Administering First Holy Communion according to "Redemptionis Sacramentum"

  • Thread starter Thread starter awalks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

awalks

Guest
According to “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, it states that a priest must administer First Holy Communion. What does this say about Permanent Deacons and Transitional Deacons who may be on the altar? Could the priest “administer” the Body of Christ to them and they distribute this to a First Communicant? Or should the First Communicants only be receiving from a priest?
Thanks.
 
I think it means just what it says, that “First Communion should always be administered by a Priest.” It is my understanding that one of the roles of the deacon is to be minister of the cup, so I’m guessing it would be appropriate for a deacon to offer the chalice to the first communicants if they are receiving under both forms.
 
awalks said:
According to “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, it states that a priest must administer First Holy Communion. What does this say about Permanent Deacons and Transitional Deacons who may be on the altar? Could the priest “administer” the Body of Christ to them and they distribute this to a First Communicant? Or should the First Communicants only be receiving from a priest?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
A person should receive their First Holy Communion from the hand of the priest, ideally from their Pastor.
 
The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:
“[87.] … Moreover First Communion should always be administered by a Priest and never outside the celebration of Mass. …”.

My view is that this is not specific enough to justify not following the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
“182. … If Communion is given under both kinds, the deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; and, when the distribution is completed, he immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted if necessary by other deacons and priests.”
 
I think it is so sad -and aggravating - this is not followed in our parish. At the Easter Vigil most of our candidates/catechumens received their First Holy Communion from a lay EMHC. Same thing with our children each year.

When I commented one year on how First Holy Communion should be administered by a priest to one of our staff members, she rolled her eyes and said - *We don’t believe in that here. Father has always told us it’s still our Lord no matter who distributes it, and he doesn’t believe it should matter to people. *
 
Elzee said:
I think it is so sad -and aggravating - this is not followed in our parish. At the Easter Vigil most of our candidates/catechumens received their First Holy Communion from a lay EMHC. Same thing with our children each year.

When I commented one year on how First Holy Communion should be administered by a priest to one of our staff members, she rolled her eyes and said - *We don’t believe in that here. Father has always told us it’s still our Lord no matter who distributes it, and he doesn’t believe it should matter to people. *
Click to expand...
Well Fr. Got part of it right, The Host and Precious Blood are Jesus no matter who distributes them. However it matters when the Sacraments are celebrated, the Church determines HOW they will be celebrated.
 
This past weekend, we had First Holy Communion at our parish. We have only one priest, so he gave the hosts to the children and their parents, and then another EMHC and I distributed the precious blood to the children. Did we do wrong?
 
If the priest distributes the Host to the First Communicant and someone else offers the Chalice (if a Deacon is present, obviously, the Deacon offers the Chalice), is this not sufficient? Wouldn’t expecting the priest himself to distribute both species to the First Communicant be splitting hairs?
 
mommyof4 said:
This past weekend, we had First Holy Communion at our parish. We have only one priest, so he gave the hosts to the children and their parents, and then another EMHC and I distributed the precious blood to the children. Did we do wrong?
Click to expand...
No, they first received Holy Communion from the priest.
 
MusicMan said:
If the priest distributes the Host to the First Communicant and someone else offers the Chalice (if a Deacon is present, obviously, the Deacon offers the Chalice), is this not sufficient? Wouldn’t expecting the priest himself to distribute both species to the First Communicant be splitting hairs?
Click to expand...
Lets not fall into the notion that it’s not a complete Holy Communion unless we receive both forms. Children receive First Holy Communion even if they do not receive the Precious Blood.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Lets not fall into the notion that it’s not a complete Holy Communion unless we receive both forms. Children receive First Holy Communion even if they do not receive the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
I understand that. If Holy Communion is offered under both species at that Mass, must the priest be the one to distribute both species to the First Communicants? Or, if the Priest distributes the Host and the Deacon the Chalice, isn’t that acceptable?

Bear in mind that not all First Communicants will receive under both species.
 
Fr. Vincent Serpa just answered this question for me privately, as my daughter is about to receive her first Holy Communion and I had a similar question (should she receive both species from the Priest, or can she receive the Precious Blood from a Deacon?).

He said that since the Deacon was an ordained minister, it was fine for her, under RS, to receive the Blood from him (with the Priest giving her the Body, of course).

I hope this helps.
-Cricket
 
kell0618 said:
Woodstock;2150543:
He could always use intinction 🤷 .
Click to expand...
No, he could not.
Click to expand...
Intinction by the priest is allowed–it’s intinction by the communicant that is forbidden. Of course, intinction also requires reception on the tongue, but it’s perfectly licit for the priest to use intinction and for First Communicants (like anyone else) to receive on the tongue.



(The picture isn’t the greatest, but that’s middle son’s First Communion a year ago, with our pastor giving to each of the children assisted by one of our deacons.)
 
Melissa said:
Intinction by the priest is allowed–it’s intinction by the communicant that is forbidden. Of course, intinction also requires reception on the tongue, but it’s perfectly licit for the priest to use intinction and for First Communicants (like anyone else) to receive on the tongue.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v163/MelJill/Peter1st.jpg

(The picture isn’t the greatest, but that’s middle son’s First Communion a year ago, with our pastor giving to each of the children assisted by one of our deacons.)
Click to expand...
Wow - the kids are kneeling, how wonderful. And what a beautiful church! I wish this was the norm…
 
MusicMan said:
I understand that. If Holy Communion is offered under both species at that Mass, must the priest be the one to distribute both species to the First Communicants? Or, if the Priest distributes the Host and the Deacon the Chalice, isn’t that acceptable?

Bear in mind that not all First Communicants will receive under both species.
Click to expand...
If Holy Communion is offered under both species at that Mass, must the priest be the one to distribute both species to the First Communicants?

NO
Normally First Communion is given by the priest under the form of bread, they can then be offered the Precious Blood. In the case where a child will only receive under the form of wine, it should be the priest that offers this to that particular child.

Or, if the Priest distributes the Host and the Deacon the Chalice, isn’t that acceptable?

Of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top