Quick Q: Communion and partaking in Blood of Christ

Hey guys, had a quick question. Today I went to Mass at a different parish just because I needed to study for exams, so I went to anticipated Sunday Mass. Normally at my own parish the Priest distributes the Eucharist only in the Host form and not the Blood, which I understand would not be “missing anything out,” for lack of better terms.

I went for both species at this Mass as I had only once before (again at a different Church), but I noticed that not a lot of people partake in the Blood. There’s no requirement to, but I’m not entirely sure why people don’t if you can? There isn’t anything in terms of preparation one needs to do to partake in both, is there?

In the times I’ve partaken in the Blood, once was having two EMHCs, one with the Hosts and the other with the Blood, and people just go and elect to take the cup after the Host.

The other times, I’ve been overseas in Hong Kong and they do intinction there. Strangely enough intinction is done by the layperson and not by the EMHC…sort of confused here.

Thanks for the clarifications!

God bless <3

Many people have issues sharing the Chalice with other people. There’s nothing theological behind the reason, just fear of germs.

Also, some people may have grown up receiving only the Host and simply don’t care to change the manner in which they take Communion.

As to self-intinction (i.e., each person doing it for himself), that’s forbidden. Maybe Hong Kong has an indult to permit it (unlikely), but otherwise it is an illicit practice.

And there is nothing you need to do in preparation for receiving under both kinds. Just say “Amen” again when the priest/EMHC says “The Blood of Christ,” take the cup, and take a small sip.

Well, it is cold & flu season. Many people of my acquaintance who have no *fear of *receiving *germs *from the common cup tell me they refrain from partaking when they themselves are feeling less than healthy. (Because, you know, they have sooper germs or something :rolleyes:)

tee

this is stricly forbidden, but a problem for the bishop of that area

It is the priest’s choice whether or not to distribute communion under both species, he himself must of course consume both. People do not partake for various reasons: allergies, an active cold or sinus condition, fear of catching something during flu season, the line is too long, whatever, none of which is the concern of anyone else. Just as it is not our concern why some people do not receive at all on any given day. Not our right to speculate.

I am not being pedantic but I just wanted to address your final point. I believe the others have already been answered.

EMHCs are lay persons! I am sure you know this. However, there are some who raise their status above that which it is. I think these closing remarks in your post might infer that EMHCs aren’t lay persons.

To be really pedantic, EMHC’s may also be religious.

To be extremely pedantic, the religious are not a separate class of persons as your post infers. Religious are either lay or clerics (cf. Can. 588 §1). They are not a kind of middle way between the clerical and lay conditions of life (cf. Lumen Gentium #43).

Consequently, a member of an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life who is a lay person may be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. A member of an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life who is a cleric is ipso facto an ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

However, Lumen Gentium no. 31 clarifies, “The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church. . . . What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature.” Yet on the other hand, C.I.C. 207 §1 draws this distinction: “By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.”

I’ll call it a wash if you will. :smiley:

I’d be more inclined to say contradicts. LG differentiates the religious from the laity in terms of their apostolates. They are not distinguished in the same manner as the distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained.

Same point I made: there are clerics or laity; no inbetween hybrid.

An Americanism I don’t understand.

Thanks for the clarification guys, I just felt weird being one of the few going for the Blood.

As for intinction, I understand that EMHCs are indeed laypersons, but as I’m sure you guys understood, I meant each communicant. I was surprised that we were allowed to do that, but I really didn’t understand the procedures overseas.

That being said, I do remember at my own parish during Christmas Mass both species were being distributed with those who wanted to partake in both kinds were to do so by intinction. However, that time, the EMHCs do it and we took both on the tongue.

I was already thinking when I wrote my original post that the intinction by the communicant was a bit off…, but apparently its prevalent in all the Churches there, even the Cathedral of the Archbishop.

Again, thanks for the answers. =)

God bless!

Better look into the self intinction thing in Hong Kong. People there have been hyper-germophobes since SARS. A little cough, a little cold, they would wear a surgical mask. When I was there in 2000, servers would touch your food and touch other things without washing their hands (and back to your food). A good example is this place I eat often (a Cantonese fastfood) where the guy serving the barbecue pork has a phone on the wall behind him. The phone is red with barbecue sauce because when it rings, he just answers. Then back to serving food. No washing of hands.

But since SARS, everyone is wearing hairnet, gloves, and face masks when serving food.

I don’t know if Hong Kong has an indult to self-intinct. I would bet against it, but people are doing it not because they are trying to innovate. Just trying to apply common sense after SARS.

[quote=Consequently, a member of an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life who is a **lay
[/quote]

person may be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. A member of an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life who is a cleric is ipso facto an ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

On this subject can Nuns help distribute? And would they be ordinary or extraordinary? Within site of my parish is a community of Nuns. And, I have often wondered if they can help distribute. As I have never seen of them do so. Even in Catholic grade school none of the nuns ever did. I am wondering, why? Are they not allowed by some rule maybe I have knowledge of? Or do they choose not to do so?

Constantine: Where would I find this info? And actually what you said does make sense about SARS. I haven’t been back for many years so I forgot about SARS.

Jerry: I guess I can sort of partially answer your question. There are two sisters at my normal parish who attend Sunday Mass and they do actually sometimes give out Communion. Whether they are extraordinary or ordinary I am not sure, only because they do not always do so, and I am under the impression that “ordinary” ministers are supposed to always distribute when present.

stealthy, try looking up if there is a website for the Diocese of Hong Kong.

The SARS think, a friend of mine who lived there since 2004 told me about it. And my last visit in 2006 I saw the night-and-day difference from my previous visit in 2000 where I spent 3 months working in Hong Kong and really got immersed in the culture. It was the butt of our jokes before how people in Hong Kong would handle food, and its was funny because its true. They used to serve glasses of tea with their fingers holding the glasses from the top, so that their fingers may be dipped in one or more of the glasses of tea. Ever since SARS they don’t do that anymore.

I don’t remember receiving from the Chalice when I was there. But I’m just guessing that could have became a practice because of SARS. And because maybe the priest and even the bishop is sympathetic to the cause, perhaps they just allowed for it to continue.

As I understand it, an EMHC would also be forbidden to intinct the Sacred Species - this would be reserved to the priest or the deacon, assuming it were being done by permission of the Bishop.

It would be absolutely forbidden for a Communicant to intinct his own Host - he should not even be moving his feet, until he has received the Host, and should certainly not be carrying it over to where the Chalice is, to intinct it.

Nuns can distribute Holy Communion. They’d have to be made extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC). Only bishops, priests and deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Obviously, can’t tell you why the religious community you refer to aren’t EMHCs but there’s no general rule which stops nuns from being EMHCs.

I think even a Deacon cannot administer Communion by intinction, unless he has a special indult.

It would be absolutely forbidden for a Communicant to intinct his own Host - he should not even be moving his feet, until he has received the Host,

In many churches in Australia it is the custom, and new communicants are taught, that after receiving Communion in the hand, the communicant takes one or two steps to the side and then consumes the Host whilst facing the altar, so as to receive it more reverently and undistractedly and to make way for the next communicant.

A lot of people do that here, too - but the expectation is that people are supposed to consume the Host while they are still in view of the priest or EMHC, so as to prevent people from walking off with it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.