Dunking The Host/intinction

[Vincent Vega]

Strictly speaking, intinction is allowed and self intinction is forbidden. However, in our modern colloquial speech, "intinction" is used nearly always in reference to self-intinction.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1310487448' post='2266358']
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Oh right, I forgot about the logical principle "If everyone else is doing it, it's okay."

Which are both acceptable means of preventing the spread of disease. Self-intinction is not.
[/quote]
Forbidding Communion on the tongue is not acceptable [eta: either]. It is an abuse of power.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1310536611' post='2266772']
Forbidding Communion on the tongue is not acceptable [eta: either]. It is an abuse of power.
[/quote]
Interesting. Anything to back this up with?

[Aloysius]

reception on the tongue is the universal norm; there is an indult given to the United States and many other places that permits people to also receive in the hand, but no bishop has the authority to forbid the universal norm.

in 1969 the Holy See decided not to change the universal norm in Memoriale Domini (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm note the numbers, the majority of bishops of the time were against it); when it is permitted, the letter sent to those requesting this permission lists as the first requirement "1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage."

one can never have communion in the hand as the only thing that is offered, this is of course reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

RS 92 "'Although each of the faithful [b]always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue[/b], at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful."

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310545474' post='2266808']
reception on the tongue is the universal norm; there is an indult given to the United States and many other places that permits people to also receive in the hand, but no bishop has the authority to forbid the universal norm.

in 1969 the Holy See decided not to change the universal norm in Memoriale Domini (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm note the numbers, the majority of bishops of the time were against it); when it is permitted, the letter sent to those requesting this permission lists as the first requirement "1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage."

one can never have communion in the hand as the only thing that is offered, this is of course reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

RS 92 "'Although each of the faithful [b]always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue[/b], at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful."
[/quote]
Good, thanks.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310545474' post='2266808']
reception on the tongue is the universal norm; there is an indult given to the United States and many other places that permits people to also receive in the hand, but no bishop has the authority to forbid the universal norm.

in 1969 the Holy See decided not to change the universal norm in Memoriale Domini (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm note the numbers, the majority of bishops of the time were against it); when it is permitted, the letter sent to those requesting this permission lists as the first requirement "1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage."

one can never have communion in the hand as the only thing that is offered, this is of course reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

RS 92 "'Although each of the faithful [b]always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue[/b], at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful."
[/quote]
Indeed.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310545474' post='2266808']
reception on the tongue is the universal norm; there is an indult given to the United States and many other places that permits people to also receive in the hand, but no bishop has the authority to forbid the universal norm.

in 1969 the Holy See decided not to change the universal norm in Memoriale Domini ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...ia/cdwmemor.htm[/url] note the numbers, the majority of bishops of the time were against it); when it is permitted, the letter sent to those requesting this permission lists as the first requirement "1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage."

one can never have communion in the hand as the only thing that is offered, this is of course reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

RS 92 "'Although each of the faithful [b]always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue[/b], at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops' Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful."
[/quote]

I like this. A priest could cause a big hoo-haw if he wanted, and he would be within the law. (I've been reading too much of the Bad Catholics thread.)

Based on the above, all a priest would have to say is that he has learned that there is a risk of profanation of the host, and that no one will be allowed to take communtion by hand.

Let the profane language among the congregation begin.

Note: As a non-Catholic, I have no preference as to how communion is distributed, and this suggestion should not be interpreted that I prefer one method over another, only that I am in a bratty mood.

[MithLuin]

Strangely enough, [b]Ash[/b], I saw this done for the first time on Monday as well! I was attending mass with some Maryknoll Brothers, and they all received communion in this way. I knew it was a variation on intinction, but I did not know where they picked it up - I guess India, then? Does anyone know if it's legit in the non-Latin rite churches in India? Or is it simply something they borrowed from the Anglicans?

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1310614280' post='2267249']
Strangely enough, [b]Ash[/b], I saw this done for the first time on Monday as well! I was attending mass with some Maryknoll Brothers, and they all received communion in this way. I knew it was a variation on intinction, but I did not know where they picked it up - I guess India, then? Does anyone know if it's legit in the non-Latin rite churches in India? Or is it simply something they borrowed from the Anglicans?
[/quote]

If a priest self-intincts when he administers to communion to himself, is that really self-intinction because the priest who administered communion did the intinction? Does that make any sense at all?

[Aloysius]

the priest celebrating Mass should not intict, I believe. I'm a bit rusty with my novus ordo since I spend much more time with the Traditional Latin Mass and Eastern Catholic Liturgies, but I believe also in the Novus Ordo there are specific prayers to be said when the priest consumes the host and when he takes from the chalice, each prayer specific to the species he is consuming at the time.

now concelebrating priests? I don't know, are they to give communion to themselves, or to receive it from the main celebrant? I feel like it's supposed to be the latter, but again, I'm not sure so I'd have to check. but concelebrating priests would be the only ones who might be able to self-intinct, though I don't think so because I think that either they receive it from the celebrant or perhaps take it themselves with the same ritual with which the celebrant takes it; either way, there is no room for self-intinction.

a priest attending a mass, in choir or in the pews, should not self-intinct either, IMO. if he's acting as a minister of Holy Communion, he's definitely supposed to receive first from the priest (or another minister of Holy Communion), and if intinction is being done then the one distributing the communion should do the intinction.

long story short: no, I don't believe even a priest would ever have the oppurtunity to licitly self-intinct.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Aloysius