be converting Catholics...I mean, don't they believe in faith alone and eternal security? Ugh...

 

[Skripper]

Can a non-Catholic ask a question at this point? I'm not flaming or baiting, just curious. I know the RCC places a lot of emphasis on tradition. What is the origin of the tradition of intinction?

While I'm not familiar with the specific origins of intinction, it could possibly be produced with a bit of research.

As you know, my theology rests in the bible, and in Luke, it clearly states that Christ broke the bread and handed it to the Apostles. I'm just curious.

And this is the most common method employed by the Catholic Church. Moreover, the Bible does not prohibit other methods for receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[HumbleMan]

posted before seeing Skripper answer the question.

 

[nyj]

Can a non-Catholic ask a question at this point? I'm not flaming or baiting, just curious. I know the RCC places a lot of emphasis on tradition. What is the origin of the tradition of intinction? As you know, my theology rests in the bible, and in Luke, it clearly states that Christ broke the bread and handed it to the Apostles. I'm just curious.

Latin Rite Catholics do not receive via intinction. If they do, I've never seen it. The question is probably better asked of the Orthodox at TAW, since that is the way they receive the Eucharist. Either that, or an Eastern Rite Catholic with knowledge of the practice can answer.

Even though I have recently been made an honorary Eastern Rite Catholic by PP , I do not know the answer.

 

[Skripper]

Latin Rite Catholics do not receive via intinction. If they do, I've never seen it. The question is probably better asked of the Orthodox at TAW, since that is the way they receive the Eucharist. Either that, or an Eastern Rite Catholic with knowledge of the practice can answer.

Even though I have recently been made an honorary Eastern Rite Catholic by PP , I do not know the answer.

Tom,

Though it is not the norm, generally speaking, and is actually fairly unusual, I regularly attend a Latin Rite parish that uses intinction exclusively. I have visited another in my area as well, that also does.

 

[nyj]

Tom,

Though it is not the norm, generally speaking, and is actually fairly unusual, I regularly attend a Latin Rite parish that uses intinction exclusively. I have visited another in my area as well, that also does.

Cool.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

[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.

What could possibly be the reason for those restrictions ? They actuallly seem rather arbitrary.

Being a citizen of a norhern teir state I have many times intincted (?) a host as to prevent the spread of influenza. I don't understand why there is distinction.

 

[Skripper]

What could possibly be the reason for those restrictions ? They actuallly seem rather arbitrary.

Being a citizen of a norhern teir state I have many times intincted (?) a host as to prevent the spread of influenza. I don't understand why there is distinction.

My guess would be that it has something to do with attempting to prevent, or at least reduce, the possibility of any spilling/dripping of the Precious Blood.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

My guess would be that it has something to do with attempting to prevent, or at least reduce, the possibility of any spilling/dripping of the Precious Blood.

Oh, well certainly makes sense.

I suppose if I say something provocative like, "I'll be more careful from now on", I'll get jack slapped.

So I think I'll just thank you for enlightening me.

Thanks Skrip

Can I call you "Skrip" ?

 

[Skripper]

Oh, well certainly makes sense.

I suppose if I say something provocative like, "I'll be more careful from now on", I'll get jack slapped.

(Maybe by Jason, with his catechism book. ) And everyone might not be able to be counted on to be as careful as you would be.

So I think I'll just thank you for enlightening me.

Thanks Skrip

Can I call you "Skrip" ?

Absotively.