A modest proposal for Eucharistic Revival: Holy Communion by intinction

With the onset of the Corona virus, many dioceses enacted certain “preventive” measures, among which was eliminating reception of Holy Communion from the chalice. That proscription is now being lifted in many dioceses. In keeping with the call of the episcopal conference for a “Eucharistic revival,” I would like to offer a “modest proposal,” namely, reception under both species by means of intinction.

What is “intinction”? It is the procedure by which the priest or deacon dips the Sacred Host into the chalice and places It directly onto the tongue of the communicant.

Some priests (and laity) of a more “conservative” stripe argue that the Council of Trent forbade Communion under both forms to the laity; however, that was not the case. From the thirteenth session of the Council, held in October 1551, we find the following canon:

Canon iii. If any one shall deny, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

In other words, the Council condemned the proposition of some of the Protestant Reformers that Communion under both species was required for a valid reception of the Sacrament. Nor could the Council have condemned the practice since all the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church have communicated the faithful in that manner from time immemorial.

Thus, the Council Fathers of Vatican II, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, could say:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, 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, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (n. 55)

With the passage of time, that opening from Vatican II has been expanded, so as to make possible Communion under both kinds on virtually any occasion. However, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal issues this caveat:

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. (n. 282)

The General Instruction also indicates the various ways the faithful could receive under both forms:

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. (n. 245)

Reception from a tube or spoon might cause some surprise. However, a visit to a museum like The Cloisters in New York City will reveal that both of those instruments were rather widely used throughout the Middle Ages!

The 2002 document of the United States bishops, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America, encourages reception by intinction:

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. (n. 24)

In many ways, that statement is but an echo of the 1970 document of the Holy See on this topic, Sacramentali Communione, where we read in paragraph 6:

. . . 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.

What are some of the practical aspects of this procedure? If the paten is deep enough to contain a sufficient number of consecrated Hosts, the priest or deacon can hold the chalice in his left hand, grasping the paten in the unengaged fingers of the same hand, dipping the tip of the Host into the chalice with his right hand, and placing It onto the extended tongue of the recipient. Intinction sets, which greatly facilitate the process, are also readily available from most church supply outlets, like Almy or Autom. It is also envisioned that a minor minister of the Mass can hold the chalice for the priest.

I have distributed Holy Communion in this manner since my very first Mass as a priest, even doing so as a guest celebrant, with lay folk afterwards always commenting favorably. This mode of Communion distribution is completely at the discretion of the individual priest-celebrant (unless Cardinal Roche tries to arrogate yet more power to himself).

What are the advantages to this procedure?

• As the 1970 document points out, intinction “preserves the truth present in the more complete sign.”

• It unites the Roman/Latin Rite of the Church with the other 22 rites, all of which communicate the faithful by intinction.

• There is likewise an ecumenical dimension, that is, all the Orthodox Churches employ intinction. Which is to say that it would put the Roman Church in visible unity with every Church with valid Orders and thus a valid Eucharist.

• There is no danger of spillage.¹

• There is no need for recourse to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (of course, some people would consider this a liability).

Now, to be clear: This mode of administering Holy Communion never permits self-intinction, and thus does not allow for reception in the hand.

I think that most reasonable people would be convinced by the advantages of this “modest proposal,” and so consider it worthy of promotion for our national “Eucharistic Revival.” However, given the “sacred cows” it obviates, I wouldn’t hold my breath for its inclusion in any list of proposals.

Endnote:

Catholic World Report