Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Let Matthew Be Matthew | Main | Soldiers At The Service Of Peace »

October 25, 2006

Comments

SDG

The promotion of intinction is intriguing. At our parish we have communion under one species only, at least part of the reason being that our pastor absolutely will not hear of extraordinary ministers. He's mentioned intinction in the past; perhaps this document will give the proposal the boost it needs to go forward.

Ann Margaret Lewis

Will intinction cut down on the # of extraordinary ministers? I'm not so sure...
--Ann

Scott W

Will intinction cut down on the # of extraordinary ministers? I'm not so sure...

Wouldn't the fact that they can't clean vessels have that effect? If the priest is faced with washing 10 vessels, wouldn't he be inclined to say let's have one or two EMHC's rather than 10?

momof6

I feel the cinch tightening...and it's a good thing!

There is something I don't understand about intinction, however. How does the priest "juggle" the hosts and the Precious Blood at the same time?

Barbara

At our parish we have communion under one species only, at least part of the reason being that our pastor absolutely will not hear of extraordinary ministers.

What diocese is Bloomfield in?

Barbara

There is something I don't understand about intinction, however. How does the priest "juggle" the hosts and the Precious Blood at the same time?

The one Mass that I went to that used intinction, the priest had a ciborium and chalice that clipped together.

The other option would be to utilize altar boys to hold the ciborium.

There is something I don't understand about intinction, however. How does the priest "juggle" the hosts and the Precious Blood at the same time?

Our priest has a special ciborum that has a "chalice" in the middle of the brought flat "plate".

Jimmy never answers questions posted in comboxes butmaybe someone else will take a stab. Though I have an emotional likeing for recieving under both species I can'tthink of any real reason for a "need" and considering the disaster potential of anyone dropping a chalice I can't see why a priest would choose to distrubte by intiction or especially just handing the chalice to an EM.

Any great reason for recieving both species?

Juli

I really love receiving the Blood of Christ, so I hope the practice of receiving both kinds doesn't start to fade.

Brian Day

Let's make the distinction between purification and cleansing. From Amy Welborn's site on the discussion - this comment from Fr. Totten:

..please realize that we are speaking here NOT about "cleansing" but about "purification"
Whatever "cleansing" is, "purification" involves using ordinary water to dissolve Eucharistic particles and any remnant of the precious Blood from the vessels - then consuming that "ablution" containing the remaining eucharistic fragments. The ablution is preferably not to be deposited in the sacrarium, but to be consumed.
If there is any washing (or cleansing) to take place after that, I think anybody - EMHC's, sacristans, servers, priests, etc. - would be welcome to do so.

I'll have to check it out, but I think that in my parish the sacred vessels are cleansed only (after Mass in the sacristy) and not purified. Do the rubrics mandate purification?

LarryD

At a parish I frequently attend, communion is distributed by intinction. The ciborium is flattish (I know it's not a word, but it is kinda flat) with a raised center where the chalice (actually a small cup) is inserted. The resulting assembly resembles a dip and chip combo dish, where the hosts are around the perimeter and the consecrated wine is in the center. Intinction also results in receiving on the tongue and not in the hand. And the pastor has kneelers around the sanctuary so that one has the option of kneeling while receiving.

It's my understanding, though, that only ordained priests and deacons are allowed to intinct, and not extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The parish I mentioned has several retired priests that assist during communion, and at least one deacon. They have no EMHC's and the pastor has no plans to add any.

I enjoy attending Mass there primarily because it is such a holy Mass for a host (no pun intended) of reasons. The pastor has a great love of the Eucharist, as does the parish. It's no surprise that he has seven seminarians right now - that represents about 20% of the seminarians currently enrolled from the Archdiocese of Detroit.

SDG

What diocese is Bloomfield in?

Newark, under the most excellent Archbishop John Myers! But even by Newark standards, our parish of St. John's is something pretty special.

Barbara, are you in the Paterson diocese? I understand the current bishop is a stand-up guy, but prior to him things were far from ideal -- the five years we spent in that diocese before moving to Bloomfield I call our "wandering in the wilderness." I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a lot of work to be done there.

JohnD

I've seen some visiting priests not even bother to purify vessels at all. They just leave everything at the altar. You can almost sense the congregation thinking "huh?"

It makes me appreciate our parish priest.

Barbara

Barbara, are you in the Paterson diocese?

Since I live in Rockland, we're in the NY Archdiocese.

The Waffling Anglican

In the Maronite Rite, Communion is always by intinction, with a (male) altar server or, in a pinch, an "extraordinary minister (usually drafted before the service) holding the chalice - not dipping, sipping, or tipping, just holding.

Scott W

I really love receiving the Blood of Christ, so I hope the practice of receiving both kinds doesn't start to fade.


Brian was kind enough to inform us of the difference between cleaning and purification (and I think he is right as far as I know), so pardon my quibble here, but taking the consecrated bread is taking both the body and the blood. And the same goes for the consecrated wine.

Jason

Having just gone through the EMHC training again, I've got a few points:

1) This cathedral I recieved EMHC training at; discouraged intinction on the grounds that each Catholic is not called to serve himself Holy Communion. As we most frequently see intinction practiced, the Catholic receives the host in the hand, and caries it to the cup. They then dip the host into the cup, and serve themselves. This, to my mind, should be greatly discouraged.

The allowed means is to receive the Host in the hand, and go to the cup. The Minister of the cup takes the Host from the Catholic, dips it into the cup, and serves the Catholic on the tongue.[1]

2) So, what specifically (logistically?) will this mean? EMHC's of the cup should drain their chalice, and leave it on the alter?

3) Finally (and this might not be topical), is there a time line on the 'deployment' of the new Missel (and therefore, I assume, these changes to what EMHC's of the cup can do)? I believe that it's been published, but here in Atlanta, LOTS of Churches are still avoiding some of the changes produced in the GIRM. I guess, as one friend of mine said "where there is no punishment, there is no enforcement".

--Jason

[1] I once went to an Greek Orthodox Easter service. Their means of distributing the cup was amazing... there was a wide bowl of wine, which was in a slightly wider bowl. There was a green towel/napkin between the two bowls that was exteneded under the chin of the recipient of Communion. Then a ladel took some wine from the bowl (by the hand of the priest) and some wine was poured into the mouth of the recipient. No chance of drips, spills or misses that way.

So what are we supposed to do as Extra Ordinary Minsiters if our Parish Priests refuse to implement these changes. Ours refuse to purify the vessels at the altar-right now they just sit on a side table until Mass is over, then the EMHC take them to the back and do the purification and cleansing-at our Priest's request-not ours! It is very hard on most of us EMHC to see the vessels just sit there unceremoniously on the side table during the closing rites!

Leah

Someone asked:
Any great reason for recieving both species?

Receiving under both kinds makes the fullness of the sign more clearly evident in the course of the Eucharistic banquet (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, p. 100)

SDG

pardon my quibble here, but taking the consecrated bread is taking both the body and the blood. And the same goes for the consecrated wine.

Nevertheless, it is customary, for obvious reasons, to refer to the contents of the chalice as the Precious Blood, and this goes to another question asked earlier:

Any great reason for recieving both species?

Yes. Although the sacramental efficacy of the sacrament is complete via reception of one kind, the ritual or symbolic element is not, and this is important too. From the CCC:

Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." [GIRM 240]

Jesus told us to "eat my flesh and drink my blood." That command is most perfectly fulfilled through reception under both kinds. The symbolism of the chalice with the Precious Blood suggests the shedding of Christ's blood and thus his passion and death. Such symbolism may not be the most important consideration, but it is certainly a consideration.

BillyHW

The other option would be to utilize altar boys to hold the ciborium.

They still have alter boys?

Scott W

Point taken, SDG. :)

john F. Kennedy

It is my understanding that we are not suppose to give ourselves communion. (Forbidden?) The Lord is always given and not taken.

I do not understand how EMCH's can empty the cups by drinking the precious Blood after Communion? Isn't that communicating oneself?

Thanks

The Assasination of JFK

JFK,
You're alive!!!!
I thought you died!!!

(Sorry... I couldn't resist!)

Jason

JFK said:
I do not understand how EMCH's can empty the cups by drinking the precious Blood after Communion? Isn't that communicating oneself?

Yes, and no... The EMHC's have already received the Precious Blood from the priest before they serve others. They are just consuming what they have already received.

--Jason

4ddintx

I've never been in a Catholic Mass where there was intinction. It was something pretty common in the Episcopal Church (where I was before converting, though the communicant did their own "dipping". My concern with intinction is that it makes things that much more difficult for all of us celiac disease families out there--right now (among other options) the main thing is to just take the Precious Blood. When hosts are being dipped in the Precious Blood that makes it a real problem for people avoiding the gluten in the precious Body of Christ. We already have to take a Spiritual Communion when only one species is offered (which is daily Mass at our parish).

I'm ALL for making Reception of the Eucharist more reverent, however.

Catholic Mom

Billy HW:

We only have altar boys. It is a blessing to have a corps of 100 young men humbly serving at the Table of Our Lord.

I would highly recommend the podcasts by Cardinal Arinze concerning the Eucharist. I've linked to one on the Familyland web site but there are two more on the Eucharist available on iTunes. These talks cover intinction, handling of the Blessed Sacrament, and reception under both species. As prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arinze is the Vatican authority on these matters.

PNP, OP

No one has ever accused me of being a liturgical progressive...

However, this refusal to extend the indult seems silly to me. I can't imagine why it is important who cleans or purifies the vessels. I am 1000% in favor of making sure that the liturgical roles of the ordained and lay ministers are crystal clear. But I fail to see how allowing only the ordained to clean/purify the vessels clarifies the ontological differences btw the priest and the EMHC. If this is a move to further limit the frequent overuse of EMHC's, I think there are easier and more convenient ways of doing it. I will, of course, adhere strictly to the rubrics as written and interpreted by the Holy Father.

Fr. Philip

Joe

Fr. Philip, you are a liturgical progressive.

There, now you can't say no one...

Trubador

I was (maybe under the false) impression that intinction was discouraged because of it's close association with Judas (the betrayer) dipping the bread into the Lord's cup at the Last Supper.

Kasia

LarryD, which parish is that? Assumption Grotto or SS. Cyril & Methodius, maybe?

Arieh

Trubador,

There have been people who decried intinction (Robert Pullen in the 12th century called it Judas communion), but it has been allowed in the Roman Rite at many times in the past and the Eastern churches always use intinction.

Oliver Stone

JFK,
You're alive!!!!
I thought you died!!!

(Sorry... I couldn't resist!)

--The Assasination of JFK

Just what is the Assassination of JFK apologizing for?

Lee Harvey Oswald

JFK,
You're alive!!!!
I thought you died!!!

(Sorry... I couldn't resist!)

--The Assasination of JFK

Just what is the Assassination of JFK apologizing for?

Ya! If anyone should be apologizing, it should be me!

... or should it be? ...

Paul

Trubador,

It was not the chalice of wine that Jesus was referring to but a dish, probably the dish of bitter herbs...

Mk 14:20 RSV

He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.

Brian Day

Fr. Philip,

I am not a liturgist, and am only an interested layman. The way that I understand it, anyone can cleanse the sacred vessels. It is only the purification (Ablutions) that the indult is ending.

Now from my limited perspective, having the priest (or deacon) purify the vessels gives a nice symmetry to the washing of the hands during the Offertory.

Of course if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

Tim M.

In the Byzantine Rite, communion is always by intinction. The priest holds the chalice which contains both the precious blood and the blessed sacrament (leavened bread in the Byzantine Rite - as Christ is Risen!).

At the church I attend, the priest holds the chalice in his right hand in which he also holds a LONG sacred "napkin". When receiving, you kneel lower and take the sacred "napkin" and put it up to your chin, just under your lips and the priest, with his right hand, takes a sacred "spoon" that he then uses and "feeds" the body and blood into your mouth and then you wipe with the "napkin" and then kiss the chalice.

no spillage... only devotion.

Fr. Don Malin

Since when did we change the spelling of the Altar to Alter, and Missal, to Missel?

I believe that we need to, as in ALL things that come down from the Vatican, allow our own bishops to implement these changes. That is their CHARGE, not ours. There will undoubtedly need to be some teaching on the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the USCCB and the Bishop in the diocese, to help people through this change. Remember, the haphazard implementation of the Novus Ordo done by zealous pastors and religious in our country is what has led to the crazy-quilt of liturgical practice in the USA. Do we want to be as haphazard? Give the age-old processes a chance to do what they were designed to do: bring about pastoral change in a way that helps as many as possible to come along. Don't bring up the recalcitrants issue. I know they are there, and some are writing in these blog comments, btw.
Obedience to the Local Ordinary is what is required of us, so let's do what we are supposed to do. It becomes the Local Ordinary's responsibility for our souls, if we are obedient.
Getting in the face of your pastor may be necessary once the Bishop has handed down this directive, if he refuses to be obedient to the directive from the Bishop. It is the Local Ordinary, who in subsidiarity is charged with implementations of all church laws, edicts, etc...
But, please wait until you read what your bishop has commanded as the Local Ordinary before you go flying off half-cocked and confront your Pastor. I think you get my drift.

Tony

With our previous pastor, the procedure was to take the remaining Precious Blood, walk it unceremoniously after mass to the sacristy and pour it down the sink into the sewer. (No, the sink in the sacristy is not piped into the earth like it's supposed to be; when our church was wrecktovated, sacrarium plumbing was overlooked).

Our new pastor changed the procedure. He purifies each and every chalice himself immediately after communion. This caused quite a stir in the congregation. People didn't like waiting for the pastor to "do the dishes", they had places to go things to do. A group of them even got the diocesan Director of Liturgy to come down and explain what was required. They did this specifically to hit our pastor over the head with the fact that it wasn't required to be done just then.

Our pastor continued to do what he was doing and in the process, I had a conversion of heart. A real Road to Damascus Experience™. I believe for the first time I understood that God was in that chalice, and by extension, God was in the cibora and when I consumed the host, I accepted the substantial presence of God into my body!

So now our pastor has been vindicated. And all of those people who left our church because of the priest they called "the communion nazi" are now going to get to sit through the same 2 minutes 22 seconds (yes, I timed it; for three cibora and 7 chalices purfied in a reverent and dignified manner) that we do.

Blessed are the "dish doers" for they shall convert their flock. :)

Julia

At my parish the priest purifies the sacred vessels after communion. It takes him all of three minutes and we have a large parish. I like it cause I like to watch the process, since this parish is the first time I've ever seen it in my 24 years on this earth. It is also nice and quiet so we have time to pray and commune with Our Lord. For daily Mass all the priests that have ever served at St.Joe's as long as I've been there, have purified and cleaned the cups and the chalice at the same time, but at Sunday Mass they only purifiy and clean the chalice and the um, the plate the Hosts go on, I forget what it's called. From reading these comments, intinction means receiving both species at the same time right? I know we are NOT allowed to dip the Host in the Precious Blood by ourselves but I also am not comfortable with having an EMC do it either. Well, more prayer then I guess.

PNP, OP

Joe,

I thought being a liturgial progressive would feel somehow dirty or sticky. Weird. Feels just like being the liturgical conservative I've always been.

Fr. Philip

John F. Kennedy

Jason;

As far as I understand it, whether or not someone (laiety) recently received Communion from a Priest or another EMHC, has no bearing on whether or not the laiety can self communiate.

I also wonder if the EMHC can receive it at all? I thought laiety could receive Communion once at a Mass or at a prayer service then they could only receive it a second time only at a second Mass. The EMHC hasn't fullfilled the requirement for receiving it a second time in one day.

Esau

"With our previous pastor, the procedure was to take the remaining Precious Blood, walk it unceremoniously after mass to the sacristy and pour it down the sink into the sewer.

...Our new pastor changed the procedure. He purifies each and every chalice himself immediately after communion. This caused quite a stir in the congregation."

Tony,
It's amazing to hear that what actually caused the stir in your parish was the new pastor accordingly doing the purification of the vessels and not actually the sacrilegious actions of the former pastor who actually dumped out what's actually now the Blood of our Lord!

In terms of People didn't like waiting for the pastor to "do the dishes", they had places to go things to do, I do rather advocate Julia's take on this -- the fact that it does provide us with more time and opportunity to pray to the Lord and meditate more, which is what most folks at my parish do during this period and treat it more so as a moment of reflection rather than an inconvenience. Besides, it's the Mass! I mean, not to go off and pull some sort of guilt trip on anyone, but it's only an hour or two out of a 7 day week that we dedicate to the Lord in such a special manner (at least, for those of us who only go to Mass on Sundays, that is)!

Andy

When do we get our communion rail back? I have been attending a Tridentine Mass for the last few years. If offered at more parishes, do you think we will see the rail return?

Realist

As per the new Rule 1, my thoughts in singularity on dipping, sipping and crunching both species of the Eucharist (as noted previously): With multiple mouths and fingers touching chalices and ciboriums, there is always the risk of disease transfer. When we eat out, we expect the restaurant to provide plates, bowls, glasses etc. that have been sterilized before use in dish washers using pressurized hot potable soapy water, followed by rinsing with hot potable water followed by drying in hot air as per state and local regulations.

Cleaning/purifying chalices, communion plates and ciboriams with cold water and drying with clean towels will not clean and purify. It is time to bring sanity and sanitation to the Altar as per our God-gift of common sense.

And then there are the holy water fonts!! Just what is that green stuff growing in these?

Tim Brandenburg

Andy,

I think the problem is that the US liturgical norm is to receive communion in the hand while standing. Even if altar rails were added for use during the indult Tridentine Mass (reception on the tongue while kneeling), I don't think people could use the rail unless the oridnary gave permission.

Thoughts anyone?

Health Inspector

As per the new Rule 1, my thoughts in singularity on dipping, sipping and crunching both species of the Eucharist (as noted previously): With multiple mouths and fingers touching chalices and ciboriums, there is always the risk of disease transfer. When we eat out, we expect the restaurant to provide plates, bowls, glasses etc. that have been sterilized before use in dish washers using pressurized hot potable soapy water, followed by rinsing with hot potable water followed by drying in hot air as per state and local regulations.

No worries. I'm sure they'll be adding a maitre d' to the Catholic churches soon enough as well as have the Dept. of Health grade them too!

Realist,
I thought you believed that the Bible was nothing more but something that was comprised of made-up stories, some of which are comparable to myths. Why then your feigned belief in the Holy Eucharist?

Jason in SA

What some of you refer to as 'intinction' seems foreign to anything I've ever heard, i.e., the receipt of a host with which one proceeds to the chalice in which they 'dip' Our Lord. (??)

I have never heard of this being practiced in a Catholic church. Surely this is not the norm for intinction.

The distribution of communion via intinction with which I'm familiar has the Minister immersing the Body in the Precious Blood, which he then administers to the tongue of the standing/kneeling communicant.

Of course this "self-intinction" will sound insane, but don't confuse that allegedly existent practice with the proper practice. Intinction dominates. It removes all possibility of receipt in the hand.

No choice,

Tim Brandenburg

When I was an Anglican we received the host in the hand while kneeling at the altar rail, then the extraordinary minister with the chalice came by, took the host, dipped it in the chalice, and placed it in the mouth.

At the Anglican Use parish where I was received into the Catholic Church, communion is taken kneeling, paten placed under chin by an altar boy, priest places host on the tongue. Intinction is not permitted (I fell into old habits once and took the host in my hand so the extraodinary minister with the chalice could intict... oh my, there was a tumult!). Of course, Anglican Use is governed by different norms than the Latin Rite, just as the Byzantine Catholics, etc.

I'm a fan of intinction. There is little possibility of spreading germs if the host is dipped into the chalice by the priest who then places it on the tongue. There is a greater chance of germ spreading if the host is placed in the recipient's hand by the priest, then taken by a eucharistic minister, dipped in the chalice, and placed in the recipient's mouth (who knows when some people wash their hands... ughhhh). However, in my opinion, either form of intinction is more hygenic than having all recipient's drink directly from the chalice.

And no, I'm not a germ nut. Even bishops exhort people to avoid going to Mass when contagious.

Old Zhou

Dear Jason in SA,

When I was in Italy, both in 2001 and 2006, intinction by communicants was very common: receive a host in the hand from Fr. A, carry it over to Fr. B holding the chalice and dip in the the blood of Christ, then consume.

I have seen a few people do this in California, but it seems a bit furtive. What is more common is for people to recieve the host in the hand, consume it, and walk past the EM holding the chalice as if they were invisible.

Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B.

Purifying the Eucharistic vessels can take place after the Mass. In that case, it is dignified to place all of them on a side table and cover ALL of them with a white linen.

In fact, before Mass, ALL the vessels ought to be covered until the time for preparing the altar.

At our international Benedictine house in Rome, that's what we did. Immediately after the Mass, the deacon would go back into the sanctuary and purify the vessels.

LarryD

It is my understanding that intinction can only be done by an ordained priest or deacon - that self intinction is not allowed. I don't have a document or instruction to reference, but from what I was told by a pastor who practices intinction at his parish, no laity is allowed to intinct.

Nominalist

Actually, Realist, many parishes do wash and sterilize the liturgical vessels after they have been purified. That is not the issue at hand.

Nominalist

Two questions, however, Realist:

1. Why are you concerned with a fantastic make-believe ritual of superstitious, indoctrinated people?

2. Why do you invoke the God myth when referring to common sense?

Grow up and embrace the truths of the Enlightenment. It will free up your weekends a bit for real hobbies and activities. Now I know you aren't so weak-minded and weak-willed as to need the rituals of your childhood, although you have no belief in what they symbolize...

John Lilburne

The intinction Cardinal Arinze is hgihlighting as an option is that described in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

"287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws."
(This can be accessed at http://www.romanrite.com/girm.html .)

A lay minister can still cleanse the vesels, if that lay minister is an instituted acolyte. So by refusing the indult the importance of the ministry of insittuted acoyte is being affirmed. Why have a ministry of instituted acolyte, with a special ceremony by a bishop, if he can only do the same as any other Extraordianry Miinister?

Why should there be different rules for the United States than the rest of the world?

I think a reason for the cleansings being done by priest, deacon or instituted acoltye is that there is safer handling of the Precious Blood. The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum discussed in n. 107 the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication. It has "Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down." To try and prevent this situation particular people are given particular responsibilities.

momof6

I've heard all kinds of definitions of "intinction" here, but I thought it was simply the priest having both species available to him, while he would take the Host, dip It in the Precious Blood, and distribute It. Very reverent, IMHO, and it keeps people from carrying Jesus all over the place (with appropriate napkins, et al). This method also keeps Satan worshippers from taking the Dry Jesus in their hands and carting Him off to their Black Masses. Yes, folks, this happens.

Esau

This method also keeps Satan worshippers from taking the Dry Jesus in their hands and carting Him off to their Black Masses. Yes, folks, this happens.

When I first heard of this, I didn't believe it. I initially thought that it was the stuff of fiction that some folks would rather see all of Catholicism reduced to.

However, Fr. Corapi in an introductory episode on a series regarding the holy rosary actually mentioned something about it. I don't recall the account exactly (therefore, I welcome any correction), but it seems Fr. Corapi met someone on an airplane who actually attended these things, divulged these certain details and, furthermore, went on to mention to him that there was actually an opposite to everything (every good) that we Catholics have and do in the Church; just as there is light and dark.

J.R. Stoodley

Adding to Esau's comment, someone else on EWTN, I forget his name but it's that layman from Australia who is origianlly from I think Brazil told this story.

He was once at a mass and a woman recieved on her hands and pretended to consume the host, but didn't. The EM caught her and said something like "miss, will you please consume the host right now?"

"Sure" she said, "I was going to consume it in the pew" and she did.

After the mass, this man went up to her and said "havn't we met before?"

"I don't know, maybe. Where do you think?"

"Perhaps in Los Angeles" (or maybe it was San Francisco or something, in any case it was the city that is the capital of the Church of Satan)

"I've been to Los Angeles."

"Perhaps at a private mass" (the code name for a black mass)

"Maybe!"

"Is your name Eve?" (the code name for any Satanist woman)

"Yes it is!"

They talked for a while and finally he asked her "I have to ask, were you going to take the host?"

"Yes. I have been mentally told to take hosts and to bring them to a certain location."

At this "mentally told" the man freaked out and came up with some excuse to end the conversation and get out of there. Later he told the priest at the parish but he did not believe him.

Obviously this conversation is approximated first from his memory and then from mine, but if he was given a series on EWTN I assume he is a respectable and trustworthy guy. Furthermore as Esau pointed out Fr. Corapi says the same thing. I think it was Fr. Corapi who also said that satanic priests can actually tell the difference somehow between consecrated and unconsecrated hosts.

Scot writes:

[1] I once went to an Greek Orthodox Easter service. Their means of distributing the cup was amazing... there was a wide bowl of wine, which was in a slightly wider bowl. There was a green towel/napkin between the two bowls that was exteneded under the chin of the recipient of Communion. Then a ladel took some wine from the bowl (by the hand of the priest) and some wine was poured into the mouth of the recipient.

I've been Orthodox for 25 years, and I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine what you are describing. How close were you? How well could you see?

There is only one way of giving Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, on Easter or any other day. The Lamb of God is broken and placed in the Cup after the priest's Communion, and Communion is given in both kinds from the Cup by a spoon while a cloth is held under the communicant's chin.

Esau

J.R.,
That's almost as dark and twisted as the one told by Fr. Corapi! It was just so startling to learn that for every thing we have in the Church such as our Sacraments and our sacramentals, just as that disturbing individual had mentioned to Fr. Corapi on the plane (if memory serves, I believe it happened on one of his trips to a speaking engagement per that EWTN episode), there is often a complete opposite that these cults have of it in their satan worship.

But, as far as your story goes, at least, the Eucharistic Minister there had the integrity to act in that courageous manner.

I remember once listening to a Catholic radio program where an EM was confronted with a young lady chewing bubble gum just about the time she was to receive the Eucharist from her during Communion.

It seemed the EM felt too shy for some reason to bluntly ask the lady to dispose of the gum, so, instead, the EM still went ahead and gave her the Eucharist even though the young lady was chewing gum in her mouth!

J.R. Stoodley

On the lighter side, not every "satanist" you meet on a plane may be one. Here's a nicer story (kind of).

I attended a discussion with a pretty major Jewish Rabbi/Israeli diplomat. To lighten us up he told the story of how once he was on a plane wearing the same kind of thing he was wearing then: a black monkey-suit type thing much like what priests wear all to often these days (minus the Roman collar of course) and a plain black yarmulke (scull cap). No sideburn curls (whatever they're called) or beard.

He sat next to a college-aged kid who seemed completely bored with life. The Rabbi asked what the guy did and he said he was a student studying such-and-such, and then casually asked the Rabbi what he did. The Rabbi replied "actually, I'm a bishop in the Church of Satan." The kid went white. That's where he ended the story.

Jay E. Adrian

I would like to see the ministry of instituted acoylte become a common feature of our parishes. It would certainly address this problem where it was implemented (I realize the potential problems with it and the huge unlikelyhood of it becoming common).

Personally speaking, I agree that the use of children as "servers" was cute when we could pretend that they were little clerics, but it's time to move on. It makes the service of the altar look like a sad little elementary school play.

Jay E. Adrian

acolyte*
unlikelihood*

Hehe, spelling errors are fun.

Ian

Here are some examples of intinction ciboria.

dave

Does anyone think the Church might bring back the minor office of Acolyte? It's my impression that this was a minor office given to seminarians on the way to the priesthood. As far as I understand this office can be given to a layman. No EM is an Acolyte unless so designated by his Ordinary. So while an EM will not be able to purify the sacred vessels (chalice, patens, etc.) an Acolyte is allowed to do so. Can anyone comment on this and straighten me out if this is incorect? You all are awesome!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31