Communion by Intinction: A "New" Way of Receiving Communion in Both Kinds

Intinction may be unfamiliar -- but would more Catholics receive the Precious Blood at Mass if this reverent method of administering it were used? Is it time to change our ways?

"Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See" (Sacrosanctum Concilium §55).

By these words the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council opened the way to a change in the long-standing practice in the Roman Rite of administering Holy Communion to the faithful only under the form of bread.

The Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) listed only a few specific instances when Communion under both kinds might be distributed. Gradually the list expanded until, in the newly revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the decision is left wholly to the diocesan bishop. The GIRM explicitly notes that the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is received "whole and entire" in each of the elements:

Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation. (GIRM §282)

It also expands the possibilities for distribution Holy Communion under both kinds:

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite's becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason. (GIRM §283)

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. (GIRM §245)

The GIRM gives directions for administering the Precious Blood both by drinking from the chalice and by intinction. In the US, receiving directly from the chalice is the standard practice when Communion in both kinds (or species) is received.

Most Catholics have never experienced Communion by intinction. In this method the priest takes the consecrated host, dips it part way into the chalice (intincts it), then places it on the tongue of the communicant. Intinction requires fewer ministers for distribution of Communion, as only one chalice is needed. Since less wine is consecrated, less Precious Blood remains to be consumed after Communion, and there are fewer vessels to purify after Mass. One might think that many pastors would find these features of intinction desirable and that this method of administering Communion in both species would be used widely.

Yet the practice is rare, largely because most liturgists oppose it. Indeed, some have objected strongly that the GIRM lists intinction second among the possible methods of distributing Communion in both species, rather than last, as in previous editions. (Administering Communion by special tube or spoon has never been common in the Western Church.)

Opposition to Intinction The progressivist liturgical organization We Believe!, for example, gave suggestions on its web site for changing the GIRM to limit intinction:

§161 (117) Suggested change: [Add] the directive that intinction should not being introduced to circumvent the practice of communion in the hand.

Rationale: [T]here is a concern that the prominence of intinction in the new GIRM will lead to the impression that it is an equally acceptable alternative in the United States, especially under the form of "self-intinction".

The idea that intinction will lead to "self intinction" is unsupportable. The GIRM specifically forbids "self intinction", stressing that Holy Communion must always be received from a minister.

The basis of the real objection is that communicants must receive the intincted host on the tongue. But Communion should always be received in the hand, according to liturgical progressives. They discourage and sometimes ridicule receiving Communion on the tongue.

Liturgist Fred Moleck, director of the Office of Worship in the diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, expresses a typical attitude toward intinction in his online column "Table Talk", which appears on the website of music publisher GIA (www.giamusic.com):

One of the options in receiving the Eucharist [in the GIRM] is a rather lengthy description on how to do intinction.

Moleck does not name the bishop, but in his own diocese Bishop Anthony Bosco does not seem to approve of intinction, judging from a question he addressed to Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, then chairman of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, at the November 2002 meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Bishop Bosco: Archbishop, I have a hunch what the answer is, but I guess I can live in hope until I hear it from you. Or plead ignorance, one of the two.

Concerning the options that are given in the General Instruction about reception of Communion: drinking from the chalice directly, by intinction, a tube or with a spoon: Communion by intinction is referred to twice in the document. Is the local ordinary permitted to proscribe any of these forms?

Archbishop Lipscomb: We had an original adaptation in the Norms that the Holy See took out on the question as to whether or not the local ordinary-- In the humble opinion of the Secretariat on the Liturgy, no. As much as it distresses me to say.

I would hope, with you, that there would be other possibilities for the local bishop, because I can see possible difficulties arising from some of this. But right now, if you have to have an answer, this would be the law of the Church.

By "the Norms", Archbishop Lipscomb means the "Norms for the Celebration and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America", a document passed by the USCCB in June 2001, and approved (with revisions) by the Holy See on March 22, 2002.

While there was no explicit provision in the bishops' original version of the Norms that said a diocesan bishop could prohibit intinction, there was a paragraph about intinction that was removed by the Holy See. The deleted paragraph echoed the proposal of We Believe!:

Distribution of the Precious Blood by intinction should never be adopted as a means to limit the communicant's legitimate option to receive Communion in the hand.

This was apparently intended as a warrant to forbid intinction altogether. (Liturgical progressivists, in fact, do not seem able even to imagine any reason for intinction except for limiting Communion in the hand. )

The original version of the Norms said "Communion from the chalice is to be preferred to any other form of ministering the Precious Blood", as was cited in official news releases at the time.

The Norms -- Revised A review of the revisions of the proposed Norms shows that the Holy See, although noting the "sign value" of receiving directly from the chalice, also sees advantages of intinction under some circumstances. In the Holy See's revision of the Norms, the original reference to the chalice was replaced with the following:

42. Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ.3

Other revisions of the Norms indicate that in some circumstances intinction is actually to be preferred.

For example, in paragraph 24, which originally simply quoted the GIRM, saying that the diocesan bishop is to set norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds in his diocese, the revision adds:

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. (Emphasis added)

So it is not accurate to say that in all circumstances "Communion from the chalice is to be preferred to any other form of ministering the Precious Blood".

Intinction Sometimes Preferred Opponents of intinction view this revision of the US Norms as a retreat from an earlier instruction. However, the Holy See's 1970 document on Communion under both kinds, Sacramentali Communione, had expressed a preference for intinction in many circumstances. This is found in §6 (ironically, the very section that is usually cited to justify the preference for receiving directly from the chalice). It is revealing to read this section in its entirety:

6. 1) For a fitting administration of Communion under both kinds care must be taken that all is done with proper reverence and that the rite outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nos. 244-251 is observed.

2) The character of the particular liturgical assembly as well as the age, circumstances, and preparation of the communicants should be considered, then the choice should be made of the way of giving Communion that insures its being done with dignity, devotion, propriety, and the avoidance of the danger of irreverence.

3) Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.

4) When they are available, other priests or deacons or even acolytes should be chosen to present the chalice. The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ's blood must be regarded as unacceptable.

5) Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive Communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes Communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.

6) Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of Communion under both kinds by intinction: it is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the Sacrament more effectively. Intinction makes access to Communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions; at the same time it preserves the truth present in the more complete sign. (Emphasis added)

Generally, only the first part of no. 3 above is quoted -- that is, receiving directly from the chalice "ranks first". Cited in isolation, this seems to support the view that drinking from the chalice is always to be preferred. But "sign value" is not the main emphasis of this section. Three times this short passage stresses that the distribution of the Blood of Christ must be done with the proper reverence. And it explicitly states that drinking from the chalice is to be chosen only if it can be carried out with due dignity and reverence. Intinction is often to be preferred -- and is "easier and safer", the directive says. Safety here refers to the concern that drinking from the common chalice might spread disease -- a concern dismissed by most liturgists, sometimes with rather bizarre arguments.

"Rich and Sensate Experience" Overrides Dignity and Reverence The late liturgist Father Robert Hovda, for example, in an influential 1977 book, It Is Your Own Mystery, A Guide to the Communion Rite", responds to common objections to Communion from the cup, among them "convenience" and "hygiene" (equivalent to "ease" and "safety" in Sacramentali Communione.)

Convenience should not be a consideration, in Hovda's view. What is necessary is that "the experience of all participants can be as rich and sensate as possible" (p. 29). As to questions of hygiene, Hovda states, the alcohol content, the polished surface of a metal chalice and the practice of wiping the rim after each person are sufficient to eliminate bacteria. (Curiously, although Hovda speaks of metal chalices, the book's illustrations show only ceramic cups.) He pushes the point:

Drinking from a common cup is quite certainly a more sanitary procedure than the custom still in use in many churches of placing the holy bread directly on the tongue of the communicant. (p. 29)

Gabe Huck, longtime editor of the Archdiocese of Chicago's Liturgy Training Publications (LTP), in an article in Liturgy 80, implies that the hygiene questions about the common chalice are actually a mask for fear of intimacy:

Steeled as we all are to the unhealthy deeds of waste disposal, pesticide spraying, acid rain and even chemical warfare, what is so scary about that cup?

Is it perhaps that here -- far more than in the very separate pieces of bread - we confront a very specific kind of intimacy? Fear of contagion is certainly part of resisting the cup, but is not fear of such intimacy the larger context?

Huck reprinted this excerpt in his 1989 book, The Communion Rite at Sunday Mass (now withdrawn from distribution by LTP).

Liturgical progressivists show little concern for dignity and reverence as usually understood. They object to kneeling, genuflecting, silence and other ordinary expressions of reverence. Instead, they insist on "real" bread, which must be broken into fragments -- each of which is, in reality, the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. Detailed instructions on the distribution of Holy Communion proclaim the necessity of eye contact with the communicant, but neglect to mention that great care must be taken with particles of the Body of Christ. (See, for example, Hovda's It Is Your Own Mystery, p. 32; and LTP's popular Video Guides for Ministers of Communion and Gather Faithfully Together.)

Progressivists have been complaining since the release of the new GIRM that its rules are impossible to follow in the US, because with large congregations extraordinary ministers of Communion are needed to help with the Fraction Rite (breaking the consecrated bread) and to purify vessels, which are not permitted in the new GIRM.

Administering Holy Communion by intinction would eliminate this "need". This was noted in the Holy See's denial of the US bishops' requests for indults to allow extraordinary ministers to perform these functions.

According to the October 25, 2001 letter from Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, then-prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to the president of the US bishops' conference:

Certain reasons given for a derogation from the norms [of the GIRM] would actually fall instead under the denotation of precisely the sort of difficulty to which n. 283 refers as a limitation upon distribution under both species, while the use of intinction remains a way in which such distribution may still be carried out reverently in accord with all norms of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani.

Despite liturgists' laments about a "retreat from the renewal of Vatican II", this provision for intinction is in complete accord with Sacramentali Communione.

Many Catholics have avoided receiving Communion from the chalice -- for a variety of reasons, not excluding concern about the spread of disease. Insisting that the "fuller sign" of receiving the Precious Blood is available only through drinking from the chalice has prevented many people from receiving Communion under both species.

It is surely worth reviewing the advantages of intinction enumerated in Sacramentali Communione:

[I]t is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the sacrament more effectively.

Intinction makes access to Communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions;

These aspects of intinction ought to be weighed thoughtfully now, as we implement the changes in the new Missal.

References: Sacrosanctum Concilium Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. December 4, 1963. §55

Council of Trent, session 21, Doctrina de communione sub utraque specie et parvulorum, July 16, 1562, chapters 1-3: Denz-Schön, 1725-1729.

Congregation for Divine Worship, Sacramentali Communione: Instruction Extending the Practice of Communion Under Both Kinds (June 29, 1970), no. 6 (DOL 270, no. 2115).

It is Your Own Mystery: A Guide to the Communion Rite, ed. 1997, Liturgical Conference.

Gabe Huck. The Communion Rite at Sunday Mass, 1989, Liturgy Training Publications (Archdiocese of Chicago).

Video Guide for Ministers of Communion; Video Guide for Gather Faithfully Together. 1997, 1998, Liturgy Training Publications.

Cardinal Medina Estévez, Letter on American Adaptations, October 25, 2001 (see AB Dec 01-Jan 02).

At my Anglo-Catholic ECUSA parish, the bread is placed either on one's tongue or in one's hand, as one pleases. When the chalice comes to you, if you have eaten the bread, you are offered the chalice to drink from. If you still have the bread in your hand, you may do what is here called "intinction". I don't know what may motivate others (people don't do it much), but if I have a cold I use this process as a courtesy to other parish members "downstream" of me so they don't catch my cold.

Pardon my ignorance, but does anyone know the reason self intinction is prohibited?

To the best of my knowledge, intiction is not. It is the normal method of the Byzantine Rite. I believe the Roman Missal has always had it as an option that the Priest can choose (not the communicants - who would then have to receive on the tongue for obvious reasons). Oops, you wrote self intinction. See below.

I'm not understanding the harm of a recipient themself performing the intinction.

Communicants RECEIVE Holy Communion, they are not supposed to, or appear to, TAKE Holy Communion. Only the Priest is allowed to self-communicate. VERY poor symbolism among other things. Besides, for those who get caught up on trying to imitate the Last Supper in exactitude, as if the Mass were meant to be a play, receiving on the tongue corresponds more closely as to how our Lord most probably gave the First Communion to the Apostles.

Self-intinction is a form of self-communicating. At this point, the communicant cannot really be said to be a recipient of Holy Communion, but rather a "taker" of Communion.

This action is poor symbolism among other things that the Church duly prohibits. The gift of Himself in Holy Communion that Christ gives us is meant to be received by us as just that, a gift. "Taking" Holy Communion destroys this sense of reality. It helps foster the "McEurcharist" fast and easy, self-serve mentality of modern secular society. While there is a time and place and conditions for "fast and easy self-service" in our society, the dignified, serious, and holy Worship of Almighty God is NOT the time, place, or condition for this attitude.

Holy Communion is meant to be received by communicants from God's duly ordained ministers who should be Priests and Deacons. Only under extra-ordinary (and temporary) conditions are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to be used.

I think the objection is solely that it eliminates Communion in the hand.

BINGO!

My daughter received First Holy Communion several months ago. The Pastor insisted on them kneeling on a Prie Du (sp?) and receiving on the tongue by intinction. He said its probably the last time they'll get to receive communion "the right way" in this stupid diocese, because our "bishop" requires the cup to be present at every mass, therefore necessitating EEMs.

VERY good article. I miss communion by intinction and wish it were again an option.

I know a holy Priest in Mexico who uses the intinction method to help foster a holy attitude towards this august and Holy Sacrament. Particularly when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for vacationing Americans.
The only time I received communion by intinction was in Mexico, on the fiesta de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, in an intimate side chapel of a labrynthian cathedral. FWIW, I was the only American there -- and I know this because everyone else was at least 8" shorter ...

Self-intinction is a form of self-communicating. At this point, the communicant cannot really be said to be a recipient of Holy Communion, but rather a "taker" of Communion.

As an LEM in the Episcopal church, people want me to take the wafer from their hand, perform the intinction and then place it on their tongue.

That's what happens in my Detroit Parish. Not only intinction but we kneel at the alter rail. Unfortunately, we do not have the Indult Mass but we hear the Latin Novus Ordo and Latin chant Propers and Responsorial Psalm. We also get to have orchestra Masses about once a month.

I'm not up to speed on the theology here, I admit. We have one priest and no deacon. We kneel at a communion rail (some very occasionally stand, on the basis of some infirmity) and the priest places the bread in our hands or on our tongues. A server, suitably robed, offers the chalice.

I must say that I fail to see the distinction that you do between receiving Communion vs. taking it in this issue. I receive the elements from the priest or his duly appointed/trained/blessed assistant. If he didn't give it to me, I wouldn't have it. I don't draw the distinction you do regarding whether or not it hits my hand or my tongue first, or whether or not I sip from the chalice directly or place the bread I receive in there.

Now, if I walked up to the altar and took it off there myself, I could see your point. And I believe that this would be very wrong. But I have, in fact, received a gift from God with the priest as his conduit. I'm afraid that I don't accept that intinction makes it equivalent to Mickey D's.

I remember when I was a youth in my birth parish 40 years ago that the deacon would come around with two chalices; one large one to drink from, and a small one for those who wished to dip their wafer in. So this practice has been around for a while in the ECUSA it would seem. Not that you'll take that as a recommendation for the practice, I'm sure ;-), but just as an observation that it's not a new thing someone's cooked up.

Besides, ... receiving on the tongue corresponds more closely as to how our Lord most probably gave the First Communion to the Apostles.

I'm curious as to why you believe this. I have never heard this proposed before (not that I get involved in discussions about the subject much ...).

Our Pastor put a note in the bulletin not too long ago that said self-intinction is not allowed. Since then, I've only had one woman who has done it. We do have Communion in the Hand, or on the tongue as the Communicant wishes, and we have Communion under both species at the two more well attended Masses. We have lots of folks receiving Communion, so in addition to the priest and deacon (if he's at that Mass) we have 8 or 10 Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist giving Communion or offering the Cup.

There are more folks receiving under both species than there used to be. I guess people had to get used to it. And there are more young children receiving from the Cup with their families, which is nice to see.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.