Why can we not receive the Eucharist by intinction? At one time it was permitted. Why has it been stopped, especially in this age of communicable diseases?
Communion by intinction (where the host is dipped in the precious blood by the priest or minster and then given to the communicant) is still permitted. Hence, it would seem that the decision to end the practice is a decision rooted in your own parish.
Though permitted, intinction is not a very widespread practice in most parishes in America. There are likely several reasons for this.
First, the practice introduces a complexity into the distribution of Communion. For example, when intinction is used, Communion cannot be received in the hand, which is an option some prefer. Thus it would seem that only some stations could have intinction. This then creates further complexities about who lines up where, and how various options are explained to the faithful at each Mass.
Further, the practice requires either special equipment, (i.e. a paten with a small cup for the precious blood) or someone standing nearby with a chalice of precious blood. The norms also require the use of chin paten when intinction is used. None of these complexities are impossible to overcome, and intinction can be, and still is practiced, in some places.
As for wanting to receive the Precious Blood in a way other than a shared cup, please note that in fact you do receive the precious blood. For in the Host alone, even in the small fragment, there is contained the whole Christ: Body, Blood Soul and Divinity.
The use of the common cup(s) has reference to the fact that Christ shared his precious blood from a common cup. The concern for communicable disease is understandable, but not a definitive concern for most healthy people. The option always remains to refrain from partaking under that sign, and the Precious Blood is still received in the host alone.
Didn’t Mary’s consent occur before she conceived by the Holy Spirit? But in the Angelus prayer “She conceived of the Holy Spirit” comes before “Be it done unto me according to thy word…” Shouldn’t the order be the other way around?
Some theologians argue that Mary conceived in her heart before she conceived in her womb. Though this is not likely what is meant in the first strophe of the Angelus prayer.
More specifically, liturgical prayer accesses chronological time with reference to the fullness of time. Thus at Christmas, though referencing Jesus’ infancy, we still gather with him in the upper room, and at the foot of the Cross, and celebrate him as risen, glorified Lord, at Christmas Mass. Though we focus on one aspect of his temporal work, we always have the whole in mind. Content and context trump chronology.
The same can be said for the Angelus prayer. We are not simply declaring the event of the Incarnation in a strict, chronological way, but in a way that theologically expresses all the components understood wholly: God’s initiative, Mary’s assent, and the fact of the Word becoming flesh.
If the Church condemns artificial contraception because it violates both the unitive and procreative dimensions of the conjugal act, then why allow women over 50, for whom there can be no procreative dimension, to be married?
In speaking of the intrinsic purposes and meaning of human sexuality, the Church looks to what God himself has set forth, and upholds that.
In our younger years, it is clear that God has joined together for the married couple, the desire for sexual union, and procreation. His design is both beautiful and reasonable, since the pleasure of the marriage act and the unity it helps foster, assists the couple in becoming closer. This very unity in turn helps them to be the effective parents that the marriage act is also designed to bring about through procreation. And so both purposes are beautifully and reasonably linked
God has also set forth that, as couples age, their fertility decreases and, after age 50, for the woman, childbearing becomes rare, if ever. This makes sense given the kind of stamina needed to carry and raise children. Nevertheless, the couple's ongoing unity remains important for the sake of their children, as well as grandchildren and the marital act can continue to assist that.
The key point, in speaking of the “intrinsic meaning” of human sexuality, is that the Church reveres what God has set forth. God's own design is the key element of what we mean by intrinsic meaning. This is also why the Church permits, for serious reason, the use of Natural Family Planning which respects and makes use of the fact that, by God’s own design, a couple’s fertility runs in a recognizable cycle.
Once mankind was put out of Paradise due to original sin, two impediments to his return existed: (1) he needed redemption which was supplied by Jesus on the Cross, (2) he needed sanctification which is supplied by man in this life. Is this right?
Your terminology and theology need a bit of refinement. You are correct in asserting that we were put out of Paradise due to Original Sin. You are also correct in saying that Jesus has redeemed us, that is, he has purchased our salvation, by his once and for all perfect sacrifice on the cross.
However, man, does not supply sanctification. Only God can sanctify so as to save us. It is true, that works do accompany the gift of our faith. But these works are not so much the source of our sanctification, as the result of it. Our works are God's gift to us. Scripture says, “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10). So, for us, all is gift, all is grace. Sanctification is a work of God in which we cooperate, and our merits are due to grace, not to our nature (Trent, VI, cap. xvi).
Finally, it is not God's will that we merely return to some earthly paradise. Rather, in his immense love, and despite our grievous fall, God has now willed to open heaven itself to us. Thus our redeemed state is greater than even our original state before the fall.
It is not permitted. In a letter dated September 1, 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the following directive: “This Dicastery observes that Canon 1003.1 expressly forbids anyone, other than a priest, to administer the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Furthermore…, no other person than a priest may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the Sacrament of Anointing since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament. This Congregation also observes that there are only three blessed oils used in the Roman Ritual namely, the Oil of Catechumens, the Oil of the Sick, and the Sacred Chrism. The use of any other oil or any other “anointing” than those found in the approved liturgical books must be considered proscribed and subject to ecclesiastical penalties (cf. canons 1379 and 1384)” (Prot. 824/08/L).
Even if well intentioned, such anointings cause confusion and are difficult to distinguish between the very similar looking Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.
One might certainly pray for the sick, and even lay hands on them. But anointing them with oil is going too far, for the reasons stated.
"Building our Catholic faith one question at a time."