Communion under both kinds

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

Southern Comfort
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Communion under both kinds

Post by Southern Comfort » Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:42 pm

AGM wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:55 pm
I think intinction is an option in England and Wales
Writing from Australia, you are not aware of the legislation in place in England and Wales which means that intinction for the laity is not an option in England and Wales.

(1) In 1976 the Bishops' Conference determined that the choice of whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue was the communicant's choice alone, and not the minister's.

Therefore if a priest or minister offers Communion by intinction, they are in breach of the liturgical law established by the Bishops' decision since they effectively remove the communicant's choice, as already stated in this thread.

(2) A person also may not self-intinct because this comes into the category of self-service Communion banned by paragraph 9 of the instruction Inaestimabile Donum in 1980, as already stated in this thread (and as also laid down in the paragraph you quoted from Celebrating the Mass).

In England and Wales it is well known that the result of this combination of liturgical laws is that intinction for lay people may never licitly take place in these countries, whatever Redemptionis Sacramentum may say. An Australian would not know this.

Regarding the paragraph you quote from the Bishops' 2005 document Celebrating the Mass, the drafters of that document did not wish to appear to be openly contradicting the possibility of receiving by intinction which may be an option in other countries, and were fully aware that the wording "not recommended" in practice would have the same force as "not permitted" in the light of our local legislation as cited above. The instructions given for doing intinction are in fact redundant, once again in the light of our local legislation. You will have noted that in the case of a priest or minister illicitly offering Communion only by intinction, the communicant is reminded that he or she has the option not to receive by intinction, which is in complete conformity with the 1976 legislation.

AGM
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:53 pm
Parish / Diocese: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Communion under both kinds

Post by AGM » Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:40 pm

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has:

“284. When Communion is distributed under both kinds: …
Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be given Communion in this form.”

So if Communion is being given by intinction there is the option to receive under the species of bread alone, and so the option to receive in the hand (in places where this is permitted). The communicant will need to communicate this to the minister.

An article “Communion by Intinction” by Susan Benofy at https://adoremus.org/2003/09/15/Communi ... ntinction/ discusses why communion by intinction is sometimes preferred. It may help people understand why the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has in 103 “the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains”.

Southern Comfort
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Communion under both kinds

Post by Southern Comfort » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:52 pm

AGM

It really is pointless producing yet more material in support of intinction when what has been cited above is already conclusive as far as England and Wales are concerned.

I took a look at a draft of the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion from the England and Wales Bishops that have been awaiting approval in Rome for many years. The original wording was not only "not recommended" but "not recommended as a normal practice". The intent is clear.

That document also contained an extended rationale for excluding intinction which includes a whole area that escaped the attention of Ms Benofy, not to mention those who drafted Redemptionis Sacramentum.

It is this:

There are several categories of people whom the practice of "enforced intinction" effectively bars from receiving at the table of the Lord:

(1) Those with Coeliac-Sprue syndrome at the top end of the intolerance scale, for whom any contact with gluten is life-threatening. Under carefully controlled circumstances they can safely receive under the form of consecrated wine alone (so long as the wine is not one of those that "altar suppliers" lace with grain spirit to preserve it). What they cannot do is receive wine into which hosts containing at least some gluten (and no other kind is permitted) have been dipped, as the wine will have been "contaminated" with the hosts.

In the case of enforced intinction, even if the chalice were to be offered to them to drink from, the wine will have been contaminated by prior intinctions.

Even those coeliacs who are not totally intolerant can be at risk of significant adverse effects on their health.

(2) Those allergic to alcohol, or who are unable to consume any alcohol due to another medical condition. Those communicants can never receive an intincted host for obvious reasons. Here it is the consecrated host that is "contaminated" rather than the consecrated wine.

(3) Similarly, those who are alcoholics. Persons with this condition cannot safely receive an intincted host.

(4) Other, such as those in hospital or enfeebled who can only receive a tiny sliver of the host. Intinction is not an option for such persons.

(5) Those with cerebral palsy who can only receive under the form of consecrated wine via a straw. Intinction is not an option for such persons.

If you couple all this with

(a) the fact that the practice is illicit in England and Wales, as previously explained;
(b) the fact that scandal has been caused by people being refused Communion in the hand;
(c) the fact that intinction has been used in the past as yardstick to measure "orthodoxy" and "reverence";
and
(d) the fact that the sign-value of the Lord's command to eat and drink is eroded in favour of "dunking";

it is clear that no useful purpose is served by continuing this discussion.

Post Reply